What makes games art?

Alright, since this has been bouncing around, I'm going to grab a bull by the horns. As Narrative Designers, we are charged with intertwining story with interactivity (gameplay). This has caused quite a stir as to the definition of games as art, particularly in how games are similar to other storytelling media, yet present much different opportunities for the participant AND much different challenges for the developer.

So, what about games make them "art"?

Now, some define "art" as:
* the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

In that case, can a game like "Go" or "Chess" be defined as art? I think not.

But, "art" is further defined as:
* skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.

Now, in that case, yes, I would qualify "Go" and "Chess" as art - the gameplay and execution of the game is skilled enough to qualify them as works of art - and, clearly, time would agree as both games continue to be studied and played across the world.

So, lets look at video games, keeping the above descriptions in mind. Certainly, video games can qualify as art strictly based on their appearances, the character, environments, animations and the like, if they are done well. Video games can also qualify as art based on their writing, as we all can agree. But can video games qualify as art based on the one thing that differentiates them from other media: gameplay?

I would argue that, of late, we - as developers - have been so focused on emulating other media that gameplay has begun to suffer.

Sure, there have been attempts at streamlining interfaces, requiring designers and programmers to attempt to come up with elegant solutions for a problem that is of their own doing, and in the end, further obscuring both important feedback and gameplay goals from the participants.

And there have been attempts at changing how we play the games, but the Nintendo Wii and its motion controls (as well as the upcoming PS3 and 360 Natal interfaces) will illustrate that kinetic gameplay creates as many, if not many more, problems than they solve in terms of creating intuitive controls that are both fun and easy to use.

And there have been attempts to embrace, more closely, other popular media platforms such as film, in the hopes that mimicking that particular established voice will gain both a broader spectrum of fans but also provide a familiar context for developers as well.

So, keeping those two distinct definitions of art in mind, I say that games cannot be art if one pushes any of the qualities of the game ahead of gameplay. The game can look good, the story could be "exalted", but, if the gameplay is poor, then gamers won't care.

"So, Maldal, you arrogant bastard, what gives you the right to say that?" I hear you ask.

Too often, we - as developers - point fingers at each other, each proclaiming that they have the answer on how to get games accepted as art. But nearly all of them overlook the one thing that makes games, truly memorable games, great: the gameplay.

Reality check: Games don't need an explicit or implicit story to be great. Games DO need great gameplay to be great.

So, what does that mean to us?

In my opinion, that means that we need to keep in mind that the gameplay - the interaction between the user and the various simulations running in the background - must take priority over any story we want to tell. Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who got into making games to tell great stories. No amount of story, no clever character development, no fancy cut scene will ever replace a smooth and refined interactive experience. BUT, take a smooth and refined interactive experience and manage to interweave clever character development, fancy cut scenes and story and then you have something truly unique.

I find myself agreeing with you on many of your points, maldal. However, the discussion about games as art seems to be focused on either story or gameplay, but not both. You've made a point in some of your previous points in saying that no story, no matter how refined or "exalted", can save a game if it suffers from poor gameplay. I see Kane & Lynch as a good example of that. The game had an interesting story with intriguing characters and inspired set-pieces, but its gameplay mechanics were average at best and derivative at worst. Put simply: it wasn't fun.

Likewise, a game which has fun gameplay often doesn't need a story. Ask anybody who's played Tetris about the motivation of the "I" block and they'll raise an eyebrow or two. But if story and gameplay are built from the ground up to support each other so that one doesn't overshadow the other, then this creates, as maldal puts it, something unique. I've played many games where I enjoyed one end of the spectrum while being annoyed by the other, but the games in which both stood out are few and far between.

I think we may be constraining the discussion somewhat by limiting ourselves to story and gameplay as the two major elements of game design. They may be paramount, but there are other considerations as well, such as pre-release media. Granted, such things may be lumped into either category when phrased in a certain way. In any case, the departments responsible for the presentation of a game are usually bundled together under the header '"art design", at least as far as I can tell with my indirect understanding of the videogame industry.

I like to think of art as something that uses the possibilities and capabilities of a medium to their fullest and uses these to create something that stands out both on its own merits and those of that medium. This is of course only one interpretation, but based on that I wishfully think games can be art. But admittedly, I'd be hard-pressed to think of specific examples of games as art, and maybe that's telling.

Great thoughts all!

Well, one thing that hasn't been done yet is the marriage of the player's actions to an exalted moral, mythological reality.

That is the great opportunity staring us in the face.

What if one could fight for ideas/ideals and witness the consequences of their victories/defeats?

Aristotle noted that epic dramatic art occurs during the struggle of the character to render ideals real.

By allowing the player to fight for classical, epic ideals in word and deed, as did the Founding Fathers, Odysseus, and MLK jr., games could achieve epic art.

Best,

Dr. E

I find myself agreeing with you on many of your points, maldal. However, the discussion about games as art seems to be focused on either story or gameplay, but not both. You've made a point in some of your previous points in saying that no story, no matter how refined or "exalted", can save a game if it suffers from poor gameplay. I see Kane & Lynch as a good example of that. The game had an interesting story with intriguing characters and inspired set-pieces, but its gameplay mechanics were average at best and derivative at worst. Put simply: it wasn't fun.

Likewise, a game which has fun gameplay often doesn't need a story. Ask anybody who's played Tetris about the motivation of the "I" block and they'll raise an eyebrow or two. But if story and gameplay are built from the ground up to support each other so that one doesn't overshadow the other, then this creates, as maldal puts it, something unique. I've played many games where I enjoyed one end of the spectrum while being annoyed by the other, but the games in which both stood out are few and far between.

I think we may be constraining the discussion somewhat by limiting ourselves to story and gameplay as the two major elements of game design. They may be paramount, but there are other considerations as well, such as pre-release media. Granted, such things may be lumped into either category when phrased in a certain way. In any case, the departments responsible for the presentation of a game are usually bundled together under the header '"art design", at least as far as I can tell with my indirect understanding of the videogame industry.

I like to think of art as something that uses the possibilities and capabilities of a medium to their fullest and uses these to create something that stands out both on its own merits and those of that medium. This is of course only one interpretation, but based on that I wishfully think games can be art. But admittedly, I'd be hard-pressed to think of specific examples of games as art, and maybe that's telling.

Admittedly, I am biased. I am a GAME designer, after all, and, as much as I love a good story in a game, the gameplay is what pulls the player through the experience, not the next cutscene - no matter how lovingly crafted. And it may be constraining, but, really, a transcendent game doesn't even need great art to be an outstanding game. It needs to have great gameplay and that is it. I know that's a bit of a rude reality check, but there it is.

Your example of Tetris is perfect; the art is nonexistent, practically, beyond its functional purpose, and is without story, but would you consider the game "art"?

That's not to say that I don't believe that we cannot craft an artistic game that has great visual art, sound, gameplay and story. From inside experience and related published works, I know that we - as an industry - can create a game with great art, sound effects and gameplay, but the niggling thing is always story. The question is always: why?

Is it because story is usually an afterthought in development terms? - some times, yes.
Are there simply a lot of bad writers in the industry? - without a doubt, yes.
Is it because we follow previous conventions too rigidly? - absolutely

We need to find that sweet spot between player control and story exposition...

I like the way this article approaches the debate of story versus gameplay without really intending to.

That was a fascinating article, thanks!

Do we really not “know how to say things through interactivity,” or are we simply not conscious of the message when it is being said because we are attempting to understand it through the language of previous art forms?

I think this question is what occupies my mind at the moment. Are we, as designers, missing the point because we are looking at things strictly in the format of the past? Frankly, we need to look at things with better eyes.

For some reason this thread makes me think perhaps the best stories I've seen told as games (rather than 'in' games) are perhaps games in the Civilization/Alpha-Centauri lines.

So, a fan of more emergent stories?

That is certainly valid, though, it does cause certain elements to get upset...

Not so much a fan of (though I do enjoy them) as an observation.
Emergent Gameplay is basically part and parcel if you want the game and the story telling element to be intertwined and to let the player really feel like their choices impact the game. The designer obviously has to create a certain amount of setting ("A planet like earth with nations!") but beyond that the emergence in Civ lets stories be dynamic. Sims is the same thing, too, but with the famous Sim concept of no 'victory' or 'defeat'.
In turn there are other games where the story drives the game (RPGs are the most famous) rather than being intertwined, and in the last are games where the story is just a framing device or absent all togther (Doom, Tetris).
To use a few of my favorites if you want story to really embrace the concept of player choice and gameplay and you don't have emergent plot as a design piller you're going to kill yourself. Deus Ex has it to a degree, but push comes to shove you'll always end up going to Hong Kong and siding with the 'rebels'. Chrono Trigger has endings depending on when you beat the game but otherwise you have to go through the designer's exact story. You can tell great stories this way, those are two of my favorite games of all time and their story telling is a major part of why, but when push comes to shove when I play Civ I have no idea what will happen. When I play Deus Ex I do.

And for another aside: the middle ground might be 'set plot' games with a small amount of dynamic content that can drive story. Diablo 2 is probably a good example of this, but I bet it could be done better with regard to story telling.

The Civ series is one of my all time favorites. I thought that Civ IV was the ultimate expression of the concept. Deep enough to be challenging to the experienced veteran, approachable enough for n00bs.

My favorite mod is Rhys and Fall of Civilization. It is a historic based scenario, where you take over a civilization at roughly the same time as it arose in history. So, if you start as the Romans, you start in Rome at roughly the time they rose in history, and Greek city states located in the Italian Peninsula may join your rising faction. It is a fascinating take on the alternate history that Civ 4 provides, and now you are making me jones for it...thanks