Attitudes about games
polycounter lvl 18
I just read another article talking about how games are somehow destructive or inferior to other activities (like reading, in this article).
Maybe I am preaching to the choir here, but I just wanted to get across what I, and I think a lot of us, feel video games are:
-Video games are the ultimate art form. The last 30,000 years of human endeavor in the arts have been leading to right now-- the developement of the final and most complete art form.
-Video games are not just Pong. Someone should have told this stupid grad student that did the above study that some games consist almost entirely of reading.
-There are over 40,000 people like us who think games are so important that we devote our lives to working on them. We are not all 15 year old boys. We are men and women, fathers, mothers, husbands and wives. We are very creative and very smart because what we do for a living is very very difficult.
Most people who criticize games out there are totally ignorant when it comes to the symbols and conventions of games. It is like an army of illiterate people burning books when these people attack video games. These people are nothing short of Nazis and deserve nothing but contempt for their views.
So when you talk to non-gamers about video games, do what I do; make it painfully clear that you pity them for being so poorly educated. That video games in their billion possible formats is the nacent ultimate art form, and you are helping to bring it to fruition, while they sit in a coma-like stupor just watching non-interactive "entertainment".
Maybe I am preaching to the choir here, but I just wanted to get across what I, and I think a lot of us, feel video games are:
-Video games are the ultimate art form. The last 30,000 years of human endeavor in the arts have been leading to right now-- the developement of the final and most complete art form.
-Video games are not just Pong. Someone should have told this stupid grad student that did the above study that some games consist almost entirely of reading.
-There are over 40,000 people like us who think games are so important that we devote our lives to working on them. We are not all 15 year old boys. We are men and women, fathers, mothers, husbands and wives. We are very creative and very smart because what we do for a living is very very difficult.
Most people who criticize games out there are totally ignorant when it comes to the symbols and conventions of games. It is like an army of illiterate people burning books when these people attack video games. These people are nothing short of Nazis and deserve nothing but contempt for their views.
So when you talk to non-gamers about video games, do what I do; make it painfully clear that you pity them for being so poorly educated. That video games in their billion possible formats is the nacent ultimate art form, and you are helping to bring it to fruition, while they sit in a coma-like stupor just watching non-interactive "entertainment".
Replies
I can't think of any game that can compare with a really good book.
The question is, who's man enough to make those games, those groundbreaking experiences of gaming, that history will look back and view as the milestones in gaming's progression into accepted art?
Not like it matters, I could give a shit what old people think about my hobby/career, and there will always be art snobs that look down on other forms of art. But games, we still have a ways to go. We'll get there, but just like every other new form of art, it takes time.
Really, what isn't art? The term is prescribed to anything seeking to gain acceptance from a higher authority or the consensus of the populace.
Games are an entertainment product. If that is art, then so is a slotmachine, a dildo, a dartboard and yo-yos.
Now what?
I definitely agree with ya though Ninjas. It's very frustrating talking to people who dislike video games merely because of stereotypes and/or the media. Oh well, it'll change, it'll just require a generation or two.
And yea, Ferg is right about how all major art forms have been treated similar (or worse). In all seriousness, everything from books to painting styles to motion picture to music styles have been treated like this. They're only giving us validation that games are indeed *the* new, best art form by treating us the same as those of the past.
[edit] After reading the article it didn't seem that bad to me Ninjas. The reading part was obviously fairly biased in that it showed the author felt reading was more productive, but overall it seemed fairly neutral.[/edit]
Now living in Maine it is really no different. A lot of people around here think work consists of going out in the woods cutting down trees, doing construction, teaching or something like that. I mention what I do and people are like you play video games for a living? How does that work?
But so far the worst one I think. I was in the local Gamestop to reserve Halo 3 Legendary Edition. The guys that work there started talking about Rockband and how cool it's gonna be and they were wondering how many guitars there are going to be in game. So just messing around I was like well there is a lot with a lot of different variations. They turned to me and asked how I knew and I said because I'm working on the game as a 3d artist. These three bastards all looked at me then at each other and fucking cracked up laughing. "haha This guy said he works on video games. haha and he lives in Maine. haha."
I just walked out in disbelief by how stupid some people can be. Oh well.
BUT back on track. I agree that video games are art forms and we do need a game to go that extra mile to make people see that. Maybe in a couple more years more people will understand.
To whom it may concern,
I was just reading about a research article one of your graduate students recently had published. Hope Cummings' article, which I have not had the chance of reading yet, was about how games took time away from reading and homework. I understand that your department heads, teachers and students may be woefully uneducated about the video game art form, so I feel it is my duty to point out that a video games can both be almost entirely reading or entirely homework.
Unlike the more primitive arts, video games can take many forms. The text adventure, or interactive fiction (IF), is a genre of video game that has existed for more than 30 years. There is a vibrant sub-culture of very smart and well educated adults who create and play IF. When your department fails to recognize that games can be reading, you are putting yourself in the dubious company of people who have attacked the output of authors out of ignorance.
Video games can also be homework. One of my artist colleagues in the game industry is on a team producing an educational game that will be used at public schools. It is hardly the first game to be created for the American public school system. In fact, just about everyone these days understands that games can be useful teaching tools. Perhaps you have heard of Prof. Ryuta Kawashima MD's Brain Training games which have sold over 8 million copies to people in every walk of life.
The fact is that as an economist and professional game developer, I am constantly dismayed by the poor understanding that non-gamers have about video games. Video games use graphics as symbols that represent what will happen next in the game. Focusing on the what the graphics look like, or what is depicted on the screen at any given time is like focusing on the shapes of letters without understanding that letters form words and sentences that represent ideas.
Over 40,000 men and women think games are important enough to spend every day working on them. We are not teenagers huddled in basements. We are very smart and capable adult professionals like yourself. Many of us give up jobs that would pay better so that we can advance the art form; because we think the work we do is important.
Thank you very much for you time.
Aubrey Serr,
Game Developer
Who cares if it is art or not? What difference does it make?
Really, what isn't art? The term is prescribed to anything seeking to gain acceptance from a higher authority or the consensus of the populace.
Games are an entertainment product. If that is art, then so is a slotmachine, a dildo, a dartboard and yo-yos.
Now what?
[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that the article was stupid and that the study had a fundimental flaw based on a misunderstanding about games.
You can call games whatever you want, but they are obviously art. Not just art but an art form that includes all the other ones and more, and is therefor superior.
It is pretty clear that games are just starting out. We are in the silent movie era of game development. It is going to take a lot longer than with movies or books or music to produce the best games, because games are much more complicated than any of those other art forms.
I know that this article wasn't particularly bad, but it is just the last straw for me.
Although, as I said, it did seem like the article you posted was fairly neutral. I mean, two of the highlights of the article are
-Gaming does not impact time spent with friends and parents
-Video game play can be a distraction but may not hurt grades
Doesn't seem too bad to me.
-Video games are the ultimate art form. The last 30,000 years of human endeavor in the arts have been leading to right now-- the developement of the final and most complete art form.
[/ QUOTE ]
yes, that would be true, if what's being expressed wasn't complete juvenile over simplistic shit.
and calling anything "final" is dubious. in fact it's wrong.
I do agree that most mainstream games are pretty sorry examples of what we could be doing.
[ QUOTE ]
-Gaming does not impact time spent with friends and parents
-Video game play can be a distraction but may not hurt grades
Doesn't seem too bad to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
The implication is that games cannot count as social time, that games are only for kids and that games are never part of school work. Even these "positive" points annoy me
I actually think calling video games the final art form is pretty safe. If anything comes along it will just be absorbed by games. I will be happy to be wrong though if something really substantial comes along.
[/ QUOTE ]
I dunno, I think there's room for stuff after games. True virtual reality, something like the holodeck for example, would take things so much to a different level that it would cease to become a game--even though it might include games, stories, and interaction within its framework...I'm not sure what you would call that sort of framework, but its a long way off.
Also, the definition of 'Video' in video games limits its longetivity..."video" is on it's way out. But that's nitpicking over semantics
I think games could really benefit from an auteur culture, but the developement tools need to get even better before you start seeing many people trying to make complicated games on their own with any success.
It's funny because I think video games are the only medium in which people hold up the worst, rather than the best, examples to judge it.
Blankslatejoe: I get what you are saying. It will be interesting to see if people consider virtual reality just an extension of normal reality, as a "video"game, or as something completely new.
To me games art is pure commerical art, but thats not to say you could n't make it as 'high art' if you wanted in terms of content, but essentially is commercial art, no better or worse than airbrushed athena posters:)
And in that case, reality and the game world can easily become blurred, especially in impressionable minds. Another thing I see becoming a problem is when we finally get photo-realistic graphics in real time. I mean, what then?
but, for all the spookiness of it, it would be a completely new medium too.
Btw, virtual reality is a silly concept (like time travel), and it died when John Carmack made interactive 3D fun and faster than 5 FPS.
It's all a matter of taste, personally i prefer reading a good novel over playing whatever awesome game. Better graphics equal bigger hollywood explosions and the stories and gameplay in games still can't hold a candle against a good old book.
One day it might, but i suspect it will go down the path hollywood goes. 2 really good games every 3 years, one of them maybe even slightly innovative, and 87 clones of it after that.
While i would say that games themselves are an art form, it is kinda hard to take them seriously. Let's look at them:
-Almost all games have a story that can barely keep up with a bad B movie.
-Most games do look like made by teenagers, unproportionated characters, crappy textures, shitty animations, inconsistent style. Next gen just makes it worse, you can see that bad art and anatomy even better with normalmaps.
-The gameplay... again, most B movies have more twists and turns than most games do. Sure, running through tunnels and shooting with 10 different guns at monsters that look different but act the same can be fun, but so is tennis, or biking or swimming or drinking. Hardly the culmination of anything but entertainment maybe.
Games as a respectable art form has still a long way to go imo, if ILM was solely run by your average game artists, we'd be bashing the CG in movies too. And if whoever conjures game stories tried to write the next Foundation killer ...oh dear.
I've had it too while i lived in uptight switzerland, people looking at me as if i didn't have a real job, telling me 'it would be a shame if you had to get a real job eh ?'.
I always thought it was funny, i was having a good life working from home for years and some grown up morons with bloody annoying jobs were acting like jelaous teenagers.
Seriously, when somebody starts like that just laugh straight in their faces. They wont understand your dedication and love or any other sentimental blurb... just keep it simple: Do they have a cool job they love with an awesome atmosphere, can they play pool at work or sit around chatting with coworkers... i'm sure everybody has perks and freedoms most people with normal jobs haven't.
Don't take your job to serious.
Is magic the gathering art ? Life fantasy roleplaying ? playing with your transformer toys as the designers intended ? They all provide an immersive experience.
Of course, if actors qualify as artists, then those weirdo fantasy roleplayers are all artists too... where does it stop ? ...anything can be art these days, has been discussed often enough, i'm not even arguing that. Games are art.
The question here is i suppose, how much more respect should video games get over organized life roleplaying events.
I think you all expect too much. I'm glad people here where i am now do think that i have the ultimate job, but i don't expect professors to bow before me and show respect because i'm a little artist in a huge entertainment industry.
The craziest part about working in the game industry is the environment. It IS fun and games, but it's also harder than you'll ever work in your life. I know a lot of people that may stress themselves physically and mentally harder than I do in the work place in a given day... but they'll never amount to the number of hours I've put in.
It's a whole new methodology on how people work. We play at our jobs, we drink and have a good time at our jobs, but we're also there 60+ hours a week.
If we didn't have those luxuries WHILE at work, we wouldn't be able to release what we release in the time frames we're given. We're still cogs in a big machine, but that doesn't mean our devotion isn't recognized by the people that we seek to impress.
I like to think of art of as an inclusive term, not an exlusive one, so I would take all those examples as art.
In terms of pure creative expression, I don't think any one form of art is any more legitimate than another. Personal taste is something else altogether.
Games should be regarded on equal terms with any other medium, but it has yet to receive even that much respect. I think the industry itself is undeserving in a lot of ways, but the medium itself should not be invalidated just because the industry tends to cater to juvenile tastes. I think the public will come around, once developers become more adventurous and people less technophobic, maybe generations from now as Tulkamir suggested.
I think people are only asking that professors stop scoffing at the mere mention of video games, not bow to developers.
I don't know, virtual reality has always seemed like a bad idea to me, because to achieve virtual reality you basically trick the mind into seeing things that aren't there.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its interesting that you said that, I was recently listening to a free audiobook of a 2300 year old thesis on that very subject.
[ QUOTE ]
And in that case, reality and the game world can easily become blurred, especially in impressionable minds. Another thing I see becoming a problem is when we finally get photo-realistic graphics in real time. I mean, what then?
[/ QUOTE ]
Something like this?
[ QUOTE ]
Video games are the ultimate art form. The last 30,000 years of human endeavor in the arts have been leading to right now-- the developement of the final and most complete art form.
[/ QUOTE ]
I just read another article talking about how games are somehow destructive or inferior to other activities (like reading, in this article).
[/ QUOTE ]
Have him play any Bioware game and he should calm down.
Frank the Avenger
"Maybe I am preaching to the choir here, but I just wanted to get across what I, and I think a lot of us, feel video games are:"
[/ QUOTE ]
your opinions are your own.
I don't really think of myself as an artist. Sure, I "create" for a living...but it's usually someone else's idea and for a pay cheque. I'd almost like to say that real "artists" have a totally different lifestyle than me (and I would assume most game artists), devoting their entire being to make something that expresses themselves....I'm not like that, I'm not trying to prove anything or make some bold statement. I just like to make pretty things for games and get paid to do it
[/ QUOTE ]
What you describe as an "artist" there is pretty much exactly what I do. I live frugally, take on contract work here and there to pay the bills and work my ass of on my own projects, or with a few other people, to make the games I want to make.
Obviously a lot of people here are just working on Generic MMORPG #1630, or Generic Third-Person Shooter # 1289, and that is fine, but to confuse what I am talking about with those games is like confusing Bad Boys 2 with Citizen Kane. It is totally clear to me that there is not a "Citizen Kane" of video games, and that one of the reasons for that is that so many talanted artists are toiling away on another lame knockoff game. At the current rate, video games will NEVER get to that level of quality. Things have actually gotten worse. In the last 10 years there have been virtually no advancements made in game design. The late 90's saw the creation or refinement of the RTS, the FPS, the fighting game and the MMORPG. The 70's and 80's saw equal advancements in game design.
I personally think that large teams and pandering ball-less executives are to blame for the pathetic state of game design. I think avant-garde game design will be centered around small teams. In the same way that a band has a singer, guitarist and drummer, game development teams need a musician, programmer and artist.
I have written short stories, and I have worked on movies, music, and scultpure and I there is no doubt in my mind that video games are the hardest to execute. Beyond that, games can be so much more. They can be semi-interactive movies, or text adventures or dancing games. So many people compare games to movies first. I actually think a better comparison is to music, since I think both games and music are more about evoking feelings than telling stories.
In terms of "getting respect" from the researchers who did this study, it is not even the point. The point is that thier research has fundimental problems, and that they should do their job better. I did, by the way, get a very respectful return email stating that their research was largely misrepresented by the media.
The problem with true innovation and true originality is that it is nesseccarily "before it's time" People often claim to want to see something they've never seen before. The reality is when confronted with something they truely haven't ever seen before they won't know what to do with it. It won't be widely liked. It won't be successful enough to continue production on more, and generally it will destroy whoever created it. Then, only later when society is ready to understand, or approach it will it be appriciated and accepted.
What's the secret ... a new way to group units in an RTS ?
What are your freetime projects, anything innovative like anime ninja models with giant swords ?
That sure hasn't been explored enough.
I had the same lifestyle for 3+ years, but somehow all my personal projects where the same old plug-in player models, textures and props everybody else was doing.
All the games i helped with in my spare time were, at the end of the day, the same old shooter or scifi RTS or whatever crap too. Of course everybody thinks they can do better and that they have this 1 innovating idea that will set them apart.
I personally think the main reason why there hasn't been much advancement in game design is:
1. who cares, there's more to life than games. People want a good and fun life which requires a stable income.
Approaching games as a superior art form and trying to be all innovative and fancy, instead of seeing them as what they truely are, mass market entertainment, just isn't so safe.
What is a good game for you, a game worth noting, learning from, drawing inspiration from... a rather innovative and fun game (according to some) that sadly not enough people could relate to and flopped, or what seems to be a generic game that sold 8 million copies and keeps people hooked for years ?
Personally, i'd rather work on the generic one and be listed among the artists responsible for that game.
...althought for the right bonu$, they don't even have to list me.
To me art is a method used to communicate an idea. It can be a moral, an abstract philosophy, a more solid idea, an emotion, even "this looks pretty", or "space aliens are bad, it's fun to shoot them!", and can be conveyed in many ways (imagery, speech, writing, action, *interactivity*). Because this is what I feel is art I do feel that video games are the next big artistic movement, just as film is/was. It creates a new manner in which an "artist" can communicate to the audience, perhaps in a more complete form as a game, through interaction, allows the audience to become more deeply involved, and as such allows what is being communicated to be driven home deeper.
I don't think art is some idiot sitting at home "expressing" himself and not being able to sell his "expressions". That's called a pretentious, lazy arsewad. Should get a job and make himself some use to society.
Just bringing this up because the people argueing against seem to have opinions based largely in cynisism...
Here are some ideas I have had recently:
- A game that locks itself so you can't play it anymore once your character dies. You only get one chance to beat it
- A game that lets you only play a certain amount of time each day and rewards you with more playtime as in-game pick-ups
- A game that "plays itself" when you are not actively controlling it
- A game with realistic avatar damage (ie, pulled muscle, broken leg, etc)
- A game that is not set in a sci-fi, fantasy, historic, horror or cutesy setting (that is not a sports or racing title).
- An FPS game that has no graphics, only sound cues so that blind people can play
i appreciate the amount of respect you have for the title. but, i don't see 'liking' the piece or agreeing with the message is a requirement for a piece of "art". some art wants to piss you off.
and worse still, as ninja implies, assuming one form of art or medium was greater than all others and had become the final and most complete art form. that obviously is a personal feeling.
Its like the difference between an illustrator and a concept artist. Concept artists are production artists, they are there to serve the needs of the team - explore ideas and portray important information about their subjects to the other team members.
Some illustrators like to think they are concept artists and don't understand why every picture that they paint cant be this wonderful work of art, with dramatic lighting and interesting compositions and action.
These people are usually the ones who go around and get frustrated with the industry and leave after a few years. They dont deliver what there teams needs and they selfishly push their own agenda because really dont care about the game, they care about making art.
-Take the same principals and apply them to your game related art job. Work hard, make things look as good as possible, with in the limitations of the game/platform and be happy.
Games are meant to be fun, they are commercially driven products and StrangeFate makes good sense! (who would have guessed!!;)) There are indie games just like indie films that are made if you want to do something radically different from whats out there.
I love cheesy cliche game art! I like demons, aliens and chicks with big guns. Sales figures suggest lots of other people like them to so I am happy to continue making them.
i have always felt it was pretentious to exclude the "pretentious expressive idiots" works from the title of art.
i appreciate the amount of respect you have for the title. but, i don't see 'liking' the piece or agreeing with the message is a requirement for a piece of "art". some art wants to piss you off.
and worse still, as ninja implies, assuming one form of art or medium was greater than all others and had become the final and most complete art form. that obviously is a personal feeling.
[/ QUOTE ]
Should've explained that part better. Basically, if they are sitting in their basement "expressing" themselves all day and making no money because no one wants to buy their work, it is failed art IMO. If the audience doesn't understand whats being communicating it's not doing its job. What annoys me is that a lot of "artists" will hide behind the "They just don't understand art" sort of idea to justify themselves, rather than trying to figure out why their work isn't communicating itself and improve. But that stuff is moot this this topic, so yea. :S
Besides, all this crap is terminology. Games are what they are. Labeling them won't make it any different.
And Ninjas is in a sense right about games being the most complete art form (currently atleast). They combine all the components of other art forms in current use (ex: visuals, motion, audio, literature/story, interactivity, etc...) Whether or not that makes them the best is personal opinion, and whether or not the final is yet to be seen.
I just read another article
-Video games are the ultimate art form. The last 30,000 years of human endeavor in the arts have been leading to right now-- the developement of the final and most complete art form.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think a master painting is the ultimate art form, but art is subjective, so if the only thing you have ever seen of art is a game, then yeah that's your opinion, but I don't know anyone who can claim to have mastered their art form like lets say Da'Vinci or Michaelangelo. Those were true masters.
3D is mostly production art, and isn't considered real art by most because it's not a tangible thing like lets say a sculpture made of resin is. It's data, no more no less unfortunately, so I feel it has a long way to go, and I wish it was taken more seriously as a real art but I am afraid we are the only ones who see it that way.
But 3d is essentially sculpting, so I don't know. The biggest problem I have with games is that they cost far too much to make anymore and have adopted a bigger is better mentality. I haven't played a game that was more engrossing then Fallout, and I'm afraid I never will again, because like with movies, games have to appeal to the masses, and that means more violence, more blood, more realism, and less style, which in my opinion seems to take priority over things like, art style, art direction, story, and gameplay.
/end rant.
Approaching games as a superior art form and trying to be all innovative and fancy, instead of seeing them as what they truely are, mass market entertainment, just isn't so safe.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ignoring the superior artform comment, I disagree with this kind of perspective. If you mean it isn't financially safe, you are correct. Most of my favorite movies were box offices failures, come to think of it. In vain of what Cthogua was saying, creative risks will rarely be financial successes, but it's not always about the money and we're often better for it.
Movies are about as "mass market entertainment" as you can get, and there are movies that have moved me and entertained me as much as any song or book or painting or what have you.
I think it's important to take risks in art, and I think this kind of "who cares, there's more to life" mentality is the antithesis to any sort of progress. You could say that same shit about every other endeavor ever undertaken.
"Paint the Sistine chapel? Who cares, it's only art if it's on a canvas."
"Climb Mt. Everest? What for?"
"Go to the moon? Who cares, there's nothing there."
I'm kinda disappointed that half the people in this thread are just "eh, whatever sells is fine". I was reading an article somewhere saying that the state of games is like going to the theatre, and every screen is showing a Michael Bay movie. I like explosions and guns and superheroes and spaceships and all that stuff, but what's wrong with trying something different? Hell, you might even like it.
Oh, wait, someone might think we're pretentious for trying anything different. We'd better stay in our safe little corner, right? Come on, now.
P.S. I am mad because the reply boxes are SO SMALL
I have no interest in seeing game art as a socially excepted artform. I am not against it, I just don't care either way. That's not to say I don't enjoy gaining respect from my peers (other game developers), because I certainly do. Why else would I post here?
Do you think your average NASA engineer is trying to change the world, worried about humanity reaching the stars more than about a good paycheck ?
[ QUOTE ]
I was reading an article somewhere saying that the state of games is like going to the theatre, and every screen is showing a Michael Bay movie.
[/ QUOTE ]
See that's crap, there's as many 'innovative' games out there today as there ever were or more, i don't see why i should worry about it.
Once upon a time, there used to be fewer games, and everything one made was new, and you couldn't miss it because there weren't that many target platforms either nor $10Mio marketing budgeds overshadowing every other game.
Now you have DS, PSP, PC, xbox, PS, Wii...
I think there's enough small developers doing original and innovative content, that anyone who complains or simply wants to create the ultimate whatever can find a spot on some cool DS or PSP team doing games that are fun, innovative and affordable to make and take risks with.
Money doesn't matter afterall, if you want your name under a game with big explosions you know that it has to be mainstream, because those explosions cost money, that's never gonna change.
Now that i think of it, Transformers must suck, they changed things to make the movie accessible to a wider audience, damn them. They should have stuck to the original designs only die had fans would like, and done the movie with half the budget and crappy 3D effects... that would have been art.
It's the ulimate art form simply because it has such a loose definition, as to include video/text? Thats a horrible reason.
and I pretty much agree with everything Strangefate said