I believe video games are art, and the reason why I believe video games to be art is due in part to my own definition of what art is: a work which creates a response in the receptor. To create art, you need skill, both technical and creative. Do video games need technical skill to be made? Of course. Creative skills? No doubt. So by that definition, video games are art. But some people refuse to see video games as a whole as an art form, preferring to see it as some form of entertainment form. And that's OK, not everyone will understand the finer points of gaming. But still others believe that gaming needs to "grow up", and to achieve that, they start making a very specific type of video game: the art game. But does gaming REALLY need art games?
Art games are a bit different from most other video games, in that their modus operandi isn't to entertain per se, but to achieve some other goal. Most of the time, this goal is to elicit a response from the player, most likely an emotional one. For example, there's the game "Depression Quest", which did not aim to entertain, but to raise awareness on depression. There's also the game "Coming Out Simulator", a game made by a programmer named Nicky Case, which won the 2015 IGF Award in Narrative Excellency. And of course, quite possibly one of the most famous art games ever made is "Ico", by Team Ico.
I am aware that, thanks to Gamergate, the validity of the IGF and any similar award ceremonies is to be put into question. I am terribly aware of the cronyism in the Independent Gaming scene, of the corruption that goes on in these award shows, and on how video game journalism blows up the merit of many independently made games because the journalists and the programmers are all buddy buddy with each other. On this entry, however, all this is going to be ignored in favor of getting to a much larger point.
Back to the main topic, art games tend to sometimes be a little boring. Now, that's not ALL the time, mind you, some art games are rather entertaining. For example, "Time Fcuk" (no, I did not write a typo) is a good platformer. But again, the point of an art game isn't to be a conventionally fun game, but rather, to deliver a different kind of experience to the player. And sometimes, like in Nick Case's game "Coming Out Simulator", they succeed, like in how the aforementioned game managed to succeed in showing some of the difficulties of coming out as bisexual to homophobic parents.
I'd like to point out that I do not know Nick Case in real life, I've never met him, and he and I have no relation. All mentions of his game are made by my own decision. No one is paying or compensating me in any way.
Now, here's a burning question, though: why call it an "art game"? Probably for the same reason we have "art films"; to separate that which was made as a product to be bought from that which was made to spread a message. The difference between "Ico" and "Madden 2k12" is the exact same difference between Lars von Trier's "Melancholia" and Michael Bay's "Transformers: Dark of the Moon". So basically, like in film, there are video games that are made to make that quick buck, and video games made to share an experience with the player. And this isn't a bad thing! It just shows how varied and diverse the gaming industry truly is: like the film industry, there's room and demand to make both the popcorn shlock AND the art house Oscar bait.
But does gaming NEED the art game genre? My belief is that ALL games can be considered art, and there is no need for a subgenre that's dedicated to making art games. Yes, games like Madden and Fifa are just made to make a buck, but they are just two of the millions of games that exist today. There's always going to be a "Tales of" game, or a "Final Fantasy", and there will always be demand for games like "God of War" and "Bayonetta", likewise as there will always be demand for games like "Call of Duty" and "Medal of Honor". The wide variety of games on the market ensures that the maxim of "don't like, don't buy" remains a viable philosophy that keeps the gaming industry alive and vibrant for decades to come.
And yet we see an insistence on the art game as an alternative to mainstream gaming. There are critics that want less "God of War" and more "Gone Home", because the latter is more "respectable". But what about "Gone Home" is more respectable than "God of War"? After all, one's a game about some girl who walks around her house, while the other is about a crazy ass hat who goes around killing gods and monsters. The reason the former is considered more "respectable" is because it has gays in it.
I'm not joking.
A major problem with art games is that too many of them are far too pretentious for their own good. For example, there's "Pragaras", a game that purports itself to be a reflection of global problems. In the game, you go right or left while there are images in the background depicting war, violence, and pollution. But the game doesn't implement these themes into the gameplay, it just presents them as background. You could replace the background with anything, and the game would suffer nothing but the loss of anything that could excuse its pretentiousness.
Art games are a bit different from most other video games, in that their modus operandi isn't to entertain per se, but to achieve some other goal. Most of the time, this goal is to elicit a response from the player, most likely an emotional one. For example, there's the game "Depression Quest", which did not aim to entertain, but to raise awareness on depression. There's also the game "Coming Out Simulator", a game made by a programmer named Nicky Case, which won the 2015 IGF Award in Narrative Excellency. And of course, quite possibly one of the most famous art games ever made is "Ico", by Team Ico.
Pictured: Art
Back to the main topic, art games tend to sometimes be a little boring. Now, that's not ALL the time, mind you, some art games are rather entertaining. For example, "Time Fcuk" (no, I did not write a typo) is a good platformer. But again, the point of an art game isn't to be a conventionally fun game, but rather, to deliver a different kind of experience to the player. And sometimes, like in Nick Case's game "Coming Out Simulator", they succeed, like in how the aforementioned game managed to succeed in showing some of the difficulties of coming out as bisexual to homophobic parents.
I'd like to point out that I do not know Nick Case in real life, I've never met him, and he and I have no relation. All mentions of his game are made by my own decision. No one is paying or compensating me in any way.
Now, here's a burning question, though: why call it an "art game"? Probably for the same reason we have "art films"; to separate that which was made as a product to be bought from that which was made to spread a message. The difference between "Ico" and "Madden 2k12" is the exact same difference between Lars von Trier's "Melancholia" and Michael Bay's "Transformers: Dark of the Moon". So basically, like in film, there are video games that are made to make that quick buck, and video games made to share an experience with the player. And this isn't a bad thing! It just shows how varied and diverse the gaming industry truly is: like the film industry, there's room and demand to make both the popcorn shlock AND the art house Oscar bait.
But does gaming NEED the art game genre? My belief is that ALL games can be considered art, and there is no need for a subgenre that's dedicated to making art games. Yes, games like Madden and Fifa are just made to make a buck, but they are just two of the millions of games that exist today. There's always going to be a "Tales of" game, or a "Final Fantasy", and there will always be demand for games like "God of War" and "Bayonetta", likewise as there will always be demand for games like "Call of Duty" and "Medal of Honor". The wide variety of games on the market ensures that the maxim of "don't like, don't buy" remains a viable philosophy that keeps the gaming industry alive and vibrant for decades to come.
And yet we see an insistence on the art game as an alternative to mainstream gaming. There are critics that want less "God of War" and more "Gone Home", because the latter is more "respectable". But what about "Gone Home" is more respectable than "God of War"? After all, one's a game about some girl who walks around her house, while the other is about a crazy ass hat who goes around killing gods and monsters. The reason the former is considered more "respectable" is because it has gays in it.
I'm not joking.
A major problem with art games is that too many of them are far too pretentious for their own good. For example, there's "Pragaras", a game that purports itself to be a reflection of global problems. In the game, you go right or left while there are images in the background depicting war, violence, and pollution. But the game doesn't implement these themes into the gameplay, it just presents them as background. You could replace the background with anything, and the game would suffer nothing but the loss of anything that could excuse its pretentiousness.
Pragaras, by 3J. You walk to the right or the left. You can pick up that bundle of roses and stab that woman with them. That's how the game rolls.
That's the big problem with art games; because they tend to be "art" first, "game" second, too often they mix what should be great messages with mediocre, often boring gameplay, and too often the gameplay seems like an afterthought, as if the developer suddenly realized they were making a game, not a short film. In that regard, gaming doesn't need the art game.
The idea that games need to incorporate heavy themes to mature is laughable, because many games already employ heavy themes, and they do so with a subtlety and class that can rival even the greatest of films. Sometimes, these themes are overt and in your face, but the game is more memorable for it. For example, "Final Fantasy 7" employs themes of environmentalism and corporate greed in a heavy handed manner, but the game remains relevant to this day in part thanks to how heavy handed it is. "God of War" is a modern tragedy about a man whose thirst for power turned him into a monster, and his thirst for revenge led him to destroy all around him. "Metal Gear Solid" is a meditation on war and its effects on soldiers. The "Grand Theft Auto" series is a satirical look into America's consumerist and celebrity obsessed culture, while also acknowledging that the world is full of sick bastards that ALL need to be thrown in jail, but a good chunk of them are wearing business suits and walk the streets like anyone else. All those games I've mentioned are art, in every sense of the term.
Likewise, art doesn't need to be angsty or "deep" to be artistic. "Abobo's Big Adventure" is one of the best games out there, even though it's got a very minimal story. What makes it good? It mixes up several of the best levels of the best games in the original NES, including the first "Legend of Zelda", "Mega Man 2", and "Double Dragon", among others. "Harvest Moon" is one of the happiest games you'll ever play, but its simplicity and general happy atmosphere is precisely what's going to make your life a little brighter, even if just for a little while.
Am I saying people shouldn't make art games? No, I'm not saying that at all. Diversity is what keeps the industry healthy and vibrant, as I said before. But I am saying that art games themselves are not needed at all, because far too often, art games are too much "art" and not enough "game".
It's not that video games can be art, it's that they already are, and all it takes is a combination of technical know how and artistic imagination to create something breath taking. Something I've learned in life, is that art is something you make because there's something inside you that you want to share with the world. The technical skill is just something you learn to do to help make it easier to make what you want, while imagination is something you build day by day by looking outside and inside of you. Art is for your heart, after all, it makes the world a happier place to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment