Da Vinci's most recognisable work. Exquisite, no? But how does it compare to modern mediums?
For Joanna Starzynski’s take on this topic, go here.
Many people have questioned in the past fifteen years or so whether or not you can consider games an art form. The problem most people have with the idea is the content: most define art as something which exists only for itself, i.e. the Mona Lisa. It does not exist for any other reason than to exist, and regardless of what people might interpret from it; the painting never had another defined purpose. With a video game, the purpose is to entertain, and regardless of how inspiring or emotionally invoking it might be people just cannot compare games at the same level as, say, the works of Monet. But I pose the question: can games be considered a form of art?
Well, at its base level, a video game is in fact designed around art. If you look at the original artwork behind the Final Fantasy games, the artwork that has been used as developer tools, as guidelines to base the characters and the setting around, is pretty amazing stuff. Build up from there and the game itself must be art as it has been expanded from ‘true’ art. One only has to look at some of the settings in games nowadays to understand that truly, games have an artistic element that paintings just cannot give us; in a painting, you might see a beautiful forest, but that’s the end of it. In a video game, you can explore often every inch of that forest, seeing all its sights and taking in all its exquisite detail. Surely with that level of immersion and detail, with that capability to create amazing and truly original images and settings, games must be considered an art form?
Final Fantasy Versus XIII. Can it not be argued that this is just as beautiful as the painting above?
Graphically, games themselves are beautiful. I know some of you might look at a game for the SNES or the original PlayStation, but consider the age of these games – at the time the graphics used were state-of-the-art. Look at Final Fantasy VII. Compared to modern graphics it is pretty poor, but back then it was an amazing feat of graphical technology. The reaction to those graphics was astounding. Indeed, it invoked such a response among fans that it was considered beautiful, which indeed most works of art in art galleries can be considered. Compare it to games these days like Mass Effect 2 and Crysis 2, which are mind-blowing in terms of graphics detail, and surely you must consider video games to be an art form if only due to the sheer beauty of graphics as time has gone on.
Mass Effect 2's Illium. Such a sprawling city, such a detailed lighting effect. As detailed as, perhaps, a painting?
Indeed, if you are like me and consider books as an art form for the way they inspire and tell a tale, then video games must also rank. Take Kingdom Hearts or Star Ocean as examples – brilliant, immersive RPG games that take an original, often unique storyline and tell it through an epic series of events portrayed in beautiful scenarios with such ingenuity and construction that the player becomes immersed in the tale they are being told. I have often become so involved in a game’s storyline that I truly did not want to put the controller down. I waited with bated breath to see every little detail, every pin that dropped I quickly snatched up. Games which allow you to create your own character and create a world and story that become so engrossing that people have almost lost themselves to it (by this I do mean games like World of Warcraft, but I do not only mean the realm of the MMORPG). Truly, these games must be considered an art form for this reason?
GTA 3. No point except violence. Yes, because this mind-numbing experience was clearly worth the price tag...
However I am not without reason. Yes, there are games which probably cause the most hatred of technology and which are probably holding back the video game from being considered an art form. I refer of course to games like Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto, which to me are abysmal games that were created for yet another group of idiots who were more interested in mindless violence then the ingenious and exquisite beauty of other, less media-covered titles (yes, I am accusing the mass media of focusing on every violent game as a whole, as there are plenty of other games out there that do not cause people to murder others for trivial reasons). Games like Call of Duty, while of course being graphically detailed in most respects, are still mind-numbing and repetitive; a game for the young competitive player more interested in his ‘kill-streak’ or relentlessly killing ‘noobs’ than playing a game that contains actual plot and actual content. I cannot stand this type of game – considering how many others are out there, why do games like this still have merit except for mindless, utterly trite enjoyment?
I could go into more detail, but I believe that to do so would be to barrage people with nerd-rants and over-exaggerated analysis. The truth is that I am well aware that some people might just not see games as anything more than a few pretty pixels on a screen, but I, and I believe many others, consider games to be an inspiring work of art. I invite anyone out there who doubts this to do their own research. Don’t just look at the mainstream games, but look at all games. Borrow games from LoveFilm or Blockbusters, or borrow them from a friend. Do not play one or two action titles and decide that games are just for the mindless generation of drooling shut-ins.