Paper 4 - Research Paper

Introduction:


This was my final paper, a research paper I did on Video Games as an art form. In it I pulled from various sources, mainly two opposing articles, and my own knowledge to make the argument that video games are without a doubt an art form. So many different video games have borrowed so much from different art styles that they have become their own art style in a sense, at least, IMO.



This was by far my most well rounded piece of writing I have probably ever done in my life. It has a well developed Thesus, multiple sources, a coherent theme that goes with what I identify with, and pretty intelligent use of language and reasoning, and on top of that - I enjoyed writing it. If I had to choose something to be proud of for my writing, It would be this piece without a doubt.


Keep in mind, despite all I said - this is still my opinion. You don't have to agree with me, you don't have to like what I have to say about it, but all I ask is that you respect my opinion.

Research Paper

Video Games as an Art Form

While video games are finally considered an art form and recognized officially by the government, there are still many people who will never see them as such and don't even take the time to understand the medium, and give very biased and uninformed info behind their reasoning. They touch upon the same issues such as how games affect the minds of young people, and the perception they have of what's acceptable to do in society today, but while they try to bring those issues to light, they oft forget that many movies, films, and even books do the same things that they pin on to games alone. While the argument can be made that the video game medium is interactive so the outcome of doing these actions in a game is different from viewing them, the medium itself is very much like a movie or book. Many of these games have deeply involved stories and well developed characters, and sometimes fully realized worlds that have more work and effort put into them than many similar movies.

In Roger Ebert's Journal he writes an article “why video games can never be art”. He goes on to argue in his article one of his main points that one of the reasons video games can never be art, is because of their interactive nature as a medium:

One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them. (Ebert)

Ebert's words do hold much validity – playing a game can differ from cinema or stories because the stories have a predefined outcome which you are reading to find out, where as there are many games where the point of playing them are for entertainment purposes, and to “win”, and not to experience a narrative – but at the same time there are just as many games that present book-like stories that you play to experience the story as well as be entertained. Take games like Half-Life or the Metal Gear series for instance – these are games that present a predefined, linear story that you follow in each one of them – in which your actions only serve to progress the story, and change the narrative in very little ways – if at all. From my interpretation of the games - they present themselves with two main “experiences”.

The first is the “gamplay” experience – that is where the player has control of the character and influences the actions and moves through a gameplay “area” of the game. These areas may contain

enemies, puzzles, or just scenery you can interact with and change – from breaking a light to blowing

up a barrel, to turning on a light switch.

The second is the “narrative” experience – this consists of the sections where the games present a story to the player through the character's eyes (in the case of half-life), or an alternate perspective like a movie does with a camera on a set. While in the case of the former the player may have control of movement, he has no control over dialogue, non player character interactions, or events that happen to him in the game. In these types of games, you can ignore this part if you want, just for the gameplay aspect for entertainment purposes – but the “narrative” segments also enhance the gameplay segments because they give you a purpose for your current task.

While Ebert's argument may make sense for a game that has little narrative focus or one that lets you change the narrative – what about the ones mentioned above? If the narrative elements are completely unaffected by the player, shouldn't a well written story be seen no different from a deeply developed book or film, in an art sense? What makes these games special that they aren't considered art, despite the same people writing films also writing game stories?

The article by Ben Croshaw is a response to Roger Ebert's article, but it is not an oppositional response – but rather more of a negotiated view of his article where the author, Yahtzee, somewhat rationalizes Ebert's reasons for discounting the video gaming medium as an art form. At the same time he provides many more reasons as to how he could disprove his reasons easily, from how “winning” video games doesn't hold as much value now, since many games are just as much about pulling you into the narrative and making you feel for the characters, instead of just winning like they were in the more “arcade” style days of videogames, to how Ebert is more a film critic and doesn't quite understand games like someone else would:

I could concede that Ebert's point that games aren't art because games are something you "win"

would have held a lot more water in the old arcade days of Asteroids and Missile Command, but

games nowadays are much more than just their gameplay mechanics. The important part of

Shadow Of The Colossus is not reaching the end credits, but the sheer myriad of experiences that

lead up to it - the beauty of the environment, the bitter desperation of exploring it, the pains, the

sorrows, the big hairy lads trying to shake you off their bald spots. (Croshaw 1)

The article is mostly trying to make the point that there's no reason to get worked up about Ebert's article, because it is simply his opinion. It takes a negotiated stance because it takes each side into consideration, though never quite takes either side of the “argument” for whether or not video games are art– which frankly, each side has their own levels of bias. Yahtzee's basic idea that he uses to get his point across is that the term “art” is loosely defined, and everyone has their own version of what is art to them. One person might see art as something that is purely aesthetic - just a picture that has some other meaning, while another person could view their favorite book as a piece of art – because it effects them emotionally:

“I could say all of that (and indeed just did) but none of it matters. You know why? Because art is subjective. There has never been a clear definition of what exactly "art" is, and that's because it varies from person to person.” (Croshaw 2)

Yahtzee makes a solid point, because a piece of art is always determined by the viewer's preconceptions and perceptions of what art is in their head. This is much more true in our modern generation than it was several generations back.

There is a small introduction to a tutorial for creating a user made level for the video game Quake that I found particularly interesting. I chose it because it presents valid points that coincide with my ideas of the same process of what is commonly known as “map making” for a video game, a process widely practiced by fans of certain games (with tools that allow it) and for people's desire to be creative. The intro the author wrote out very elegantly lays out some of the best reasoning I could think of that describes why video games can be considered an art form:

“instead of going to a movie and watching the hero defeat the villain we can take an active role as the hero.” ( Worldcraft 1)

This is an analogy for what game design basically is – a way to create a movie, without needing the actual movie, equipment, or crews:

This analogy between movies and level design is a good one. In much the same was as movie director creates a movie, a level designer creates his 'virtual world'. They both must start with the basics: A set has to be built where the action will take place (Building a level) , a plot must be developed (setting the theme and background story) , actors and props must know their places and cues (Monsters placed, traps laid.). Once all that is done then the real magic can take place. The movie will be filmed; the level will be played. Both the movie and the level will only last a couple hours at most but the work behind the scenes is enormous by comparison. The goal of both these people is to provide the customer with the most intense, most profound, and most amazing 2 hours possible. In this analogy Worldcraft (the editor) is the director's tools. It does the job of workers who build the sets, the people who run around with cameras, it get the special effects ready , organizes the actors, and makes sure everything goes smoothly - now if only we could get it to cater. (Worldcraft 1)

This excerpt is a perfect example of how video games fill the art medium in much the same way that a movie does – a tremendous amount of effort goes into the creation of a memorable experience for the player – weeks and months – if not more – of work may be put into something that can last 2-3 hours for the user. The biggest difference between this and a movie is that a movie is viewed from an outside perspective, but something like a level in a video game is viewed from the player himself – everything that happens over the course of play happens to the player him/herself, with sets devised to invoke different feelings, whether it be fear from the atmosphere created by the sounds, music, and architecture, or excitement from avoiding traps and defeating foes, or relief from solving a complex puzzle, or (for more narrative focused concepts) attachment to the characters and grief when one dies. As I said before, video games are a lot like movies (and books), and from my personal experience, participating in those events makes the emotional part of the experience much more interesting than just being an observer to something. An Indiana Jones film might be exciting to watch him dodging traps and boulder's, but how would you feel to be the one outrunning the boulder? (without the real danger of course)

Video games can also very well fill the art medium in the more traditional sense. Much of “art” is originated In aesthetics, and something many people seem to fail to notice is that much of a game is designed by artists. A concept artist creates character, prop, and creature designs, a level artist creates structures and their architecture, a 3D artist creates characters, statues, and creatures for use in the game based on the concept artist's work, and tremendous effort goes into the musical score and sound design of games. Even if you still don't consider video games art, it's obvious that the people who work on them are in some way involved with art in the aesthetic sense.

**I apologize for the quotes being such a small font, and the post being a different font. I could not get them to fit and size right otherwise**