Philosophical Vegan Forum

Looking back at all the games that were made over the last 35 years, I think it's safe to say that video games have established themselves as a form of art. The best video games have so much time, money and heart poured into them, such as Picasso's paintings, or Mozart's symphonies, or Stephen King's novels, or Coppola's films (except for Dementia 13), or whatever other form of art currently is existence. Think about it: Video Games are essentially a bunch of art forms comprised into one. They have musical scores, animation and art, and even have cinematics and stories to tell (not that stories are really all that important to a video game).

Now of course, not all video games are art. I was going to creat a chart to show what is and isn't art (or at least what's good and what's not). But then again, art is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not under the notion that "If you sell it, it's not art, it's a product". Why, though? Why can't art be a product? You just arbitrarily decided that since it was made for profit, it's not art. Art, as said, is in the eyes of the beholder.

Point being, video games, depending on what it is and who's asking, video games can be art.

Now, while a video game may be great in all other areas, it could have one major flaw that holds it back. This major flaw actually is present in all video games; The story (or lack thereof) Literature and film rely heavily on stories to give it substance. Now, as I have said, I think stories are irrelevant to a game's overall quality. Take Super Mario 64 for instance. Widely regarded as one of the most important and revolutionary games of all time, yet has no real story to speak of. Does that make the game bad? No, of course not. If anything, most games would be better off without a story. Some of the best games usually have the story in the background, and is only there to have an excuse for the action and things happening to the player. Super Mario knows this better than any other game series ever made (unless you count the RPGs, which actually do have some pretty good stories, yet they don't take themselves very seriously). If the game has a good story, great! If not, who cares? Would you rather play a game with an intriguing story but with horrible gameplay, or a game with amazing gameplay but horrible story? Take for example my second favourite RPG series, Kingdom Hearts. Great gameplay, amazing soundtrack, incredible graphics, animation, and design, and a lot of creative weapons, attacks, and ideas. Yet the story is, well, let's just say it's be better off without it. It's an entire orgy of needlessly convoluted plots that, even when you do figure it out, you still have questions. I understand the story, it isn't as difficult as some people make it out to be, but I still see plotholes that I'm just waiting to see fixed with some arbitrary reason. The game just takes itself way to seriously. Or it's just trying too hard, I don't know. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't any games that rely on the story to keep the player going, such as Grim Fandango, but those are usually kept for more interactive games. And I just realized I just went on a huge tangent about story telling in video games..

Video games can also hone people's acting skills. Of course, there is voice acting, but with some games, more notably Mortal Kombat, uses motion capture, which allows people to act out certain scenes and actions, kinda like a movie/animation.

To me, it shows how a video game can allow a person to manifest their skills, whether it be composing music, animating, brainstorming ideas for the game, acting, story writing, drawing, and even coding for the game. Making a video game can offer almost anyone with any creative expertise with a job.

Well that's just some food for thought. What is your opinion?

What is art?

Is it something that tells a story, as seems to be suggested by your post? Is it a manifestation of the creator's feelings? Perhaps it's just an arbitrary label we slap onto things we like?

I'm not sure how to define the term, so I don't know how to answer the question.

Well art is defined as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power" or "the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance." If you want to go by the dictionary, then yes, it is without a doubt art.

If I recall correctly, at the birth of cinema the same debate was going on, with people claiming that motion pictures weren't art. That was over a hundred years ago, though, and I was very young then so my memory may be a bit rusty.

You were around since the 1890s?
So cinema and TV shows are in fact art?

RedAppleGP wrote:You were around since the 1890s?
So cinema and TV shows are in fact art?

I wouldn't call everything that's typically called "art" art.
Depends on the content.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

RedAppleGP wrote:You were around since the 1890s?
So cinema and TV shows are in fact art?

I wouldn't call everything that's typically called "art" art.
Depends on the content.

I know, that's what I said. But it can, right?

(Did Brimstone just say he's over 100 years old?)

miniboes wrote:(Did Brimstone just say he's over 100 years old?)

I had the same thought.

I figured he was pretty old, but geez.

You guys still think he's human? Huh.

Art is defined not by the person who makes it, but by the person who accepts it as art. (IMO) I've played games I would consider art, but I've played many that are just something to do.