4 ms·

I completely agree about the performance art aspect of games, but I disagree that this means the game design itself is not art. Play within the ruleset is made

by hcs 8y ago

I completely agree about the performance art aspect of games, but I disagree that this means the game design itself is not art. Play within the ruleset is made possible by the deliberate constraints proposed by the designer, who (if skilled) has considered the range of performances encouraged and allowed. Plenty of art is deliberately ambiguous; ceding some part of the work to a participant doesn't immediately kill the author. I can't comment on how useful this is for understanding the industry, but it is essential for looking at the works.

pphysch 8y ago
What you describe sounds a lot more like "engineering" than "art". Defining art as "making things" is not very helpful IMHO, because then everyone and everything is an artist/art and the terms lose meaning. Game development is a massively complex undertaking[1] and designers' self-expression will quickly cede to the large number of technological and engineering concerns. [1] http://www.gameenginebook.com/img/fig-runtime-arch.jpg http://www.gameenginebook.com/img/fig-runtime-arch.jpg
- hcs 8y ago
  I do tend to err on the side of inclusivity, but I don't think it becomes meaningless to say that anything can be art. Is there anything physical that can't be made as sculpture? There is engineering and craft in most art to realize it in a permanent form. I disagree that unbridled self-expression is a requirement, heck limitation is often the enabler. Maybe I'm missing your point, though, and it sounds like I'm saying everyone with a paintbrush is an artist. Certainly many games, even those much less complicated than your game engine diagram, are just made to "work": look pretty, hook players, shift units, sell replays. But I think we can criticize these games for what they lack just as we would for poor visible or audible aspects. We can recognize the existence of an "art film" on the same spectrum as a popcorn-munching AAA blockbuster, if maybe at the shallow end. I'm not very well-versed in this argument, though I know it has been going on for a long time, sorry if I'm boring you with the easily-rebuttable stuff. I may be trying, as a former game developer and hobbyist game designer, to appropriate something that is better understood much differently. If art has to be the pure expression of one mind, unfiltererd through commercial necessity, engineering, and cooperation, then I have it wrong. I wonder if there's a better term for whatever it is I mean, entertainment doesn't seem to do it justice. (Edit) fwiw I am trying to understand where you're coming from, too, sorry if this got too argumentative. I was intrigued by your observations about playing games and just a bit confused why you seem to reject game design as an art, as small a part of the whole product as it is.

by hcs 8y ago

pphysch 8y ago

What you describe sounds a lot more like "engineering" than "art". Defining art as "making things" is not very helpful IMHO, because then everyone and everything is an artist/art and the terms lose meaning. Game development is a massively complex undertaking[1] and designers' self-expression will quickly cede to the large number of technological and engineering concerns. [1] http://www.gameenginebook.com/img/fig-runtime-arch.jpg http://www.gameenginebook.com/img/fig-runtime-arch.jpg

hcs 8y ago
I do tend to err on the side of inclusivity, but I don't think it becomes meaningless to say that anything can be art. Is there anything physical that can't be made as sculpture? There is engineering and craft in most art to realize it in a permanent form. I disagree that unbridled self-expression is a requirement, heck limitation is often the enabler. Maybe I'm missing your point, though, and it sounds like I'm saying everyone with a paintbrush is an artist. Certainly many games, even those much less complicated than your game engine diagram, are just made to "work": look pretty, hook players, shift units, sell replays. But I think we can criticize these games for what they lack just as we would for poor visible or audible aspects. We can recognize the existence of an "art film" on the same spectrum as a popcorn-munching AAA blockbuster, if maybe at the shallow end. I'm not very well-versed in this argument, though I know it has been going on for a long time, sorry if I'm boring you with the easily-rebuttable stuff. I may be trying, as a former game developer and hobbyist game designer, to appropriate something that is better understood much differently. If art has to be the pure expression of one mind, unfiltererd through commercial necessity, engineering, and cooperation, then I have it wrong. I wonder if there's a better term for whatever it is I mean, entertainment doesn't seem to do it justice. (Edit) fwiw I am trying to understand where you're coming from, too, sorry if this got too argumentative. I was intrigued by your observations about playing games and just a bit confused why you seem to reject game design as an art, as small a part of the whole product as it is.