/vr/ - Retro Games

Yes, because they're a multimedia experience that the audience interacts with and is acted upon by a creator who made it with the intention of making the audience have a certain experience.

/thread

>>3301396
To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.

—Roger Ebert

>>3301398
>Yes, because they're a multimedia experience
>with the intention of making the audience have a certain experience
So uh, are you experienced?

So yo, games are the least questionable thing you can ask is if it's "art"

literally anything could be considered art but the quality varies obviously

No they are just games. You don't need to call them art to justify your desire to spend so much damned time with them.

>>3301438
>You don't need to call them art to justify your desire to spend so much damned time with them.
Look mom, I'm projecting!

>>3301396
I guess, it requires artists and games need basically every kind of person a movie needs to be made. You could argue they are or aren't in alot of stupid ways.
>music is art
>games have music
THEY ARE OFFICIALLY ART

At the end of the day I don't think it really matters, just enjoy them.

If a crucifix dunked in a jar of elephant piss can be considered art, I don't see why vidya can't be.

>>3301453

>At the end of the day I don't think it really matters, just enjoy them.

Fucking this. Who honestly gives a shit? Whether games are "art" or not isn't the reason they're created (or, at least, it shouldn't be).

>>3301420
How about you quote someone that isn't the most pleb-tier movie critic of all time?

what I don't get is why is everyone so obsessed about videogames as art if art has lost all meaning and value in the last century?

>>3301396
Every product of creative thinking is.

>>3301727
It hasn't. There's just a lot of mediocre and bad art that receives excessive praise from pseuds. Great art is still being made.

>>3301727
Art was all about the craft back in the day. Due to challengers of what art really is such as Marcel Duchamp, it's now shifted to concept rather than craft. As long as your idea is considered transcendent and grand, you don't need to be physically skilled in creating beautiful pieces. As long as the reason is unique enough and critics are won over, you could spit on a canvas and be the next best thing.

So in that sense, video games could be a medium for making art. Something like Journey is a great example of it. However, I say that it's not so much video games are art in their entirety, but that an individual could make a work of art in the form of a video game as long as that is the intent behind the piece first and foremost. If a game is initially crafted for commercial reason, it's just as much art as a toy is. It may look/feel impressive in the craft, but the concept and intention is where the line is drawn.

Games are art in a way advertisement is too. I don't think the question is whether games are art or not, but can it compete with the highest forms of art? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNXCZXrlX7I

>>3301795
Rly? You post the most pleb interpretation of one of Beethoven's even-numbered symphonies as an example of the highest form of art? Lol cmon

>>3301396
pretty much yes. I could argue that the mathetical system behind games aren't exactly art though.

They're art in the same way movies are art, but they should be judged by a different criteria than other forms of art.

If things like chess, wrestling, Monopoly, and baseball could be considered art then maybe so.

>>3301879
Wrestling is definitely an art.

>>3301836
Why don't you show us your most patrician symphonies? I'm sure even the modest ones can beat the 6th right?

Let's be honest, those who want games to so desperately want games to be considered art just want their hobby to look less childish.

No.

I mean by the loosest definition, yes. Almost all games use representative form. That's art, and there's no getting around that. Expression of an idea through symbol.

If you want to make ANY distinction between art and entertainment though, which almost any sane person should, games are almost universally the latter.

There are some works of art which use video games as their medium but not too many afaik.

Many elements of game design are great art though - consistently amazed that so much beautiful music is created just for video games.

>>3301734
thank you

>>3301838
music is super math heavy, and yet nobody questions its artistic value, for good reason

>>3301420
quotes from men who spent their lives watching movies are irrelevant on the topic of video games

>>3301982
Music isn't math heavy. Math isn't real. Music is sound, and sound can be described mathematically. People knew how to harmonize and plan harmonies before Pythagoras ever realized that what they were doing was the result of quantifiable, predictable frequencies.

Not to argue your real point though. Games aren't not art just because they are programmed, that's stupid. A word processing application uses the same technology but nobody would question that a novel written in Word could be art.

>>3302009
>A word processing application uses the same technology but nobody would question that a novel written in Word could be art
bit of a wonky analogy, as Word is the tool. In the case of a game, the program is the product, not a tool

>>3301396
No because at their core they are games, and the gameplay is the most important aspect.

Is chess art just because the board happens to be finely engraved and the prices beautifully designed?
You can play chess with colored rocks on a tablecloth an it would still be the same.
Likewise graphics and artistry in games only exists to enhance the gameplay experience, but they are superficial.

>>3302041
good thing nobody said the assets are artistic. They talked about the games

>>3301782
>This

>>3302045
Well what about the gameplay makes it artistic, what about Centipede or Space Invaders is art?

>>3302053
>Well what about the gameplay makes it artistic
depends on the game

>what about Centipede or Space Invaders is art?
for me, very little

>>3302056
If it's created for commercial intent it's not art. If it wasn't intended as an art piece first and foremost it's not art. Unless however, an art critic discovers something and they are the ones to declare it an art form. Then it would be art. You can't say it's art just because it's impressive in this way or that. Modern marvels in technology such as architecture or computer science are impressive as fuck but that in of itself doesn't make them art.

>>3302069
>If it's created for commercial intent it's not art
disagreed. It's definitely possible to create something artistic and yet aim for commercial success. Sometimes excessive focus on commercial intent can be artistic.

>You can't say it's art just because it's impressive in this way or that
I am not

>>3302072
>and yet aim for commercial success
to clarify a bit on that. Regardless of intention, playability matters for a game, quite a lot even, and that's part of commercial success. Also, part of the artistic intention may be to get the statement out to the masses, which may require to shape certain aspects of a game to enable that spread. It's a bit of a blurry border to performance art in that regard

>>3302072
>I am not
I meant generally with people saying cool stuff is art.
>It's definitely possible to create something artistic and yet aim for commercial success.
I actually agree. However, in the art world, critics typically wouldn't agree. It typically wouldn't get recognition. Something being artistically impressive and actually holding the title as a "piece of art" are separate things though. And this is unfortunately because of who is saying it is. The art world is extremely subjective but only the opinion of the important or the masses deem whether or not something is art. You and I can't say something is art and actually make it so unless the world or a few critics agreed.

>>3301396
>Are games art?

They can be, and very few are. Developers rarely have any such vision. They're usually more concerned with sales.

>>3302079
>However, in the art world, critics typically wouldn't agree
It's just critics. Art does not require them, or their recognition

>And this is unfortunately because of who is saying it is. The art world
The "art world" is entirely irrelevant for the subject. What they're doing is academic circle jerking, and has nothing to do with artists, art, or the audience.

>unless the world or a few critics agreed
disagreed. Especially critics are oblivious to games. It's like asking their opinion on who'll win the nascar championship this year. They're not qualified to give any useful answer. You do not need any authority (including consent) to have something be artistic or not. As an individual you can make that decision for yourself, and reason about it. All it takes. It's more than a simple yes/no decision process though. Got to invest some time into understanding the game, the creator, the impact of and on the audience, and so on.

>>3302089
Again, I say it can be artistic without the consent of critics etc. It just wouldn't be "art". I see many games, again I use Journey as an example, that are artistically rich and deserve admiration for the thought put into it. They count. They (even if the art world doesn't say so) are art because that's what they were going for from the start. I'm saying a game like DK or GTA wouldn't be art however, even if the gameplay is phenomenal etc. This is because the vision behind it is "make a game to have fun" instead of "make a statement".

>>3302104
>It just wouldn't be "art".
Sounds like you're abusing the term "art" to mean "approved by critics". Frankly, that's bullshit

>GTA wouldn't be art
>"make a statement"
come again?

>>3301396

there is no universally agreed upon definition of the word "art", so this argument is pointless.

>>3302080
I don't see what makes this more art then custer's revenge, either all games are art or none are.

>>3302112
>either all games are art or none are
why?

>>3302107
>>3302112
If it's not intended by the creators to be art, it is not. Unless it's a fucking masterpiece and has never been achieved prior/can't be done again.

You don't say a Mcfarlane Spawn statue is art, or that a Transformers toy is art. The engineering or sculpting may be impressive but you don't say they're art because you know they're just made for kids and collectors. They're consumer goods.

Games are the same. Things that are artistic as a craft are not the same as things that are artistic in concept. The concept is more definitive in what is or isn't art. If the concept behind a game is for it to be an art piece and then it does shit that is entertaining and tells the player something or leaves an impact, that WOULD be art. Because that's the intention. An entertaining game isn't art if it never chose to be in the first place. It can be artistically impressive but that's not the same.

I'm not saying critics need to approve it. A fucking skyscraper is not art. It's goddamn impressive in the artistic craft, in the engineering and work behind it, but you don't fucking call it art unless the maker wanted it to be. Fuck.

>>3301951
this

>>3301985
quotes from children like you who spent their lives playing video games are irrelevant on the topic of art.

>>3302107

What is or isn't art may be entirely subjective, but it's pretty clear when the creator might have / not had any such intention to begin with. I mean, who's really going to pick Batman v. Superman out of a list of films made in the last decade and declare it a work of art? I'm pretty sure the director was just trying to cash in on the popularity of capeshit. Meanwhile, films like Cloud Atlas get overlooked both in terms of box office sales and public awareness specifically because the directors were fueled only by their passion to adapt this novel into a motion picture, to the expense of going the indie route and not having a massive advertising campaign trailing the film's release.

In this article Hideo Kojima says that video games are not art.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/news240106kojimaart

>>3302159
his certainly aren't

>>3301420

my face looks like a dollop of uncooked bread dough

--rodger ebert

>>3302159
I don't think a person that thinks Del Torro's movies are art is qualified to judge any medium.

>>3301951

I'll bet no one in this thread opining on what qualifies as art actually reads much

>>3302148
>I mean, who's really going to pick Batman v. Superman out of a list of films made in the last decade and declare it a work of art?
Anyone who knows how to use a dictionary.

NERDS BTFO
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/video-games-can-never-be-art

More importantly can porn be art?

>>3302069
Most of the greatest works of art in human history were commissioned for money. That doesn't mean games are art, because games aren't art - but the Sistine Chapel is art, and that was made for money.

>>3302239
>That doesn't mean games are art, because games aren't art
Can you beg that question a bit more?

You're just ashamed to admit your hobbie was a masturbatory waste of time and not a source of artistic expression.

>>3302228
>>3301420
- the guy who includes mawkish trash like The Shawshank Redemption on his great movies list alongside dozens of genuine masterpieces

>>3302228
His entire justification is "because there hasn't been a Da Vinci figure in video games yet and also I don't like them". What a tool.

>>3302251
What's wrong with shawshank redemption? Jew propaganda?

>>3302250
In that case, so is going to an art exhibit, bucko.

>>3302257
In reality there have been a wealth of geniuses in game dev, but we can't expect Ebert to have known about them

Art is putting form to the formless.

So that would dictate that video games are definitely art.

More importantly do we WANT videogames to be art? Art only seems to attract tryhard hipsters and SJWs.

>>3302274
>do we WANT videogames to be art?
video games in general to be considered artworks? Nah, I doubt anybody is interested in that. Video games as a genre being capable of artistic expression, and the occasional game being a piece of art? Hell yeah. Excluding any form of creation is just arbitrary. Just like movies have a place for art house and popcorn flicks, or music has a place for bubble gum pop and grand operas, games should have a place for mass appeal dreck and pretentious shit

On a cultural scale, video games aren't really considered "true art" right now, but I think it's pretty safe to say they will be considered "true art" in the near future.

What constitutes "art," particularly "good art" basically rests in the hands of the elite. Before the 20th century, "good art" basically meant art that was paid for by wealthy patrons like nobles and churches. It's pretty much the same now, except we have things like grants and artist residencies coming from charities (funded by modern day nobles) and colleges (humanism ideologically replacing religion). Some people argue "good art" is determined by scholars and critics, but scholars and critics are paid and employed by the exact same institutions as the artists. "Good" artists and critics are ones that cater to their patrons.

Shifts in wealth from nobility to self-made magnates in the 20th century lead to shifts in art as well. On one end, modern art made clear challenges to and breaks from traditional art - with clear sponsorship from the "new rich," perhaps as a means to destabilize the influence of traditional authority. On the other end, modern patrons, museums and critics widened their scope so that film, photography and product design were treated as equals to traditional art, mediums strongly connected to industrialism and mass production.

Hopefully you see where I'm going with this. The modern day magnates are in technology. Video games are a perfect medium for tech magnates to sponsor and legitimize (and likewise sponsoring scholarly perception of video games). Doing so would signal a break from the 20th century elites, and also demonstrate the artistic contributions/potential of the tech industry.

>>3302467
>good art
no such thing. The moment you add claims of quality, good or bad, you lost. Art would play off of it, mock your position, expose it. Art is. It's not good or bad, it is.

>Hopefully you see where I'm going with this
I am, and I would like to point out the path you're not seeing: crowd funding. We're in the fairly new and unique position that artists can feasibly rely on groups of patrons acting like one. Magnates are just a variant of old style patrons, individuals that act like a filter or driver. With crowd funding though, the creator retains some autonomy, or just voluntarily gives away some of it. That's a much bigger and more important change than aristocracy vs. magnates.

>>3302490
>no such thing. The moment you add claims of quality, good or bad, you lost. Art would play off of it, mock your position, expose it. Art is. It's not good or bad, it is.
You apparently missed the fact that I used air quotes literally every time I said "good art." I'm not claiming anything about the true nature of quality -- I'm simply pointing out that there's a mass consensus on "good art" (notice the air quotes again) that is baseless beyond cultural conditioning and influence.

>I am, and I would like to point out the path you're not seeing: crowd funding.
A big point of my post was that its not just about the patron supporting the artist/art, it's just as much about them supporting the critics, scholars and museums that evaluate and promote the artist/art. Crowdfunding can support an artist, but they don't get them in museums or scholarly recognition that ultimately leads to long term validation.

>>3302538
>I'm simply pointing out that there's a mass consensus on "good art"
I'm simply pointing out that this "consensus" is not helpful, and not even air quotes are gonna change that.

>Crowdfunding can support an artist
good, all that matters

>they don't get them in museums or scholarly recognition that ultimately leads to long term validation
fuck that. Art's not something that needs to be advertised. If critics are too ignorant, they'll be replaced by critics that aren't.

>>3301396
Art is a term that i wish people would stop using to refer to pieces of entertainment they happen to like. Its pretentious.

>>3301396
It's easier to say no than yes, so no. And it's okay, I don't have to like it to be art or justify why I like it.

>>3302556
You're spouting exactly the kind of rhetoric promoted by the patrons of modernism who wanted to undermine the influence of traditional nobility. If that's not evidence of their success, I don't know what is.

The day people regard old games as classics and not 'retro' as it is done with music/film/literature/paintings then i will believe game is art.

>>3302257
Who would you think qualifies as video games' 'Leonardo da Vinci figure'? Or Shakespeare or Mozart or whatever. I think the closest would be Sid Meier

>>3302258

yes, but it's still a great movie. >>3302251 is a moron

>>3301420
You mean a man who has a clear biased against games said something bad about them?
Why don't we just ask Hitler about his honest opinion on Jews or Gays.

>>3301420
My thoughts:

It's arguably true that there is no "game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers." That doesn't necessarily invalidate the whole medium; it took a while for film to come into its own, and it took painting a LONG time to become anything more than simplistic depictions of the hunt, which, historical relevance aside, are really no deeper than an Atari 2600 game--because that was as deep as they /could/ be back then.

So if we hope to eventually see a "game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers," what do we do? Simple: just let it happen. The best art is rarely born of people deliberately setting out to make something "deep and artistic"; such an approach results in Bioshock Infinite and Gone Home, which feel quite ham-fisted and forced (not to mention that their statement is essentially "video games can be art, but only the non-game parts, and in order to be art, they have to have the video game parts subdued and de-emphasized). Rather, it's simply people creating what they feel, with no ulterior motives or pretension; even the best of avant-garde tends to be like a stream of consciousness, or failing that it is no forced attempt to deliver a message in a weird or bizarre way, it's just that a weird and bizarre delivery came naturally, because the artist is a weird and bizarre person. If video games are anything like those other media that Ebert named (which they are), then they WILL follow the same course, and they WILL produce a game worthy of comparison to the greats thereof.

And, being on a board dedicated to retro vidya and all, that's not to say that there's no profundity to the simpler games of yesteryear. I would say that DOOM is a powerful statement on the human condition, and the "ultra-violence" approach has been used in many a lauded film. Eastern Mind is just Eastern Mind. (cont.)

>>3303018
Then if you think creatively, plenty of very early and seemingly "too simplistic" stuff has value as well. Sure, it's less story-focused and fleshed-out than what followed it, but that doesn't make Metal Gear any less poignant. What does Outer Heaven represent to Snake? Consider him as a psychonaut; think of him as the ego, perhaps with his infiltration mission as an exploration of his own consciousness. What does it all mean? What is the significance of his various discoveries, from this perspective? If De Stijl and Brutalism can be considered landmark movements in art, then the brute simplicity of pre-1990 vidyer certainly can be as well.

Guess I got bit carried away. That's how I feel, at any rate.

>>3302636
It's kind of stupid that this board is called "Retro Games" instead of "Classic Games" or even just "Old Games". "Retro" games would be modern games that imitate the style of older games, not the older games themselves.

>>3301396
As far as Roger Ebert was concerned, no. And I'm sort of inclined to agree with him. While golden age vidya was close it was still primarily just a kike type cash cow scheme.

Modern vidya is even worse, nowadays it's all about DLC, AAA money sucking preorder faggotry and spreadsheet checklist garbage.

Much like what Ebert said, no one who considers themselves a "gamer" today will be alive when the medium can ever truly be viewed as truly "artistic" whatever that really implies.

Video games are still too greedy kids toy tier IMO but, someday OP... Someday.

>Also, I'd buy the fuck out of that painting.

>>3301396
caant have art without naked ladies.

>>3302009
>>Autism: The Post

>>3301982
>music is super math heavy

As someone who has studied a lot of music, and a lot of math, I fucking hate when people say this.

The math behind music is nothing more complicated than what you might find in a 1st year university physics course.

>>3303746
>The math behind music is nothing more complicated than what you might find in a 1st year university physics course.
The math behind 3D engines is fairly basic as well, yet there's a shitload of it. I fortunately made no statement about the difficulty of the math involved

>>3303749
for me and you

what a stupid question. the graphical assets, music/sounds and story/writing are art, the code however is not

impolite sage for /v/-tier thread

>>3306615
Their actual difference in size is much more pronounced in the level itself. The minigoomba would be about the size of an ant compared to the giant one

>>3306879
I have no idea why I made this post.

>>3302009
>Music isn't math heavy. Math isn't real. Music is sound, and sound can be described mathematically. People knew how to harmonize and plan harmonies before Pythagoras ever realized that what they were doing was the result of quantifiable, predictable frequencies.

You're basically saying "if I can't see it, It's not there."

Math is an understanding of numbers as
Music is an understanding of harmony

That's why numbers written randomly doesn't qualify as math

and Noises made randomly isn't music

Point being, if you argue Math isn't real, Then neither is Music

>>3308826
cont'd

>Point being, if you argue Math isn't real, Then neither is Music

Forgot to add last part

"Point being, if you argue Math isn't real, Then neither is Music because both require understanding"

>>3302251
sorry loser games are toys and not art

>>3302228

Coming from someone who has never played a video game in his life. His opinion on the matter is beyond worthless.

>>3301420
That arrogance.

He seems to forget that most movies, books and poetry are also shit. Or is he saying that Marvel Sequel #18 is artistic genius on par with the works of Hemingway?

Art is simply craft valued beyond utilitarian use.
Wether it is good art or not is subjective to the eye of the beholder, but it's all art, or at least usually is to someone.
If shit in a can can be viewed in an artistic context and traded commercially like any other piece of classically modern and pre-modernly validated form of art, really anything can, as long as it was crafted in some way by human hands.
Thus, games are art, and I'd argue an even more interesting and valuable art form than, say, most performance art or fashion flavor of the month.

>>3303021
>>3303018
I really enjoyed both your posts. I just wanted to say that once a very simple line of dialogue from an NPC made me cry in a NES game. The music is beautiful too, and because I memorized the lyrics a long time ago it made it even more poignant to me. I'm really homesick so this struck such an emotion chord with me. It just gave me such a comforting feeling like this fluffy 8bit cloud is home. I am very homesick and going through lots of shit like chronic diseases, but I can't be the only one to be moved in some way (not just negative) to a NES game.

This might just be me talking out of my ass but videogames feel like the new form of folk tales. The stories are so simple yet so relatable, like The Legend of Zelda series. Especially back in the day when your imagination would run wild and you talked about it on the schoolground. You'd sit around with your friends gathered infront of the TV discussing and searching for secrets. The way it keeps repeating the same lore reminds me of oral folktales that keep changing over time. It's just enough to evoke wonder even as an adult. I think things like that can have a lot of value. Anything that brings people together has value. I want games to feel more like fairy tales and folk tales.

There's not enough there to put yourself in the character's shoes and think about what they're going through and empathize with them for most games, but when you are a kid your imagination and wonder replaces it. The Mother series dialogue really lends itself to you projecting your life onto the characters. There's a lot of dark shit. Not even dark, just real. More games just need to have better dialogue like this no matter how simple they are and they'd feel more like stories. I thought Undertale was another amazing example of this. There's also stuff that genuinely fascinates people like LSD for PS1. I really loved Killer 7 as well and there's tons and tons of great experimental games.

>>3309248

Majora's Mask was fantastic on an artistic level. I think I brought this up in another thread, but thinking about the crying moon makes me sad. There's so much fantastic imagery in this game and fantastic NPC interactions that makes you feel a lot.

Sometimes you just need to stop and realize what you're looking at, what your character did, and the music you can hear. Just feel it. You'll see the beauty in everything.

>>3302870
Don't forget Chris Sawyer

>>3309248
I missed dialogue from that if anyone actually cares about context.

>All of us know you don't belong here, but we consider you one of us.
>With the Onyx Hook, you can warp back here anytime.
>Promise me, that if you need help, you will return.
>Everyone loves you, Ninten

Also this guy. I have agoraphobia so I haven't went outside my house in 5 years. I never expected a NES game to cut right through to my heart. I can't be the only one who this shit happened to.

>>3302870
Will Wright

>>3309067
why don't you kill yourself and ask his ghost, retard

>>3301396
If you consider movies and tv-shows as art, obviously.
And I fail to see why so much people think they can't be: they are a story-telling medium and thus can be analyzed like literature, they include music, they have visuals/cutscenes, the thing that sets them apart from purely cinematic works (a lot of which are already regarded as art) is the additional aspect of gameplay. For a game to be regarded as art it obviously has to combine these in a meaningful way that makes it a work that necessarily has to be a video game. A movie can't be considered art only because the Soundtrack is artistic, the whole combination of story-telling, atmosphere, music etc. needs to be good.

Video games will be commonly regarded as potentially artistic in the near future. The shift is happening like it did in the time of early cinema. Just takes a while.

>>3306879
>>3307106
I laughed.

>>3309248
I think you should read some actual literature.

Video game stories are about as deep as Deviant Art fan-fiction. Stop getting emotional over children's novelties.

>>3309248
> liking Undertale
> actually liking that pseudo retro indie trash

into the trash your opinion goes.

>>3309921
You know something is wrong when a silent protagonist has more depth and personality to them than the average twibble-ayyyy protagonist.

The word "art" is too fuzzy and vague to be meaningful, all this argument boils down to is semantic bullshit. If you define "art" better then whether or not you find videogames are art would not be a compliment or a pejorative to games, games would stay the same having the exact same quality or traits.

>>3302251

>Shawshank Redemption
>Trash

Pick one.

>>3302274

>Art only seems to attract tryhard hipsters and SJWs

Ameridumb detected.

>>3302274
>Art only seems to attract tryhard hipsters and SJWs

please go to the nearest window and jump out of it

>>3306879
>>3307106
Thats a good point

>>3306879
It's a matter of perspective. Notice the "foggy" effect around the giant goomba implying that he's quite a bit farther away then the smaller goomba.