Video games

[Tenofovir]

The same then could be said of some of the games you’re bashing because they’re actually the first in their time. Cloud popularized big swords. Sephiroth helped popularized bishounen (and hence began traumatizing all men via girl-stealing).

I just don’t see the artistic values of big swords or effeminate men with long hair for women. Now it seems every villain has long hair and is effeminate. The bishounen thing was popularised by Yaoi manga though.

This isn’t considering the many horrors that result when many people become too obsessed with ‘originality’. (Yes, such horrors exist. coughSchool Dayscough)

Originality does not imply art. But yes SD would be a horror. But then it was based on an eroge which combine innocent child like characters with porn. Very nasty and I think it is destroying many males in Japan. It’s taking the whole culture of “Moe” and adding victimisation to it. It’s sadism at its worst. Sad.

 

[Baelor]

I’m not thinking just in terms of classical art. I just think the art in games like Final Fantasy is meant to draw out sentimental responses - a girl with wind blowing through her hair, silence as she confesses her love (no sound), tears which run down the cheek with eyes not shown as the male walks away rejecting her etc. all gimmicks. Now I accept that that may appeal to emotion and people like that, but is it art? Perhaps it was art when this convention first came out in Japanese manga in the 70s/80s but now it’s just repeat of the same old, same old and used as a cheap gimmick to elicit quick emotions.

Aesthetic cannot be artistic in itself. Furthermore, how do you define art? What you are describing is a trope, not a cliche. And much literature uses similar “conventions” to elicit emotions from the readers.

 

[Tenofovir]

Aesthetic cannot be artistic in itself. Furthermore, how do you define art? What you are describing is a trope, not a cliche. And much literature uses similar “conventions” to elicit emotions from the readers.

Art is something which enriches one and makes one think or conveys a message which cannot be conveyed easily. It’s something which elevates one’s soul and mind. It tells us something about others (something universal perhaps), and at the same time tells us something about ourselves. It points beyond the obvious. It should be timeless too. Art need not be technically sophisticated too, the works of Naïve art are not. You could say art is man’s search for God.

In terms of industrially churned out video games (music, film, TV, comic books, books), I see pure entertainment with added aesthetics. I also see cheap sentimentality and repeated cliches. Is it art? Well at some level you could say it has artistic qualities - although I would say it’s more of a craft. A painter becomes skilled at painting sunsets and churns out kitschy paintings of sunsets. Is it art - well sure, at some level yes, but again it’s more of a craft, a work of talent possibly and even great effort but not really art. It’s the same with Hollywood - it’s not art but show business. It may be incredibly good (well directed, well written, well performed, with best in the world and most realistic special effects) but it is just assembly line superficial entertainment. Compare Ingmar Bergman to Steven Spielberg. One is an artist, the other an entertainer.

 

[Baelor]

Art is something which enriches one

= totally subjective

and makes one think or conveys a message which cannot be conveyed easily.

Also totally subjective.

It’s something which elevates one’s soul and mind.

Subjective.

It tells us something about others (something universal perhaps), and at the same time tells us something about ourselves.

Directly, or indirectly (i.e. it is capable of leading to this without stating it explicitly or implicitly)?

It points beyond the obvious. It should be timeless too.

Second is subjective; the first is partially.

Art need not be technically sophisticated too, the works of Naïve art are not.

Hmm…debatable. I would argue that ceteris paribus, technical sophistication is superior to lack of technical sophistication, because the latter requires skill and deliberation whereas the former does not. In other words, the person who has t.s. is capable of thinks that the person without it is not, and therefore the art is more meaningful because it is necessarily more deliberate.

You could say art is man’s search for God.

You could also say that it is not necessarily that.

In terms of industrially churned out video games (music, film, TV, comic books, books), I see pure entertainment with added aesthetics.

First, as mentioned, do not discount the aesthetics. Second, many video games are not just churned out. The Old Republic cost at least $200 million, 800 developers on many continents, and is extremely detailed in setting and story. Some games are just moneymakers, but that does not mean that no game can be art.

I also see cheap sentimentality and repeated cliches. Is it art?

Those games (and books, and movies, etc.) are probably not art, no.

A painter becomes skilled at painting sunsets and churns out kitschy paintings of sunsets. Is it art - well sure, at some level yes, but again it’s more of a craft, a work of talent possibly and even great effort but not really art.

If the kitschy paintings of sunsets are all the same and are trite, then sure, it is a craft. But take a breathtaking aesthetic that somehow differs from others – the Halo environment, Xeno saga, FF, Arkham Asylum, etc., and you have examples that could be used to argue that developing a particular aesthetic is more than kitsch.

 

[Lokabrenna]

Are there any games which are genuine works of art and not merely works of kitsch? I doubt it.

I’d call “Flower” a work of art. The player is the wind, and you blow…flowers…around, you can see a gameplay video here: youtube.com/watch?v=RUC2tpY5gb4

“Art” and “kitsch” are subjective terms though. I personally saw Skyrim as a work of art, others see it as an over-hyped steaming pile. For me, walking around town as “The Streets of Whiterun” played or climbing the Seven Thousand Steps at the Throat of the World as “From Past to Present” plays in the background is just awesome. It felt like I was on pilgrimage (even left my horse behind to walk up the mountain.)

Sure, there were moments where it amused me to make my horse break the laws of physics, and dragons occasionally swooped in to ruin my peaceful moments, but still…wow…

 

[septimine]

I’d call “Flower” a work of art. The player is the wind, and you blow…flowers…around, you can see a gameplay video here: youtube.com/watch?v=RUC2tpY5gb4

“Art” and “kitsch” are subjective terms though. I personally saw Skyrim as a work of art, others see it as an over-hyped steaming pile. For me, walking around town as “The Streets of Whiterun” played or climbing the Seven Thousand Steps at the Throat of the World as “From Past to Present” plays in the background is just awesome. It felt like I was on pilgrimage (even left my horse behind to walk up the mountain.)

Sure, there were moments where it amused me to make my horse break the laws of physics, and dragons occasionally swooped in to ruin my peaceful moments, but still…wow…

I’m in the same way with RPGs. I actually think if I had more programming ability and time, it would be fun to make them. The thing I like about RPGs in general is that they are games that make you think – whether what you are doing is good or bad, what you would do in a certain situation. There’s plenty of room for that in most of them, though I think the games are getting so rediculously dark of late that I don’t know if you will be able to play them in the future. It’s like these guys making the game can only think of ways to be evil and make being evil fun. One thing I dislike about Skyrim is that essentially other than the mages giuld, if you join a guild you will do something evil. LIke if you join a knight-like group, you have to become a werewolf.

 

[Lokabrenna]

I’m in the same way with RPGs. I actually think if I had more programming ability and time, it would be fun to make them. The thing I like about RPGs in general is that they are games that make you think – whether what you are doing is good or bad, what you would do in a certain situation. There’s plenty of room for that in most of them, though I think the games are getting so rediculously dark of late that I don’t know if you will be able to play them in the future. It’s like these guys making the game can only think of ways to be evil and make being evil fun. One thing I dislike about Skyrim is that essentially other than the mages giuld, if you join a guild you will do something evil. LIke if you join a knight-like group, you have to become a werewolf.

Not all werewolves in the game are bad, though. I came across one who just so happened to mess with the wrong Daedric prince, and the guild in question uses their situation for good. Now, vampires, on the other hand…even their origin story is messed up.

I will admit that I like “dark” games. The Witcher and Dragon Age are two of my favourites, but I’ve had just as much fun with your typical JRPG (Final Fantasy VIII was my first) which aren’t usually that dark (although Suikoden 2 had its moments, and the Valkyrie Profile series).

As for playing evil, I think there are good ways and not so good ways to do moral choice systems. I think Mass Effect has done a pretty good job with its Paragon/Renegade points being tracked separately. I hardly ever play evil in games (at best, I try for a Neutral Good kind of character) but I can definitely see the appeal, and I’m assuming most gamers don’t go around hijacking cars and using them to mow down pedestrians.

 

[CGDouglas]

One thing I dislike about Skyrim is that essentially other than the mages giuld, if you join a guild you will do something evil. LIke if you join a knight-like group, you have to become a werewolf.

The Companions are mercenaries, not Knights. The closest you will get to a Paladin/Knight class will be the Vigilants of Stendarr. They are the Good faction against Evil (werewolves are included in this bracket).