Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Art, Fashion & Design >

Computer games as art

06:49 / 14.04.03

I, personally, hold the opinion that violent games can be rather brilliant satire of today's violence-obsessed culture. Games that feature a black and white, good and bad dynamic, are, essentially, the fantasy of every person who's ever lived. The world is shades of grey, but black and white is what we pine for. History has vindicated art out of things like posters and cubism, who are we to say that computer games aren't the same?

or am i completely full of crap...?

yawn - thing's buddy

07:48 / 14.04.03

i'd say very few contemporary videogames actually satirise gore culture. More they rely on tried and tested methods of entertaimnment. The current models for gaming (FPS and god games)also provide a good visual and pyscological environment for developing immersive virtual realities. I do believe videogames can be art - most definitely. The combination of skills, ideas and technology used to synthesise the fuckers being proof of this potential.

On a side note:

Most early videogames have a greater artistic and visual impact than the current crop of sludge-coloured stagger-fests. But then I think cave paintings are nicer than Titian.

My problem is this: The 'art' question becomes confused when you consider the playability of a game. How should the artistic experience be judged?

looks?, sounds?, gameplay?, branding? scripting? better than the last version?

what?

It's pretty tricky really.

21:49 / 14.04.03

I think I may have heard there are people starting to write about games, but I haven't a clue of their names.

I've often thought that the development of realism in game graphics has mirrored that in painting. Space Invaders -- medieval, discrete, whole objects. No perspective or chiaroscuro. And now I reckon we are in the late renaissance. What say you?

22:16 / 14.04.03

Game development in this fora (console and computer) is definitely linked to the capabilities of the performance and platforms it is established on. But, there is a sense of direction and style associate with certain places that create games. Sega vs. Nintendo, etc. Each brings you into a conversation about how games are to be represented.

There has been discussion of this before (either here or the Lab), pointing to certain examples of games pushing for more than entertainment value. Rez from Sega is one that was brought up for obvious reasons. An abstract 1st person shooter with lots of vectors, patterns, and colors. I think, as yawn said before, that older games hold more potential since the aim was less about representation and more about expression. Ms. Pacman is a good example.

It seems that artful games crop up a bit more than say 3-5 years ago, but I think there's such a large potential that remains untapped. I think when the tools and the power of the machines that run them become secondary to the process of game making and the experience of interacting with them, there's going to be that "renaissance" that was just mentioned before.

21:22 / 15.04.03

I was just talking about graphics realism, really.

I'm just waiting for Metal Gear Pollock and Emin of Honour ...

03:59 / 16.04.03

Tough stuff. I've been trying for days to find a game I could call "art", but it's tough (and there've been a few threads with "your favorite 10 games" already). Aspects of games I consider art, but even then, it's often situational, based on current competition (ie, Quake 3's models were art, IMO, but Unreal Tourney's level design was far superior. oh, and as an aside, those q3 models weren't only just models, as the skins had a lot to do with it).

For the storylines, though, im inclined to agree with you, Treen. Planescape:Torment, Half-Life : opposing force, games like these, where "good" often equals "bad" and the distinction (or lack of, in actuality) is not only apparent but a conceptual lynchpin.... well, that's an art, to me.

However, I don't find a lot of satire in the ultraviolent videogames. Often, the "funny" games (Duke Nukem3d, Conker's) are only intentionally amusing by virtue of the main character's humour; the exploding heads and innocent victims are part of the game-world, and are believed to be the necessary context for mass-appeal among teenagers. Don't get me wrong, they do find it funny (and so do I), but it's not satirizing anything. It's just violence to appeal to people who are told not to be violent.

07:09 / 16.04.03

Art in the sense that advertising or packaging is art, maybe?

I mean, if it's simply a combination of skills, ideas, and technology that makes a game art then Microsoft Word has a pretty solid claim. The Linux OS is a masterpiece?

I can still play a host of early videogames in their original environments and I can't agree that the visual impact of Pac-Man or Missile Command or "Tennis" on a Magnavox Odyssey has more visual impact than, say, Wetrix+ or Virtua Fighter 4 or Dungeon Siege.

Gameplay, or addiction potential, seems like the most obvious meter. It's unique to games and basically boils down the experience. Is it fun? Is it engaging? Is it more fun and more engaging than other games? Did it sell a bunch of copies and make a bunch of money? Do people play it for more than ten consecutive hours?

yawn - thing's buddy

07:27 / 16.04.03

well, in that case, [your name here], you're asking, 'are computers games' games?'

10:49 / 16.04.03

I'm going to get back to this and give a proper reply, but just for reference, the older thread is here.