Interview BioInterview: Games Are Not Art

[Cassidy]

At least they are honest in this detail from their PoV. There is absolutely no artistic desire or emotion put in their creations, which are simply cold outcomes of statistical marketing researches about what the lowest common denominator desires. It is a purely technical, scientific approach to development even if its result displeases more cultured minorities, and as such, it lacks any artistic worth.

If every painter made polls asking people what they want and catered to the desire of the majority, there would be no art.

 

[Ulminati]

Rape also has a lasting emotional impact on the person. So what is his point, that playing modern games is like getiing r.... oh wait. I see it now.

At least where I live, games being accepted as art would mean that instead of you paying 25% extra as tax to the government, you'd pay 9%.

That's a pretty decent cost reduction.

ITT we learn that tasteful rape will give us tax cuts

 

[CrimHead]

IMAGINE, IF YOU WILL, IF ROMEO AND JULIET HAD ENDED ON A HAPPY NOTE, AND HOW THAT WOULD HAVE DIMINISHED THE OVERALL IMPACT OF THE STORY AS A WHOLE

/SMA

 

[Rhalle]

 

[circ]

Dude.

On May 23, 2007, a tin was sold for EUR124,000 at Sotheby's, and in October 2008, tin 083 was offered for sale at Sotheby's with an estimate of GBP50-70,000. The increasing value of this work of art adds to its level of irony. One of Manzoni's collaborators, Agostino Bonalumi, revealed that the tins are not full of faeces, but plaster.

That is some motherfucking expensive shit. Literally.

 

[spectre]

What is all this games - art shit that's happening recently? Is it about manchildren basement dwellers wanting to feel smug and educated in company? Lolz, I'm not doing the kiddie stuff, it's art you see. FFS, just embrace the fuck out of it.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

I'm on a bit of a Shakespeare kick at the moment, rereading the histories, and I have to say that video games just don't even come close to comparing.

 

[waywardOne]

here are some other things that are so last century, according to bioware:

* character development sans 12-year old's emotional capacity
* interesting & complex plots unfolding without lolwut plot "twists"
* complete games available upon release
* etc & fuck you

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

IMAGINE, IF YOU WILL, IF ROMEO AND JULIET HAD ENDED ON A HAPPY NOTE, AND HOW THAT WOULD HAVE DIMINISHED THE OVERALL IMPACT OF THE STORY AS A WHOLE

/SMA

Heh, you have to admit that it's true. Not all stories are equally meaningful. If we want to define video games by an interactive narrative, then more often than not we'll wind up with thematic mush. Besides, the actual GAME part of video games, be it shooting rocket launchers, or building more pylons, are completely divorced from meaning, merely existing to provide a enjoyable experience. We don't call the rules of baseball art, even though those rules produce games which are entertaining to those who play or them. Likewise, we shouldn't call the DPS rating of a weapon, i.e. the actual mechanics that make a game a game, art. Narrative, music, etc. are all just window dressing to the core gameplay experience. The fact that video game levels are prototyped and play tested without any sort of art, just crude geometry, should tell you what's actually important in games. Hint: it's not artistic beauty.

edit: Art is sometimes called Fine Art. Fine, in this case, actually refers to the Latin finis or end. Fine Art is fine, because it is an end in itself. It serves no purpose except to exist for the viewer, reader, or listener to behold. The artistic elements of video games, i.e. music, 3D models, dialogue, etc, exist not for themselves but to dress-up a fundamentally non-artistic experience: gameplay.

 

[Gragt]

I'll say it again: discussing whether something is art or not is a red herring. Let it be art if you want to. What matters is how it fares under this angle.

Anyway the BioDocs say trite things again. What a surprise. If they really want to convince that games are (or can be) art, they're not helping.

 

[CrimHead]

Heh, you have to admit that it's true. Not all stories are equally meaningful. If we want to define video games by an interactive narrative, then more often than not we'll wind up with thematic mush.

You have quite the arbitrary definition for determining whether or not something is art you know. You're saying that art MUST have a theme, but not only a theme, a SPECIFIC theme. And this is just not true. Poetry for example, relies on the interpretation of the reader to be effective. And good poetry rarely has a concrete, easily definable theme. My interpretation of a given poem might be drastically different from yours and both of us still be right. Furthermore, your interpretation of a poem may lead you to believe it is unimportant while another believes it to be life-changing. Does this mean the poem is not art, because its meaning can be warped so? How is this different from a game whose emotional impact is dependent on the choices of the player?

I'm sure you've heard the saying "Focus on the journey, not the destination"? Well the true art in video games IS the interactive element: the journey, the ability to make your own choices, not the outcome of your choices: the destination (or the theme). Video games are totally seperate from literature ; you shouldn't judge them by the same criteria. Being able to define your own story (rather than the outcome of the story)--therein lies the artistic element of video games.

I'm on a bit of a Shakespeare kick at the moment, rereading the histories, and I have to say that video games just don't even come close to comparing.

Art != Good art.

Although quite an exceptional example of the potential of video games, I'd be forced to agree even Planescape Torment doesn't begin to compare with Macbeth on an artistic level. That doesn't mean its not art though. But hell, what modern art DOES begin to compare with Shakespeare? If the bar for art is Shakespeare, then shit, I'm pretty sure nothing within the century is going to be able to qualify.

 

[ChristofferC]

I don't care about art. Art is bullshit. Everything is art. Nothing is art.

 

[Broseidon]

derp

 

[Arcanoix]

It's official, games are movies.

Fixed for what BioWare really fucking meant. And Dear BioWare, when you start making good games again, I'll start thinking of giving you my money. Until then, I'm officially done with BioWare.

Games aren't art. Neither are movies, tv shows, books, and so on. Only art is art. I sure wans't taught about films, books, or games in art class. FFS

Interactive media is actually an art as there are artists involved. Also - there are writers, cutscene directors, etc.

 

[Jaesun]

Why does anyone give a fuck what Bioware thinks?

All their games speak for themselves.

 

[Berekän]

Why does anyone give a fuck if videogames are art?

Fixed.

I always get reminded of this

 

[Rhalle]

Why does anyone give a fuck if videogames are art?

Because computer games once offered the possibility of the creation of a brand new and interesting genre, which might have aspired to be actual art, and yet be like nothing we'd ever seen before.

 

[Mackerel]

But hell, what modern art DOES begin to compare with Shakespeare?

Soap Operas?

 

[Gragt]

But hell, what modern art DOES begin to compare with Shakespeare?

Ibsen, Beckett, O'Neill, Shaw, … And those are only playwrights, else you can find plenty of artists in other fields that were greater than Shakespeare.

 

[Topher]

Something being art doesn't mean it's good art.

... also I'm of the mindset that everything considered art by anyone is art. If you design a school desk with the mindset that it has an artistic message then it's art but if you design the same desk for a practical purpose it's suddenly not to be considered art; regardless of it's quality. That makes no fucking sense to me at all. Art is just as functional as anything else, it was made for a reason just like anything else; I just don't see the difference.

I say the desk is art, maybe I think it's good art, maybe I think it's bad art.

 

[CrimHead]

greater than Shakespeare.

Well that's just like.

Your opinion.

Man.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Once in a while, I hear that Shakes was just a mediocre writer that got lucky. Others are more codexian about it and say he was a hack, plain and simple.

I don't care enough about the subject to be enraged. I think he's funny.

 

[poocolator]

Shakespeare got lucky because he found a magical pen?

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Once in a while, I hear that Shakes was just a mediocre writer that got lucky.

I've only read one of his books, but occasionally I say this for the lulz. The resulting butthurt can power your posting habits for years to come.

Anyways Othello was pretty shit, and I remember our English professor reading, like, way to much into the play including race and slavery issues.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Shakespeare got lucky because he found a magical pen?

If Lionheart's to be believed, it's because he found a Muse spirit companion to inspire him. For some reason, she also gives him some fighting ability.