Games Are Not Art. Even Game Designers Think So.
January 22nd, 2009 | Written by Amadeo Plaza | Topic: Social Commentary
Several months ago, when I was last in San Francisco at the LucasArts campus to check out Fracture, I met with some of the people (Day 1 Studios) who developed the game. Among those people, were Dan Hay (Senior Producer/Art Director), Deke Waters (Associate Producer), and Tony Huynh. Those three especially stand out to me because of a conversation we had about game development. The day we spent at the LucasArts campus was the day I got Dan and Deke in a room and grilled them with questions not about the game or the way it’s played, but instead about social commentary in gaming, and why the lack of it has disabled the medium from becoming an artform.
I challenged them on the design choices of Fracture as it pertains to its story and the message they were trying to send, and was later pulled aside by Dan and thanked for bringing a new perspective to the table when the questions they are typically asked are about the kinds of weapons available and the length of the campaign.
The previous night, the night I arrived in San Francisco, I had dinner with the guys at Day 1 Studios, which is where I spoke with Tony Huynh, and now that I think about it, I believe Dan was sitting across from me. I engaged in the same conversation with Tony that I did with Dan and Deke the following day. I had just gotten off the heels of writing my Social Commentary in Video Games article, and was fired up about about pressing developers with difficult questions about why they made the games they made.
Tony emailed me this week after having put together an amazing post on his blog, LimitlessUnits, in which he explores the problem of social commentary in video games, and why he has come to the conclusion that games are not art, and how we only have ourselves to blame for the limitation that has been placed on them. He hit the nail right on the head with every single point, so, I thought it was all too appropriate to share his post with all of you.
The mandatory “fun” is what pigeonholes the video game medium into a escapist distraction and puts a self-imposed limitation on video games that prevents it from reaching the high art plateau. I recently watched the movie The Terrorist and asked myself the question, was that movie fun? The film was thought provoking, sad and even disturbing, but can hardly be described as fun. What separates films from games as a medium is film’s willingness to tackle difficult subject matter. In the case of The Terrorist, it chronicles the life of a pregnant female suicide bomber leading up to the assassination Rajiv Gandhi.
Roger Ebert is Right: Games Are Not High Art…Yet
Thanks for letting me know about this post, Tony. It encompasses all of the arguments I was making that night, and this is something all game designers should remember.
Related posts:
- Games: The Reason Why Shrek is Telling Kids to Play Outside?
- SmashPad Q&A: Do we review PC games?
- Report: Video Games Can Be Good for Kids
- The Problem: We Demand New Kinds of Games When 96% Lose Money
- Community Call: How Long Should a Reviewer Play a Game?
Comment by TheForgotten0ne on the January 23rd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I think he mentiones some very good points. Games and movies does two different things. Some movies do the same as games and just tries to be fun, but usually they have a bigger motive then games. I think the example was very good. I don't know how a game could do that, and really shows the difference between games and movies.
Comment by amadeoplaza on the January 23rd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
I think it's very possible for a game to have larger motives than simply of that to pass the time and entertain you. I refuse to be believe that games will only ever be good enough to be a "toy" in the living room. They should evoke thought and emotion.
Comment by TheForgotten0ne on the January 23rd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
In some way, but I do not see how they can do that in the same way as a movie. There is so much more to consider when making a game, you have almost every concern that a movie has pluss gameplay.
I hope that they one day can become so much more then just a "toy", but I can't remember anygame that have really done that. Sure MGS4 is an example of how you can use game to critizise something (The private millitary). And I'm sure many other games have that, but it's not so big. How many that have played MGS4 came up with that though you think? Not many
Comment by Daniel Phillips on the January 24th, 2009 at 1:57 am
The problem (aside from you refuting my entire article) is that games are an INTERACTIVE medium–films are voyeuristic, observational relics or accounts or moving narratives. Games, largely, depend on us to unfold, and so, if they do not engage us–it's not a matter of fun, but of true attachment to something within it, an engagement with its very playing and interaction–we feel we are being cheated out of the experience promised. Films can be long and grueling and longwinded and full of true emotion because all that is asked of is about two hours and our attention. Games last much longer, and ask us to do much more–to pay attention, most of the time, every second. And so, if they are not engaging, not fun, as Mr. Huynh says, we lose interest quickly. While I love both, and certainly think games could transcend to art, films and videogames are not the same. The one linking element is that they are largely visual and aural and most people want them to be entertaining.