Aesthetic Gaming

[Agent York]

There are beauty in many things in the world. In environments, people, situations, relationships... Being a more aesthetic person means you more see the beauty in the things and people around you. Which brings up a point usually only talked about for a brief moment as a whole but rarely ever focused on: The beauty of video games.

Some argue that video games are not an art form. Everyone is valid to opinion, but this is all to opinion. Are movies an art form to you, are there specific movies you view as art, or are all movies just what they are marketed as: Entertainment? Have you ever played a video game and then got so awed, caught up in the world you just start looking around at an inner beauty that strikes you on a level of appreciation. Whenever it be the beauty of the graphics, the beauty of an environment or level in it's theme even if not graphically powered, the beauty of a character, the beauty of a cutscene, the beauty of a relationship between characters.What games would you consider art and which would you consider entertainment? Can the two mix well? Are video games as an art form any more or less an art form than other medias like paintings, movies, buildings, gardens? Does beauty in a game really matter?

For that, can you enjoy a bad game realizing if it's bad if it's beautiful to you? I will admit there are some mediocre games in terms of gameplay I have enjoyed just because the setting, characters, story, or something really moves me. Or is that a bunch of hogwash and only the gameplay matters to you? Does a game with style and uniqueness beat out the beauty in a game that just has amazing graphics?

What do you think of the aesthetics in video games? The beauty in games? What games and moments have caught you as being beautiful? Do you think it all really isn't a big deal, something more developers should focus on? Think this even qualifies as an art form or merely is just a nerdy thing for geeks with no real beauty? Video games from an outsider can be called a bad influence, a waste of time, a thing that cites murder in us but can the same people if shown can see the beauty in games, in heart touching moments, in things that stimulates the senses? Or is it a required taste? What are your thoughts of the aesthetic beauty in video games?

(I'll leave some of my thoughts a bit later in a post)

[SuperLink]

I've heard the whole "video games are/aren't art" argument before. To be honest I get a bit tired of it, video games will just never be accepted as a mainstream media, let alone art. There are a few people who are too traditional and will always refuse to see gaming as anything more than a toy.

However I see a lot of beauty in games, and it's things like this that I care about more than how many polygons a game has, or how high res a particular texture is.

Examples? Well in my opinion Mario Galaxy and especially Okami are some of the most beautiful games (visually) ever made. They make no attempt to be realistic, but instead suck you into these fantasy worlds; and particularly jaw dropping ones at that. Okami got its angle and pulled it off perfectly; in stills you wouldn't be blamed for thinking it looked like an actual ink painting at times. As for Mario Galaxy, there's a great rush and sort of poetic feeling I get from flying around space; as well as the atmosphere added by the extraordinary music.

I also really appreciate a lot of 2D games. Especially in this last gen when 2D games have looked increasingly incredible (like animated art or cartoons, for example, Braid, Muramasa, WarioLand, a boy and his blob). I wish that was the kind of thing that's done more often; since I really eat it up.

As for beauty in characters and relationships and such, I have yet to really put much thought into things like that.... There are some games with really deep characters but I don't really see that as too different from heavy character development in any other medium, and I've never thought of those as art either. Maybe I'll get back to you on that one.

PS. My personal belief is that gaming should be respected on equal terms with mainstream media like books and films. Unlike films, games can be very long and deep and have the potential to be the REAL visual equivalent of books, ones that you explore yourself with your own imagination compelling you, unlike being plonked in front of a screen for a short hour and a half of movie character development.

Gaming is expensive so isn't as accessible as other mediums, but far too often people shrug it off as a toy; when in doing so they miss out on some golden material.

Edited December 9, 2009 by SuperLink

[Diogenes]

I think the biggest obstacle for video games to be seen as art is that most games aren't being made as art. Most games out there today, regardless of their quality, are toys, products, or both. That's not to say they can't also be art, but they tend to run against each other; a game that's trying to be art is likely to be less fun than a "toy" and less profitable than a "product".

Also, I read something a while back to the effect that, even the games that are considered (or are trying to be) "art", are usually doing it from the perspective of a movie rather than a game. That is, it's the cutscenes that are the "art", and the actual gameplay is more like filler. Like a JRPG, where there's reams and reams of cutscenes and dialogue, while the gameplay is usually pretty generic, and even if not it's not making any statements in itself. And I don't intend to demean those sorts of games (not the good ones at least), but it doesn't really fit the idea of games as art; for that, it has to be expressed in the mechanics, the actual "game" part, not just the little movies they stick in between levels.

I think I'm kind of meandering away from the point of the topic at this point, so to bring it back around...aesthetically, I'm not that impressed by technical achievements, at least not anymore. We've gotten to the point where we don't have the big leaps between generations anymore; this generation doesn't look all that much different than last generation, and next generation will likely be even less of a change. This is the time when the obsession with realistic graphics should be dying out, and they should start using this amassed power creatively. I look at games like Okami, Rez, Wind Waker, No More Heroes, etc, and I see games with amazing visual style even without pushing the boundaries of gaming hardware. All of these games could've gone for realistic (well, maybe not Rez), but they all would've lost something. Okami oozes its style from every pore; the entire game looks like a traditional Japanese painting brought to life, very fitting for a game set in ancient Japan. Wind Waker puts vibrant color everywhere, making almost every area exciting to look at, and the characters are some of the most expressive and fun the series has ever had. And NMH's high contrast shadows, over-the-top effects, and faux-retro video game HUD match and reinforce its bizarre surreal nature and insane otaku protagonist. It's these sort of games that make me smile just by looking at them, the ones that have the guts to do something interesting with the graphics instead of just falling into some standard dull design.

I've heard the whole "video games are/aren't art" argument before. To be honest I get a bit tired of it, video games will just never be accepted as a mainstream media, let alone art.

Not with that attitude they won't!

There are a few people who are too traditional and will always refuse to see gaming as anything more than a toy.

Don't worry, eventually they'll die out.

[Agent York]

I think the biggest obstacle for video games to be seen as art is that most games aren't being made as art. Most games out there today, regardless of their quality, are toys, products, or both. That's not to say they can't also be art, but they tend to run against each other; a game that's trying to be art is likely to be less fun than a "toy" and less profitable than a "product".

Also, I read something a while back to the effect that, even the games that are considered (or are trying to be) "art", are usually doing it from the perspective of a movie rather than a game. That is, it's the cutscenes that are the "art", and the actual gameplay is more like filler. Like a JRPG, where there's reams and reams of cutscenes and dialogue, while the gameplay is usually pretty generic, and even if not it's not making any statements in itself. And I don't intend to demean those sorts of games (not the good ones at least), but it doesn't really fit the idea of games as art; for that, it has to be expressed in the mechanics, the actual "game" part, not just the little movies they stick in between levels.

I agree yet disagree at a few points. I think it is more determined on the project itself. For instance, there are certainly games that focus more on development and story than the gameplay, but counter to that there are games that have appealed to my sense that as well was really fun to play. The thing is though that certain environments really get to me. For instance, Phantasy Star Online was a lot of fun to me at the time it came out for a long while. I enjoyed it a lot, but thanks maybe in part to my love for the environments and themes of the game I did find certain stages far more fun and getting to my sense merely based on my senses being more immersed in the levels (particularly Seabed and the Island in episode 2, and the Ruins in episode one).

Like wise though I haven't played the whole game, Bayonetta seriously wowed me. I was having a blast playing the game but the world, and the environments entranced me as well, especially the part with the giant thing smashing you and the clock tower falling scene, those two captured brilliance for me and I was very much loving and appreciating the beauty in the game and exploring it.

Eternal Sonata also entranced me multiple times.

^And those aren't even the most beautiful places in the game in my opinion, those are just areas and it rarely ever lets up.

And by the same guys that made Eternal Sonata, Fragile: Farewell Ruins to the Moon has characters with personalities and stories that really went to the sense too. Though Fragile had wonderful graphics, beauty, characters, and story though the gameplay is honestly on the meh side though it does manage to be fun.

I also got entranced with more gritty environments like in Resident Evil REmake and Dark Messiah. However, if you noticed I am big on environments, whenever it be in games or in real life. A very aesthetic person in that sense.

However, certain things appeal to me a lot about characters, which I may have more of with my real life view of beauty of people. This can extend to characters and situations which are made into the story which I view as beautifully aesthetically and it really appeals to the senses. That last part however may be more required taste.

And I think games may be accepted as art form and not just toys some day. Kinda' like how movies are. Some movies are beautiful and accepted as art, but others are more thought of to be entertainment. The line can sometimes be cut clear, but what of movies and games where the line is more foggy between it being entertainment and art? As I said, I do think it can qualify to be both, and sometimes art can be expressed in different ways. There can be art found in the way you kill someone, for instance if that really suits to you, but would that be an aesthetic thing?

Edited December 9, 2009 by Dusk the Christmas Keeper

[Satan]

I'm going to be honest, I only skimmed these posts.

However, my two cents is that videogames aren't an art: They are a wondrous amalgamation of art, programming, music, and literature. Hell, you can even throw psychology and philosophy in there too, depending on how deep the game gets. Chrono Cross and Silent Hill are what convinced me I had to take a philosophy class, and Silent Hill totally fucks with your psyche as much as it can. I'd love to call videogames an art, but they're more than that. The good ones. Not halo or 90% of the games on the next-gen consoles.

[Solid SOAP]

Games can be art, but only when the developer chooses for them to be. The reason why games aren't appreciated as art forms is because of the abundence of generic shooters and bad publicity stuff like Grand Theft Auto gets. When developers decide to bring interesting character development, beautiful environments, psychology and other various forms of art, games can become more moving and artistic than most movies or books, in my opinion. You can get more messages across in a game than in a 2 hour movie, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask managed to be not only a whimsical adventure with wacky characters and fun puzzles and combat, but if you took the time to talk to the various characters in the game and see their stories, you got much more than a game, but a work of art. The same applies to Bioshock, you can choose to simply blast through the game and become a killing machine and it's all fun and games, but if you take your time to pay attention to details in the environment and find and listen to as many audio-recordings you can, uncovering Rapture and it's citizen's secrets, you get so much more out of the so called "game" than you do with most works of fiction.

[Blacklightning]

What really bothers me about games as art is that sometimes art directions are made with complete disregard to gameplay - that the graphical style actually makes the game less fun to play, or in some cases even completely unplayable to begin with. That's my biggest gripe with The Sabotuer right now - it looks pretty, but at times it's completely impossible to see in the darker Nazi-occupied areas (which are, with the exception of Nazi propoganda and lights in windows, completely grayscale, and in the game-suggested ideal brightness, extremely dark), and in the non-Nazi areas the lens flare while you're climbing can get so damned bright that it can literally reduce the screen to solid black and white areas. There's making a game look pretty and/or "artistic", and then there's going fucking overboard and defying the point of a game in the first place.

That's not to say it can't be done properly though - Madworld was made with a grand total of four or five colours, yet seeing what exactly you're doing is rarely, if ever, a problem.

[pooshoes]

If games can convey the same ideas and garner the same emotional reactions that literature and film/television produce, then games will have to be considered art. It doesn't matter that you are "playing a game", gaming is just another medium that can be use to experience the same thing.

It also offers a completely novel approach to storytelling that can't be realised with anything else: the Silent Protagonist.

I'm talking your Gordon Freemans, your Links and your Jacks (Bioshock). These three, to me, are the most interesting use of a characters inability to talk, and is ultimately Gordon's tragedy.

Choice.

With Jack, it gets explictly stated to you what's going on during that halfway cutscene.

Link doesn't really need to speak. Nintendo aren't, on the whole, known for their brilliant writing skills. Link has always been, and probably will be, "That Guy in Green who defeats the ultimate evil whene'er it rears its ugly head". But still, Link doesn't have the ability to say "Screw this, i'm going fishing." Everyone just assumes that he'll rise up and beat whoever is pissing everyone off this week.

And then we come to Gordon. Poor Mr Freeman. =(

If you've played all the Half Life games upto Episode 2, you'll know where I'm going with this. If not, what have you been doing for the past 10 years?

The idea of choice in Half Life is all in the subtext, as it is never explicitly stated what's going on. It's usually revealed to you in conversations with characters and G-Man's ever so popular appearances.

Valve have created one the best storylines in gaming, with only a handful of characters and some excellent writing. If more games followed Valve's example, not necessarily with the silent protagonist thing, games will begin to be accepted as art a whole lot quicker.

TL;DR

Play Half Life. Submit to Gabe.

[SuperStingray]

The first time I truly appreciated a video game on a deep, aesthetic level was Metroid Prime. And to this day, I've yet to see a game that has such an amazing synthetic use of visuals and sound. Just my experience walking through Phendrana Drifts alone had a greater impact on me than the entire script of Metal Gear Solid. That, my friends, is immersion.

As for the art/not art thing, I know the definition of art is vague and enigmatic, but what else COULD they be? I really don't see any other classification that fits them.