![[Uproxx Logo]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/themes/ur_v3/images/uproxx_logo_2011.gif){kind=logo}
Why Video Games Aren’t Art…Yet
09.30.10
Earlier this summer I managed to piss off a lot of people with my opinion on Roger Ebert’s opinion, and I thought it was worth explaining in a bit more detail. I’m going to lay it out in a few points, and after that, maybe we can have an interesting discussion. Or just yell at each other over which game is better. Whatever. My argument has three points:
- Video Games Generally Aren’t Any Good As a Storytelling Medium.
- To Be Art, They Don’t Have to Be.
- Trying to Be a Storytelling Medium is Largely What Makes Modern Gaming Suck and Is Keeping Gaming From Becoming Art In The First Place.
Let’s start with point one: games aren’t good as a storytelling medium. Because, well, they aren’t.
![[avatar]](http://p.uproxxcdn.com/global/images/default-avatar.jpg){kind=avatar}
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2012/05/DiabloIIIcover-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2012/05/94aaa_Star_Wars-_The_Old_Republic_cover-150x150.jpg)
I think you’re forgetting the best video game of my life time:
the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles game for the NES.
you are old fuck dumbass, die already, bcuz video games are an art its just they did not exist when you were born for the first 100 years, so of course movies are your thing. You probably suck at call of duty and are jealous, but really, whats to be jealous about the amazing concepts and movie concepts these games are now coming up with?
What’s the argument here? Just as much artistic endeavour was required to create the immersive playground of a game like Just Cause 2 as the bits of the planet that we are allowed to see in Avatar, and the game has the added bonus of allowing the player to blow some of that beautifully rendered world to bits.
Great video games, like great sport, can transcend art.
Here’s a link to an article that contary old duffers like Ebert could do well to read:
[www.guardian.co.uk]
Or, y’know, what George said.
And “contrary”, goddamnit.
If critics and fanboys weren’t suckers for simplistic nihilism and high-pressure marketing, Mass Effect 2 would be universally acclaimed as a visionary feat, superior to Inception and Avatar on every level.
I think there is a difference between the movie-like art of Metal Gear Solid or Uncharted versus simply exploring a sand box like Grand Theft Auto.
best argument i’ve read on either side was something i stumbled across here: [stillmashing.com]
I think I’m on the fence about this one. Mainly because I think that if a game’s story is bad, the game is bad. Gears of War is my main target whenever I have this discussion with someone. But, when I think of video games as art, I’m not thinking about the actual game itself, I’m thinking about the elements in the game. For example, look at some of the buildings that Frank Lloyd Wright has designed and built, you can not deny that those are works of art. Now, look at, and compare anyone of them to the castle in the PS2 game “Ico”. If you’re going to tell me that it isn’t a work of art, then you have a really twisted definition of the word “art”. I guess the way I look at it is that the actual gameplay shouldn’t be considered part of the art, because I do agree with you, Isaac is running around this space ship carrying a PLASMA CUTTER, and for some reason he can’t use it to remove some debris in front of a door?? That’s retarded. Unless we want to consider that kind of stupidity the “abstract impressionism” of the video game world.
@Bob
Generally, if the gameplay’s good, I can ignore a bad story because I’m really there to play the game. I’m loving “Dead Rising 2″ because of the gameplay, which seems practically designed in the opening to be an example of how NOT to tell a story in a game, right down to the pacing. But building weapons and smashing zombies with them, or playing the hilarious ridiculous minigames for in-game cash, I couldn’t care less.
Didn’t we already hear about this like 3 months ago?
Um… what about Frogger?
Even Ebert retracted his statement. As well, Dan, I love your writing, but I’m gonna have to forcefully disagree with this. Why? Who the hell is anyone to decide what’s art and what’s not? I found (to use your example) shadows of colossus to be a beautiful, moving experience. There’s an element of tragedy in it, going around killing these ancient beings just to get your girlfriend back. At the end, isn’t that what art’s supposed to be about? Evoking emotions? Who cares if it doesn’t tell a story? Does Warhol’s silk screen of a campbell’s soup can tell a story? Just because video games aren’t movies, doesn’t make them any less art, just like music is still art, even though you don’t paint it. Hell, look at Dadaism, art that’s specifically not art, that somehow came back around to being art again by it’s non art-ness.
It’s all subjective, and this debate is pointless.
good points, but i’d agree with Evil Taco and reiterate that art is what you make it. I’ve seen lots of paintings that I think are stupid because they’re a few dots on a page, which ANYONE could make, but it’s still art, because the person making it probably had a reason for it and sees it so. Other people probably do too (and even though I don’t, I have to reluctantly agree that it is, in fact, art). Think about the people who made the game (especially good ones, story, graphics, whatever). They obviously have a talent for making that part of the game and I would argue that this is an art.
In conclusion I quote Evil Taco “It’s all subjective…”.
The vast majority of games I’ve played are far better as “storytelling” mediums than most modern films. I’m not sure what games you play (if any) but you really must not be playing much attention.
Besides why do games have to be good at storytelling to become art? What about the graphics, musical score and the gameplay itself? Your argument is very weak.
I’ve been PC gaming for 20 years.
This is the best article on the subject I’ve read in so many years.