The problem with the industry today is that it is soo money drivin, due to people who do the marketing for the game. As they want to use elements and game mechanics that were used in successful games. For example Halo a game that sold heeps of copies, some company will look at it and say we should use aliens and have a regenerating shield and so on, and we might make this game a success and sell as much as 70% as halo did. Because of this, games can lose its value, and to say games are art is kind of hard. There are games that are claimed by players to be art; Bioshock, but WHAT IS ART? seriously.

Anyways, games were like films, back in the day films were rejected as art and long debates and so on happened, now its art. Same thing will happen with games. I guess games are just too young for now.

And Do I Think It Matters, No.

Games are just ment to be fun, we just need game developers to be more experimental with games like in the old days.

Quote: Original post by Daaark
I've played one game that ended with a tough decision you had to make by deciding the fate of a character you have been socializing with the entire game, fallen in love with, and trying to escape from a crazy town with.

Even decisions aren't necessary - I was very moved by Passage, and I didn't even realise there were any choices (including vertical movement), until after I played it through.

I agree with every word you said and have been thinking the same thing for a while now. The gaming industry has some ridiculously awesome games out there, sure, but there's definitely passion lacking. Oblivion was one game that came close in my opinion, a huge, beautiful world with a decent story that sucked me into it for hours. But there's still passion lacking, it doesn't stir the same emotions books and movies often do. I think that, in time, the industry will evolve to encompass the same principles movies and books have. They're definitely flirting with the concept now. You don't read a book if it has no story or characters, and you don't watch a movie with no story or characters. Games can get away with it because it's interactive, but I think eventually people will get bored of shallow gameplay. The technology has definitely evolved to the point where your concept is possible, so for once we're not waiting on that lol. I think in time what you've said will happen. Not everyone agrees at the moment, but I think everyone will get bored of what the gaming standard is at the moment. Compare games now to games 10 years ago and there's a perfect example of the growth. The importance of intriguing story has definitely grown.

@Mattox: I disagree. There will always be games targeted for a young audience that will want to play rather simplistic games that are mostly fun and entertaining, and they will grow up loving many types of games, and some of those will be games that has some sort of nostalgia to them. There is still a reason why I absolutely love playing SNES games and games that are similar.

Of course, there will be a time where games are NOTHING like games today, because of groundbreaking technology that allows for completely different concepts and game types, but there are some differences between a game and a simulator, for instance. Playing VR games in the future will, I think, be more classified as some sort of attraction, similar to rollercoasters of the present day.

Art in it's higher forms, tells a story without saying anything, a moment in time that describes something that it isn't immediately showing to everybody.

Video Games created as an art form would be needlessly complicated and well, although symbolism is quite possible, is less recognized by the masses.

I'm not saying art can only be appreciated by those with 'refined tastes', it's just that a lot of the games these days have simpler messages. More like propaganda posters rather than actual art.

Which is why they are seen more as controversial.

And before people start proclaiming it's because 'games are new media', no, they aren't. This is just a phase. Some day soon, games will reinvent themselves, born from the ashes of their past generation stronger than ever.
Just like any other good thing.

But this is only one man's opinion.
One half of a whole.

Perhaps it's time we hear from the side, for a change?

Quote: Original post by Daaark
...as was Rinoa's very near death in the very emotional space scene. Rinoa's scene came at least 20 hours into the game. So it's easy to grow attached to them.

I just wanted to chime in very briefly here and say that the scene with Rinoa was the first thing that popped in my mind when reading some of the earlier replies. I had a relatively emotional experience with Glenn's flashbacks in Chrono Trigger.

I think it's extremely narrow-minded to assume narrative is the only avenue by which games can be art.

The art of games cannot be judged by comparing them to other forms of art. Does it make sense to judge a movie against a book? Or a piece of music against a sculpture?

To claim that it is narrative that makes games art is to trivialize everything that makes games unique and interesting. It turns games' unique qualities into mere novelties.

Tetris is a brilliant creation that came from ingenuity and personal vision, and playing it can yield emotions that other forms of art can only hint at. Tetris can be analyzed, interpreted, understood... Tetris can mean something if you want it to. Yet by the OP's arbitrary standard, it cannot be art, because it lacks narrative.

Games as art cannot be understood while games are judged against criteria intended for other forms of art, criteria entirely unsuited to this purpose!

Should architecture be judged only by its visual appeal? Of course not, a building is not a painting, it is a reconfiguration of physical space, and therefore must be judged according to its own unique criteria. The same is true of games. Game design is just as important to the artistic quality of a game as its visuals, its music, and its writing.

What you need to consider is that there is a game development industry, with the large emphasis on the word industry.

Products that fall into a developed industry as a general rule have questionable artistic value, with the tendency do degrade even further in that respect. This is the case with the movie industry, the music industry - even fiction in books has become an industry. Games are no exception, and will not be an exception in the future either.

With online play gaining popularity, this topic immediately makes me think of games like WoW and LOTRO. I've played them both and I've found myself losing interest fairly early on when the game really "opens up" and you've got about a million quests to fulfill in a near endless landscape.

The characters in these games are among the most shallow in videogame history. "Get me my ledger from the rogue group and I'll give you some boots" - Sorry, who is this guy? Johnny Apple Bucket? I don't fault the developers of these popular MMORPGS. They've found a great formula that appeals to millions but I can't get any satisfaction out of it beyond a few hours of play. Wouldn't it be much more satisfying to retrieve a rare potion for a dying friend, someone that you've been working with, learning about and building a connection with over the course of a game? Yes, it would. And he can keep his boots. My reward is knowing I saved someone I actually chose to care about through a great storyline.

On the topic of videogames and art - it's an interesting debate. It comes up in all mediums. While I agree that not all games can be considered "art", I disagree about a game like Tetris. For a game that you might think is only good for passing time, it certainly passes the test of time. I doubt the developer was dreaming big when he put that together. It became what it is today because videogames were in their youth, the developer had an open mind, the game was simple, and people love to play it.

I think that art is created from the perfect storm - you can't predict it. You can take years to pen a great storyline for a videogame but if the conditions aren't right, it could just come off as a run-of-the-mill RPG. I think more time could and should be spent on a compelling story for games these days but it will take more than that to create an innovative, fresh game that changes the landscape.

I think that in order to accomplish what you are referring to, you must be able to make the game you want to make. Honesty in creation is what often resonates with those that interact with the creation, it is the universal beauty of art. If through the process of your creation you are able to learn and find interest in your work, it will communicate. Interesting people are usually interested people, however, an interesting idea must be executed to truly function. That being said, it seems there are a lot of pressures in the video game industry that conflict with a person being able to realize a creative vision (it is a lot of work involving many of people and money.)

I think that for videogames to get to the point where they are truly challenging their medium and expressing ideas on the level you are talking about there needs to be a true underground movement akin to independent film. For this to happen I think the tools for the creation of games need to develop to the point where it is reasonable to make a game with little money and a small team. I haven't be interested in the creation of videogames for very long, but I do see this becoming a trend and am optimistic about it's direction.