4 ms·

Consider that you can fall in love with those same characters and that storyline independently of the video game itself. In other words you can delineate betwee

by Kranar 6y ago

Consider that you can fall in love with those same characters and that storyline independently of the video game itself. In other words you can delineate between the video game and the story/music/visuals. Someone could take that story and present it as a film, or a novel, and you'd likely still fall in love with the characters. But few people would claim to fall in love with the video game in and of itself, for example what you would get after stripping out the story, the visuals, the music. No one feels an emotional connection to game mechanics, goal setting, a scoring system, strategy etc... at least not the same kind of emotional connection that one associates with other art. So that's why I say video games use art, just like advertisements use art, but I don't consider advertisements themselves to be art nor do I consider video games to be art. A lot of things use art without being an art form themselves, and I suspect video games are one such thing.

chrisco255 6y ago
> Consider that you can fall in love with those same characters and that storyline independently of the video game itself. In other words you can delineate between the video game and the story/music/visuals. You can pull Mario out and put him in a movie, but it's not quite the same, is it? The character was created for the medium. The original Super Mario Bros, for example: classic work of art. The music is iconic. The character animation and mechanics are a joy and clearly had a sweeping, long-lasting influence on society. You would not have had that emotional connection with a fat plumber from Brooklyn without that experience. It's inseparable from the medium. You can also pull a character from a novel (or other art form) and put them in a video game. I just played Witcher 3 recently: A beautiful in-depth, expansive game with a gripping storyline that was pulled from a book series. Is the book series no longer art because it jumped mediums? Nonsense. The experience of reading the story and playing the story are completely different. I treaded thousands of miles in an expansive virtual landscape and played the role of Geralt as I did so. I experienced his romances, fought his battles, and shaped the story and outcome based on decisions I made in the game. And I experienced art (voice acting, cinematography, architecture, landscaping, character design, etc) that would otherwise not exist without the game as a package. It doesn't make the book any less of an art form. It's all art. Anyways I could go on and on with examples. Clearly not all games are created equal, just as not all paintings are created equal. And they do not all fit into neat, sport-like or Pong-like categorizations.
- bitwize 6y ago
  > The character was created for the medium. This is literally true: Most of the salient features in Mario's visual design (cap, moustache, overalls) were intended either to make his movements readable on the primitive 8-bit character-cell-with-sprites graphical displays of the time, or to compensate for the difficulty in representing features like hair and a mouth on those displays. He is a very deliberate design within very tight constraints, and thus a marvel of character design.
dahart 6y ago
I buy the distinction you’re making, but not the conclusion. There is some art used in games, separate from the art that is the game itself. > few people would claim to fall in love with the video game [...] No one feels an emotional connection to game mechanics I think you’ll have a hard time convincing gamers of this line of thinking. Mario Bros, Doom, Kerbal Space Program, Worms, Secret of Monkey Island, Warcraft, Celeste ... and so many other games have delightful mechanics that people love. It is different than a story, but you’re using the idea that it’s different to invalidate mechanics as art. It doesn’t have to be the same kind of emotional connection. People don’t have the same emotion connection to Leonardo’s ornithopter as they do to DaVinci’s Mona Lisa, yet nobody would even attempt to make the argument that the ornithopter isn’t art. Art is and always has been in the eye of the beholder, so my disagreeing doesn’t need to change your opinion, but FWIW games absolutely count as art in my book, and many others’. Not all games are good art, but a few games are great art.

by Kranar 6y ago

chrisco255 6y ago

> Consider that you can fall in love with those same characters and that storyline independently of the video game itself. In other words you can delineate between the video game and the story/music/visuals. You can pull Mario out and put him in a movie, but it's not quite the same, is it? The character was created for the medium. The original Super Mario Bros, for example: classic work of art. The music is iconic. The character animation and mechanics are a joy and clearly had a sweeping, long-lasting influence on society. You would not have had that emotional connection with a fat plumber from Brooklyn without that experience. It's inseparable from the medium. You can also pull a character from a novel (or other art form) and put them in a video game. I just played Witcher 3 recently: A beautiful in-depth, expansive game with a gripping storyline that was pulled from a book series. Is the book series no longer art because it jumped mediums? Nonsense. The experience of reading the story and playing the story are completely different. I treaded thousands of miles in an expansive virtual landscape and played the role of Geralt as I did so. I experienced his romances, fought his battles, and shaped the story and outcome based on decisions I made in the game. And I experienced art (voice acting, cinematography, architecture, landscaping, character design, etc) that would otherwise not exist without the game as a package. It doesn't make the book any less of an art form. It's all art. Anyways I could go on and on with examples. Clearly not all games are created equal, just as not all paintings are created equal. And they do not all fit into neat, sport-like or Pong-like categorizations.

bitwize 6y ago
> The character was created for the medium. This is literally true: Most of the salient features in Mario's visual design (cap, moustache, overalls) were intended either to make his movements readable on the primitive 8-bit character-cell-with-sprites graphical displays of the time, or to compensate for the difficulty in representing features like hair and a mouth on those displays. He is a very deliberate design within very tight constraints, and thus a marvel of character design.

dahart 6y ago

I buy the distinction you’re making, but not the conclusion. There is some art used in games, separate from the art that is the game itself. > few people would claim to fall in love with the video game [...] No one feels an emotional connection to game mechanics I think you’ll have a hard time convincing gamers of this line of thinking. Mario Bros, Doom, Kerbal Space Program, Worms, Secret of Monkey Island, Warcraft, Celeste ... and so many other games have delightful mechanics that people love. It is different than a story, but you’re using the idea that it’s different to invalidate mechanics as art. It doesn’t have to be the same kind of emotional connection. People don’t have the same emotion connection to Leonardo’s ornithopter as they do to DaVinci’s Mona Lisa, yet nobody would even attempt to make the argument that the ornithopter isn’t art. Art is and always has been in the eye of the beholder, so my disagreeing doesn’t need to change your opinion, but FWIW games absolutely count as art in my book, and many others’. Not all games are good art, but a few games are great art.