Video Games as Art (i.e. Screw you Mr. Ebert)

[Raemon777]

Several days Roger Ebert posted a followup to a statement he made 5 years ago, that videogames can never be art.

His recent article was, in particular, a response to a TED talk in which a woman from ThatGameCompany (creators of Flower) talked about why video games not only can be but already are art. She cites examples from a game-experience-installation called Waco, as well as Braid and Flower. Ebert essentially makes judgements of those three games based on the woman's short preview/discussion of them, without ever having played them (or any game, as far as I can tell).

At the time I was really annoyed, and I was among the people posting in the comment section that has, in a few days, reached 1800+ comments. By now I've stopped caring so much about Ebert himself. At this point he probably doesn't have the reflexive skills necessary to progress through most games even if he wanted to. I do think when a prominent critic denounces a medium I care about it is worth rebutting him, if only so that other people who are more on the fence who read his work can see the counterpoint, but he is unlikely to change his mind at this point.

However, since then I've been going over a thought experiment in my head, trying to find the ideal game with which one might persuade Mr. Ebert. Not so much because I expect him to play, simply because its an interesting puzzle in and off itself.

Lots of people have posted in the comments "OMG you need to play Shadow of the Colossus" or "Final Fantasy (x)" or "Heavy Rain," each of which may be a good game, but the problem is that most good games are designed foremost to appeal to gamers, who already have a basic vocabulary on how gaming works. My dad played Donkey Kong back in the day so he had a vague notion of how to work his way through Braid. My mom, on the other hand, was unable to even beat the first level. (She couldn't do the double-jump off the second Goomba). Most games are also designed to be "game" length (many, many hours for a non-gamer to spend completing).

The most obvious answer is Portal. Truth be told it's probably still more complex than a 70 year old man whose never touched a game can hope, but it's short, does a reasonably good job of introducing you to the complexity bit by bit, and is as far as I am concerned one of a few "perfect games." It's not necessarily the BEST game out there, but it's the only one I've played where there is not a single moment where I thought "you know, they could have made this part a little better." The puzzles are interesting but shouldn't stump you for more than 5 minutes. The dialogue is perfect, both funny, poignant and appropriate for a gaming scenario (rather than ramming cutscenes down your throat that have nothing to do with the gameplay).

Another issue I'm pondering is his statement "so far there's been no game equivalent to (insert great movie here)." On one hand I have not been affected by a game as strongly as I have been affected by the greatest movies, but I'm pretty positive you could find a movie that reasonably compared to a good game, which was good enough that would fall under Ebert's category of "art." A lot of the people listing Final Fantasy games tried to convey how good the plots were. I haven't actually played Final Fantasy so I don't know for sure, but the synopsis people left in the comments, frankly, sounded rather juvenile and if you watched all the cutscenes in a row, probably would not have impressed Ebert in movie terms.

So I'm trying to think of good movies that you'd actually consider equivalent to good games. Games that probably warrant the attention:

Shadow of the Colossus
Braid
Portal (the best comparison is Cube, unfortunately it wasn't all that great a movie. Which is mostly because trying to translate "Portal" into movie terms inherently ruins most of the experience. Still, I'm hopefully that there's a good example somewhere).
Myst
Heavy Rain (SHOULD be an easy one)
Bioshock
Uncharted (this one's really easy, but I'm not sure offhand whether Ebert considers Indiana Jones "art.")

Granted, games SHOULDN'T have to compete with movies on movies' terms. ("Flower" in particular is not competing with movies, it's competing with paintings). But in this hypothetical scenario, we are imagining games to recommend to a film critic, with the ability to say "if you liked X movie, you really should be able to appreciate X game."

 

[Joe Johnson]

What about the Matrix?

On the surface, it's just a cool action movie. But, I think the movie conveys a lot of things you'd usually expect in a work of art. It is aesthetically interesting, it evokes emotions, it has meanings that make you ponder deeper questions in the world in a philisophical and intellectual realm, etc.

Is it Casablanca? No. But, I see what you're going for. What's a movie that basically meets the bare minimum requirements to qualify as a work of art - that is also fairly universally considered art by a critic or expert in the field. I think Ebert would consider the Matrix to be that.

 

[Raemon777]

The specific issue is finding a good movie that has a corresponding game. Ebert already believes movies are art. The trick is providing a parallel to games for him to hypothetically follow.

Now, there are plenty of games that superficially resemble the Matrix, but not necessarily in the ways that matter. What would make a REALLY good comparison is a sort of 4th-wall breaking MMO, that includes a Morpheus-like character that somehow tries to get you to stop playing, wake up and smell the roses. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a way for that to a) be actually poignant instead of hypocritical, and b) actually be profitable.

 

[figmentPez]

Why should games be compared directly to movies? There are many forms of art without a narrative structure.

As for Mr. Ebert's claims that games cannot be art becuase they have goals, what about hedge mazes? I'm pretty sure that landscaping is considered art. Does a Victorian garden cease to be art the moment a period-authentic hedge maze is added?

Is a finely carved chess set not art because you can play a game with it?

Is the play Peter Pan not art because it calls for audience participation in the death of Tinkerbell? The audience has the goal of saving the beloved fairy, is the art lost when their applause brings her back to life?

What of the audience calls of "encore, encore!"? If they are successful in bringing a musician back to the stage, is there no longer art in his songs, because the audience "won" his continued performance?

There is so much more than video games where the audience is a participant in the art, and they have objectives. Murder mystery dinner parties, historical reenactments, amusement park rides and I'm sure much more.

 

[Raemon777]

There's a lot of reasons why Ebert is wrong, but I spent the last few days talking about them at length with various people. A lot of which was over the definition of art, of which there is substantial disagreement. At this point I'm not so worried about belaboring that point, although I am not opposed to other people using this thread to rant and/or debate about it.

One thing I have been thinking about is Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics," which does an excellent job of breaking down the various artistic techniques that comics use, demonstrating them, and communicating why comics can and should be considered art, all within the form of a comic. By the end of the book, no matter what you thought about comics beforehand (if at all), I promise you will have not only a greater appreciation for them, but for art and life in general.

I think we are approaching the point where someone should do the same for video games - create a video game that can explain, to the average reasonably-open-minded grandmother, why video games are meaningful and what artistic principles they employ.

 

[Joe Johnson]

I would say he'd argue that Murder mystery dinner parties, historical reenactments, amusement park rides are not art.

But, I would say he hasn't played a video game since Donkey Kong. I mean, I rarely play games where I consider myself to have "won" them, or play to get a high score, unless it's multiplayer. Think of most FPS games. It's pretty much a forgone conclusion that you'll finish the game. You're not really "winning", it's more the experience you have going through it. It's no more winning than watching a movie, getting to the end of it, and shouting "I won, I made it to the end". Does the removal of the win bring games into the realm of art?

Anyhoo, I agree with Ebert's statement here:
"Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care."

Just because something might not be considered art, it doesn't take away from how frickin' awesome it might be. I wouldn't consider the Grand Canyon art, but seeing it fills me with more awe than just about anything man-made has ever done to me.

 

[SpecialKO]

On what kinds of criteria are we assuming the critic to be judging for? Topic matter, depth of ideas, level of gameplay, mechanical perfection, etc?

For example, I would argue that Final Fantasy Tactics an impressively dark and complex plot, not to mention commentary on the nature of historically-recorded celebrity and heroism, but I feel like any non-gamer critic would take one look at the play-mechanic and just give up.

Similarly, I would not include Bioshock, just because it's an FPS, which I think any non-gamer movie critic would reject it out of hand for. I also don't think that Bioshock really contributes at all to the pool of ideas, but I'm operating on the assumption that, just as not all art speaks to the same qualities, neither would any game considered to be "art".

 

[Raemon777]

>>>Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art?

I do think this is worth answering. I am speaking as a gamer, a filmgoer, a storyteller, and an artist with training in visual arts, music, and yes, game design. This is reposted from another conversation:

Saying that something can NEVER be art is implying that people shouldn't TRY to communicate anything deep and meaningful using it. And frankly, I am NOT satisfied with that. Most jokes and movies and video games and paintings may be vaguely pretty things that don't particularly impact my life. But in each of these cases, I would prefer more pieces where the creator WAS trying to communicate something meaningful, elegant and poignant. If Johnathan Blow hadn't felt that video games should be art, would he have bothered to created Braid? If he had, would it have been as beautiful? Would I have gotten to play The Void, by Ice Pick studios, which is a work that explores both the nature of souls and the relationship of the artist, the muse, the art and the viewer? Would I have gotten to experience the gnawing horror of old age in "The Graveyard" and "Home?"

Each of the above are games created explicitly for the purpose of being art, and I consider each of them highly successful in their own ways. While you might argue that "Graveyard" and "Home" are merely "interactive art" as oppose to a game, there is nothing un-game-like about The Void and Braid, and much that is incredibly artistic. And I am thankful for that.

 

[Frank]

Ebert is trolling gamers. His arguments are purely semantic.

 

[SpecialKO]

Anyhoo, I agree with Ebert's statement here:
"Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care."

Just because something might not be considered art, it doesn't take away from how frickin' awesome it might be. I wouldn't consider the Grand Canyon art, but seeing it fills me with more awe than just about anything man-made has ever done to me.

I agree that "art" and "awesome" don't have to be linked at all, but his statement is fairly nonsensical (and possibly identifies Ebert's primary problem with his view). First of all, Fischer, Jordan, Butkus, and Chen didn't create chess, basketball, football, or Mah Jong, or even particularly contribute to the form and parameters of those games. Naturally their opinion (which is complete hearsay on the part of Ebert, by the way) on whether those specific games are art or not is germaine, but is not even remotely conclusive as to whether those games are art. Even assuming that they are not (which I would agree with), how do those four games not being art in any way determine the artistic nature of other games? It's an inane point.

Second of all, Ebert is one of those who made the claim "games are not art" in the first place. He began the discussion, or at least his part in it. So when gamers chime in with examples of what games they would consider to be art (and why) in response to his statement, his "why do you guys need to be validated" comment is just in bad faith.

I love Ebert as a movie critic, but the guy is completely out of his element when it comes to games.

 

[Raemon777]

I'm not sure if he's "truly" trolling, but yes, in practice he might as well be. As I said, I am interested in this more as a hypothetical puzzle solving exercise than an actual attempt to win him over. If he WAS interested in giving games a try, which one should you present him with?

I have mixed feelings about Bioshock, which I never actually played all the way through (because I don't care much for shooters). It has what is hands down the best introduction to a game I have ever played, up until the moment when you stick yourself with the Lightning plasmid. Up until then, I had been playing as myself. After that point, I was playing as this other random guy who apparently sticks himself with strange needles (without even being told to by Atlas), and then goes around shooting Grandmothers.

Yes, the Grandmothers were shooting back. If I had went to Rapture, I would have said "Hey, you want Adam? Um, okay, I guess," since I had no idea what it was or why it was important. And I probably would have gotten torn apart by crazy people shortly thereafter. Which would have made a bad game. If the game had established somehow that I WAS a violent killer who would respond to the slightest threat with guns and lightning, I would have been more okay with it. Instead I felt an abrupt disconnect with the game experience.

 

[Joe Johnson]

Personally, I'm still on the fence about the whole thing. I like hearing the arguments either way.

One problem that video games have is that there is currently no codified way of discussing them as art in the same way as paintings/poetry/books, etc. These fields have entire graduate study courses devoted to dissecting them. Video games have critics, but not, um, what, theorists? I think that over time, this will change. People like Ebert will be left behind. I wonder, when the first movies came out were they considered art? Or were they just viewed as curiosities? I have a feeling they were probably poo-poo'd, but now those same works are viewed as art.

 

[Gusto]

As a gamer, I don't think I can take games that seriously as an art form as long as there are people pointing to the integrated story/gameplay in Braid and saying "This is an example that games are art" at the same time they always try to defend violence in, say, GTA4 by saying "Don't worry about it, it's only a game."

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Dave]

I don't think video games are art, but neither do I think red umbrellas in Central Park or elephant feces in the shape of the Virgin Mary is art.

I know art is subjective, but I still think full blown pictorial porn is closer to art than a video game.

 

[Dubyamn]

As a gamer, I don't think I can take games that seriously as an art form as long as there are people pointing to the integrated story/gameplay in Braid and saying "This is an example that games are art" at the same time they always try to defend violence in, say, GTA4 by saying "Don't worry about it, it's only a game."

You can't have it both ways.

This of course means that movies are no longer a viable art form because of the defense of "It's only a movie"?

My take on it is that the entire argument has so much garbage on each side that it has morphed into something that is just moronic. I mean read the article posted Ebert doesn't even have a hard grip on what is art. He gives multiple definitions throughout the article that could easily be used to declare paintings to no longer be art. Fact is that what is and isn't art is a completely subjective opinion no matter how hard anybody tries to hammer a definition in.

Only fact about the entire debate is that Ebert is going to be left in the same ignoble pile as the art critics of old who decried movies as nothing but mindless drek.

 

[Eliwood]

I'm not sure if he's "truly" trolling, but yes, in practice he might as well be. As I said, I am interested in this more as a hypothetical puzzle solving exercise than an actual attempt to win him over. If he WAS interested in giving games a try, which one should you present him with?

I have mixed feelings about Bioshock, which I never actually played all the way through (because I don't care much for shooters). It has what is hands down the best introduction to a game I have ever played, up until the moment when you stick yourself with the Lightning plasmid. Up until then, I had been playing as myself. After that point, I was playing as this other random guy who apparently sticks himself with strange needles (without even being told to by Atlas), and then goes around shooting Grandmothers.

Yes, the Grandmothers were shooting back. If I had went to Rapture, I would have said "Hey, you want Adam? Um, okay, I guess," since I had no idea what it was or why it was important. And I probably would have gotten torn apart by crazy people shortly thereafter. Which would have made a bad game. If the game had established somehow that I WAS a violent killer who would respond to the slightest threat with guns and lightning, I would have been more okay with it. Instead I felt an abrupt disconnect with the game experience.

If you finish the game you do actually learn why the protagonist is doing what he's doing, though even then I found the game to be more about the setting and ambiance than the personal story.

And I don't put much stock in Ebert's arguments, here. I mean, I'm not going to look to him for a video game discussion, the same way I wouldn't open my mouth about nuclear physics.

 

[Raemon777]

As a gamer, I don't think I can take games that seriously as an art form as long as there are people pointing to the integrated story/gameplay in Braid and saying "This is an example that games are art" at the same time they always try to defend violence in, say, GTA4 by saying "Don't worry about it, it's only a game."

Is this different from people who point to Citizen Kane and say "Art!" and then point to... I dunno, "Doom," (the movie) and say "don't worry about it, it's just entertainment." Doom actually isn't the best example, but I can't think offhand of a violent movie that was truly violent with no redeeming value whatsoever. I actually kinda liked Doom. "The Matrix" gets referenced the most, but that had plenty of good stuff to offer.

And actually, that's part of the point. My understanding is that GTA4 actually had a decent plot, was fun to play, and if it impacted any impressionable young people, that's the fault of retailers for selling to young people, not the fault of the game itself. Violent games and movies both often have plenty of worthwhile content that the frightened masses ignore. Depending on your definition of art it may or may not have been art, but there is nothing inherently terrible about it. "It's just entertainment" may be a bad argument, but it has no impact on the art-status of a medium.

>>>One problem that video games have is that there is currently no codified way of discussing them as art in the same way as paintings/poetry/books, etc. These fields have entire graduate study courses devoted to dissecting them. Video games have critics, but not, um, what, theorists?

While I'm not sure if there are graduate course studies dedicated to it yet (certain specialized schools might have that, dunno), there are plenty of people who study and discuss game design in depth. There may not be a single definitive book on the subject, but I think there are plenty of books out there that talk about it in various ways, and loads in individual articles on the internet.

In many art classes, you are taught early on that the principles of design are Balance, Unity, Balance, Proportion, Rhythm, and Emphasis (depending on your teacher they might include some additional things). You can apply these principles to visual art, to music, to dance, theatre, film, and game design, and a load of other things as well. You can easily analyze games in these terms, in addition to studying them for more subjective things like "meaning" and "emotional impact." You could come up with another word for something that was created deliberately to utilize these qualities, but I think the word "art" works just fine.

 

[Gusto]

As a gamer, I don't think I can take games that seriously as an art form as long as there are people pointing to the integrated story/gameplay in Braid and saying "This is an example that games are art" at the same time they always try to defend violence in, say, GTA4 by saying "Don't worry about it, it's only a game."

You can't have it both ways.

This of course means that movies are no longer a viable art form because of the defense of "It's only a movie"?

My take on it is that the entire argument has so much garbage on each side that it has morphed into something that is just moronic. I mean read the article posted Ebert doesn't even have a hard grip on what is art. He gives multiple definitions throughout the article that could easily be used to declare paintings to no longer be art. Fact is that what is and isn't art is a completely subjective opinion no matter how hard anybody tries to hammer a definition in.

Only fact about the entire debate is that Ebert is going to be left in the same ignoble pile as the art critics of old who decried movies as nothing but mindless drek.[/QUOTE]

Right.

The video game world has masterpieces and dreck.
The movie world has masterpieces and dreck.
The ART WORLD has masterpieces and dreck.

The only reason anyone gets butthurt on any single one of these is because they consider themselves part of that camp.

There are people who will submit scribbles on a chalkboard to a modern art exhibit and people who bust their ass doing realistic or impressionist oil paintings will be furious. There are gamers who called No Country for Old Men "boring and retarded" and then went to go shoot Nazi zombies in COD:WaW on XBox Live while calling the opposing team ******s. And Ebert will continue to say there has been no evidence that suggests to him games are to be considered an art form.

Who's wrong depends on your perspective.

---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

That said, in my experience, gamers are the ones in those groups most likely to get butthurt.

 

[Raemon777]

If you finish the game you do actually learn why the protagonist is doing what he's doing, though even then I found the game to be more about the setting and ambiance than the personal story

I did hear this recently. It does make me want to go back and play through it, but I don't really have the time and still probably wouldn't enjoy the gameplay as much as other artistic games I could be playing. I still say that if your design is perfect, there should never be a moment where the player feels pulled out of the immersion. If the player's avatar is supposed to be a person with a particular personality, you need to somehow imply that in game. Otherwise, you need to set up the game so that people can at least attempt different playstyles before being gradually sucked into the one necessary to beat the game.

What made Bioshock so frustrating for me was that the intro was SO incredibly immersive, making me feel that me, myself was actually there, that when I was unable to call out to the old lady with the gun and say "Okay, I surrender, take your Adam or whatever the hell and leave alone," I felt betrayed.

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

Ebert needs to watch/play MGS4.

 

[Raemon777]

Who's wrong depends on your perspective.

I agree with this, but you were the one who said, specifically, that you can't take games seriously as an artform so long as some gamers are using bad, hypocritical arguments. It shouldn't matter what some gamers say, it should matter how you personally define art and whether games qualify.

 

[Gusto]

Who's wrong depends on your perspective.

I agree with this, but you were the one who said, specifically, that you can't take games seriously as an artform so long as some gamers are using bad, hypocritical arguments. It shouldn't matter what some gamers say, it should matter how you personally define art and whether games qualify.

Then in my opinion, they currently don't. Neither do movies. With a handful of exceptions.

 

[SpecialKO]

Who's wrong depends on your perspective.

I agree with this, but you were the one who said, specifically, that you can't take games seriously as an artform so long as some gamers are using bad, hypocritical arguments. It shouldn't matter what some gamers say, it should matter how you personally define art and whether games qualify.

Then in my opinion, they currently don't. Neither do movies. With a handful of exceptions.[/QUOTE]

Hold on, I'm confused as to what we are discussing here.

Are we discussing whether games, taken as a homogenous whole, are art, or whether individual games can be art?

 

[Raemon777]

Then in my opinion, they currently don't. Neither do movies. With a handful of exceptions.

Okay, but then can you clarify how you DO define art and why games and movies do not qualify?

For the record, I have two different definitions of art. (Basically two different words that happen to be related and sound the same. The words are "art" and "Art™." Lower case art is objectively defined and extremely broad, and is essentially what Wikipedia says: "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions." Nearly everything in the world is art according this definition. A similar definition from Scott McCloud: "Art is anything created for purposes other than survival and reproduction." (Seriously, y'all should read "Understanding Comics," which explains this better than I can here.") Basically, anything created with the intent to accomplish something other than mere practicality. A car can get you from point a to point b. It can also look really cool and feel sleek and powerful. Cars that attempt to do so are, to some degree, works of art. All video games are. All movies are.

Art™ is the subjective version, which is basically "anything designed to and successful at dramatically impacting you on an emotional and/or aesthetic level." I actually still apply this pretty broadly, and am willing to accept things that impact other people even if they don't impact me.

Both art and Art™ can be studied, often in terms of the principles of design (balance, unity, etc), and those who HAVE studied basic artistic principles will usually produce things that are more likely to be Art™ for more people.

The thing is, the more you actively study artistic principles, the more you are likely to find things artistic. A decade ago I might have considered fl0w to be a somewhat fun game. Today I am aware of what kind of effort was put into it and how it achieves certain psychological effects, so I consider it Art™. Not quite as good Art™ as Braid or Portal, but it's not really trying to do the same things they are so that's not even a very fair comparison. (Edit: better comparison is the cell-stage in Spore, which is in some ways "better" but in some ways "worse,")

 

[Chibibar]

I always believe art (or Art) is design/made to inspire people emotionally, intellectually, or physically.

Can video game be art? I believe to be so. are ALL video game art? no.

 

[Raemon777]

I always believe art (or Art) is design/made to inspire people emotionally, intellectually, or physically.

"Physically?" I'm curious what you mean by that. Can you give an example?

 

[Gusto]

Who's wrong depends on your perspective.

I agree with this, but you were the one who said, specifically, that you can't take games seriously as an artform so long as some gamers are using bad, hypocritical arguments. It shouldn't matter what some gamers say, it should matter how you personally define art and whether games qualify.

Then in my opinion, they currently don't. Neither do movies. With a handful of exceptions.[/QUOTE]

Hold on, I'm confused as to what we are discussing here.

Are we discussing whether games, taken as a homogenous whole, are art, or whether individual games can be art?[/QUOTE]

Well individual games can be art but we obviously don't see a lot of them. I'd be more inclined to say that done properly, video game design can be an art, much along the same lines as engineering, for instance, can be considered an art, or there can be visionary architects, etc.

But I don't think we can discuss what defines art in this thread, because that as been debated for centuries. We need to step back and take it from a subjective viewpoint for now. For example, I wouldn't call Portal art, but I can very much appreciate what went into the design and creation of the game.

Ebert doesn't give a fuck, which is his right.

 

[Raemon777]

Are we discussing whether games, taken as a homogenous whole, are art, or whether individual games can be art?

I think it's fair to discuss both. But for purposes of keeping some semblance of order here (as Gusto says, you can debate the definition of art forever and still not know for certain what it is and whether it matters), are people okay with my two different "art" words? (art and Art™?") that I defined above?

 

[Necronic]

I'd be more inclined to say that done properly, video game design can be an art, much along the same lines as engineering, for instance, can be considered an art, or there can be visionary architects, etc.

This this this this and this.

When it comes to story I am generally inclined to say that at best a few games could be considered art, but more than likely none of them come close to telling stories as well as a movie or a good book does.

Same goes for graphics and the designs therein, graphics are cool, but I don't think they hold a candle to paintings or photography.

But when you look at the design of games, that's where the art is. One thing that defines a game as an artistic masterpiece is when you can design it with simple but well thought out rules and then more complicated rules appear as a result of those basic rules entertwining. The opposite example would be where a game has duct tape all over it to fix gaping holes in the design. Its hard for me to think of specific examples, but any time a strategy game has the enemy do something completely outside of the designers intention, but it completely makes sense, that is an artfully designed game. The AI's combat mechanics in Farcry 2 would be something I would consider artistic.

 

[Chibibar]

I always believe art (or Art) is design/made to inspire people emotionally, intellectually, or physically.

"Physically?" I'm curious what you mean by that. Can you give an example?

Architectural buildings inspires other architect to build similar building cause it is artistic.

 

[Raemon777]

>>Same goes for graphics and the designs therein, graphics are cool, but I don't think they hold a candle to paintings or photography.

Oh I think graphics in computer games can be amazingly artistic in comparison to paintings or photography. But I agree that that by itself is not nearly as interesting as the art of game design, and saying the "graphics are artistic" is not the same as saying "the game is artistic."

But in addition to the game design itself, I think an important "art" worth discussing here is the overall emotional/intellectual/aesthetic impact of the game. Beautiful graphics can be effective not only as a beautiful thing unto themselves, but something that is essential to a greater experience that combines the music, the graphics and the mechanics into one cohesive whole. Myst is a good example of this.

 

[Necronic]

I don't think games can affect most people in an emotional way any where near how much a normal/RL piece of art can. I think what (good) games excel at is challenging our brains, not sure if that's what you meant by intellectual. Aesthetically I guess I can see some games that pull that off, like Shadow of the Collosus. The problem with Aesthetics in games has always been that at some point the graphics become dated and it just doesn't look good anymore. Name 1 game from the Nintendo era that is Aesthetically artistic. I'm not sure I could.

Just thought of another design that is definitely artistic. Combat in Ninja Gaiden. The fact that combat guides have been written that read like hand to hand instruction manuals says something about the quality of the design.

 

[Raemon777]

The fact is, most "art" doesn't really impact me all that much emotionally. The feeling I get from the Mona Lisa is really not all that significant. Yes, if you seriously study the piece you can find a lot of things to appreciate, but the same can be said about even of the simplest games.

As for graphics: in the nintendo era, there was a) a lot of serious limitations on hardware, b) art for games had yet to become a serious endeavor. So no, I can't think of any games offhand that are visually-aesthetically pleasing (I don't think aesthetics have to be visual, but I'm honestly not 100% sure how to define aesthetics so I'm trying not to use the word too much. I know that it generally means "appreciation of beauty" but think there's more to it than that).

Now, we're at a point where graphics have immense capabilities. Games that go "for realism" will still be outclassed by newer titles over the next few decades, although eventually it will hit the maximum threshold of photoreal. But even in the meantime, there are plenty of games that maintain their beauty by using stylized graphics. WarCraft is one of the premier examples of this. While they've updated it somewhat, in general Ironforge is just as impressive to a person entering it for the first time now as someone who entered it for the first time 5 years ago.

It doesn't even have to be a big title. Robot Unicorn Attack has become one of my favorite games, possibly all time, because every time I play it I just feel so stupidly happy I can't even describe it. The visuals are not going to look dated in 20 years, they're going to look exactly as cartoony and silly as they do now. They will also be as "good," insofar as all the platforms have distinct, appealing silhouettes and harmonious vivid colors. The upbeat music is also an important part of the experience, and is already old enough to be retro, so it's not like it can really go out of style either.

Myst is close to twenty years old, and I still get chills when I start up a new game.

 

[figmentPez]

I would say he'd argue that Murder mystery dinner parties, historical reenactments, amusement park rides are not art.

I'm sure that Walt Disney would disagree with him on at least one of those points, and I'd much rather go with a creator's view of art than with a critic's.

Music is art, drawing/painting is art, acting is art, writing is art. If Mr. Ebert doesn't think that art + art + art + art = art, then I don't think any video game could convince him otherwise.

 

[Raemon777]

I recently went to Disney World for the first time in my adult life, and was extreme impressed with the way the experience was put together. In particular, it used a lot of things very similar to level design, in terms of how you directed people to where you wanted them to go without feeling like you were railroading them on a fixed path. It actually had a kind of WoW quality to it. You enter a given "world" (i.e. Epcott, Magic Kingdom, etc), and are presented with an introductory ride that showcases all the major themes of the world. Then you get to explore different zones of the world, each of which had a subtheme, each of them culminating in a ride which then transitioned into a cinematic which transitioned into a gift shop (dungeon, cinematic, loot). Then at the end of the night you had an incredible fireworks display that brought all the disparate themes back together again in a climactic finish. I'm not sure whether this is neat or sad, but at the end of each section I actually flexed in anticipation of an achievement notice popping up saying "You just completed the Viking area!" and was mildly sad when it didn't happen.

There were things I could see that needed improving, but overall it was a very polished "emotioneering" experience that I would absolutely consider artistic.