Games can be art, says Barker

By Games Industry.biz Published 27 June, 2007

Horror author challenges Ebert.

Addressing the second annual Hollywood and Games Summit, novelist and director Clive Barker has joined the debate over whether or not videogames can be considered an art form, GamesIndustry.biz reports.

Responding to film critic Roger Ebert's infamous comment that games cannot move beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art, Barker noted: "It's evident that Ebert had a prejudiced vision of what the medium is, or more importantly what it can be."

"We can debate what art is, we can debate it forever. If the experience moves you in some way or another... Even if it moves your bowels... I think it is worthy of some serious study."

Barker said he faced similar prejudice against his genre of choice, horror. "It used to worry me that the New York Times never reviewed my books... But the point is that people like the books. Books aren't about reviewers," he said.

"Games aren't about reviewers. They are about players."

Addressing Ebert's criticism further, Barker explained: "I think that Roger Ebert's problem is that he thinks you can't have art if there is that amount of malleability in the narrative. In other words, Shakespeare could not have written Romeo and Juliet as a game because it could have had a happy ending, you know? If only she hadn't taken the damn poison. If only he'd have gotten there quicker.

"If something is so malleable, full of possibilities not under the artist's control, then it cannot be art," he continued. "That's where he is wrong.

"We should be stretching the imaginations of our players and ourselves. Let's invent a world where the player gets to go through every emotional journey available. That is art. Offering that to people is art."

"I'm not doing an evangelical job here. I'm just saying that gaming is a great way to do what we as human beings need to do all the time - to take ourselves away from the oppressive facts of our lives and go somewhere where we have our own control," Barker concluded.

For more on whether art is games or whatever he was saying, have a poke round GamesIndustry.biz. They know more words than us.

Picture of Games.

About Games Industry.biz

Read more articles from Games by visiting the Games Industry.biz archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (62) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • kangarootoo #1 5 years ago

    There is plenty of art that could easily be labelled as not being art. I think the only thing we can really learn from these discussions is, who gives a f*ck, clearly we will never agree.

    Let the dictionary decide says I.

    [link url=http://dic tionary.reference.com/browse/art
    ]http://dic tionary.reference.com/browse/art
    [/link]

    Hmm. It would appear pretty much everything is art. So, thats that settled then.

  • souljacker2000 #2 5 years ago

    is he saying that his game is shit already, and knows reviewers are gona slate it?

  • smoothpete #3 5 years ago

    From the previews of Jericho that I've read, it seems to now be quite solidly in the FPS genre which has disappointed some folks who were hoping for something more along the lines of a freaky horror Condemned-esque experience

  • Wayne #4 5 years ago

    I have to say, I have a lot of respect for Barker. The way he dabbles in books, comics, movies, video games. He's so open to putting his ideas and visions into so many different media formats. True, it doesn't always work and he's had a few ropey results, but hats off to the man for trying.

    I've still to play through Undying. Anyone enjoy it?

  • space_ace #5 5 years ago

    sure it was a blast

  • TwistidChimp #6 5 years ago

    Yup, quite right too. And yes Undying was great. Very under-rated imo.

  • nickthegun #7 5 years ago

    Yeah, im still pointlessly hoping for the Undying sequel. one of the most underrated games evar.

    I loved the dual wield weapon/spell dynamic and the ending just begged for a sequel to be made. Shame hardly anyone bought it...

  • Wayne #8 5 years ago

    I'll have to add that to my list of "Games I Plan To Play"

  • menage #9 5 years ago

    Well, I' kinda bummed that I missed Undying, that seems the only good thing the man has ever done.

    Jericho looks awful, visually especially , lots of gore doesn't make a good game. I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. No style.
    Edited by 1 at 27/06/07 @ 10:17

  • Wayne #10 5 years ago

    Menage, go and read The Great And Secret Show

  • kangarootoo #11 5 years ago

    @Wayne

    Undying is really quite good, though it may seema bit dated now.

  • Talha #12 5 years ago

    Well this debate will rage forever. You have your Poe (universally loved as a pinnacle of horror fiction by the snooty ones and the general public alike) and then you have your Stephen King. I read one of these authors. It's not difficult to guess who.

  • Hugundo #13 5 years ago

    "Let's invent a world where the player gets to go through every emotional journey available"

    Yeah, except those ones.
    Edited by 2 at 27/06/07 @ 11:15

  • kangarootoo #14 5 years ago

    @Talha

    I read both. Stephen King needs to cheer up a bit ;)

  • fungaloid #15 5 years ago

    Being good > being art.

  • Monkey_Puncher #16 5 years ago

    Menage : Clive Barker is one of the best horror and fantasy authors around, he doesn't just make computer games you realise?

    Barker > King

  • Turambar #17 5 years ago

    Sure games can be art but developers shouldn't forget their primary purpose is entertainment.

  • Meho #18 5 years ago

    Well, Barker's books stopped being good almost twenty years ago and he's only made one game so far (contributed to, rather) that started good and ended being somewhat mediocre. Jericho got a very suspicious preview on Gamespy today, claiming it has a lot of good ideas but shoddy shooter mechanics, which makes me slightly worried. Sure, the game is still early in development, so let's see...

    And his argument that books are about readers rather than about reviewers is fair but meaningless. Bad books do have many readers, bad games do have many purchases, that hardly means games are art or that Jericho will be good.

  • Dafridge #19 5 years ago

    @ Meho

    Bad books that have many readers are obviously good books to those readers. I never liked Barker's books but his attitude and his words are spot on here.

  • Talha #20 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo: On that I agree with you wholeheartedly.

  • Bezzy #21 5 years ago

    Huh. I'm surprised to find that he's not completely off the ball here (which is what I've come to expect most times that writers/movie makers/creatives from other mediums get in the games-as-art debate). Doesn't make any real assertions other than to say that Ebert's patently ignorant of the medium's methods.

  • menage #22 5 years ago

    "Menage : Clive Barker is one of the best horror and fantasy authors around, he doesn't just make computer games you realise?

    Barker > King"

    I know, I'm not ignorant. I read the book with the tapestry world (forgot the name) and quite liked it. I should refrase my statement. He should only make books. Hellraiser and all that shit (everuthing with pictures is utter crap). I don't like gory stuff when it's about the gore itself. That's why Jericho looks terrible, I don't need tasteless shit.

    I don't like most of Kings work either.

  • sniglet #23 5 years ago

    The sooner we have games about gay cowboys and butch lesbians exploring their sexuality the better. Then, maybe the games industry can be taken seriously.

  • agparrot #24 5 years ago

    I don't know if it is Art,

    but I like it!

    'What Is Art?' is far too broad a topic to cover, but there are several games I can think of that seem more 'artistic' than sawing a cow in half and dunking it in formaldehyde.

    bah

  • Genji #25 5 years ago

    "The sooner we have games about gay cowboys and butch lesbians exploring their sexuality the better."

    gears of war gets halfway there

  • spongebob #26 5 years ago

    Barker is wise man and his words reflect this. Ebert is a wise man as well, but he know s nothing about videogames.

  • afghan_jones #27 5 years ago

    I think Barker's argument is flawed.

    He states that most critics find games to be constructs rather than art cause games allow too much to be dictated by the player. Barker disagrees with this but I think this is probably true.

    Art is usually a representation of the artists intent through whatever medium they choose. The point is that it is the intent and ideas of the artist that are presented. Whilst the viewer/listener might have different reactions, sometimes to the extent of strongly disliking what the artist has presented, the art remains a presentation of the artisits' intent and design.

    With a game, as Barker points out, there are various possibilities for the player and their responses will vary based on their input. In a sense, it is along similar lines to 'art', especially in games with a very linearm strong story and characters. But most games are simply providing the toolkit and framework for gamers to create experiences. In a sense, the gamer becomes the 'artist' based on how he or she chooses to approach the game.

    In art, the constant is the image presented to the viewer, the variable is their reaction. In games, the image presented is both constant in one sense, as the story & levels are the same for each gamer, but also variable as their input and approach dictates in part, thier response. No other medium considered as art does this and this is where the schism arises from.

  • spongebob #28 5 years ago

    Barker's argument is not flawed, it just doesn't apply to all types of games.

    The game developers have the option to lead the gamer and his avatar they way they fit. Think of Half-Life 2, for example. It's a very constrained. The narrative is told in a very straight-forward fashion and the developers always remain in control of the experience.

    On the other hand you games like Crackdown, where there is little narrative. In fact, in games like these the gamer is supposed to craft his own narrative, however simple it is (run and gun people down).

    Games can be art. It's just that there's very few games so far that can claim to be that.

  • kangarootoo #29 5 years ago

    Look, stop it you two right now. This is futiile.

    If something can be considered artful, or artistic, then it is art. End of story. Someone else may not share the opinion, and for them it may therefore not be art. Its subjective.

    Now rest.

  • afghan_jones #30 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I dont disagree with you, almost anything can be considered art, Its just that in the context of games, the artist is unable to present a singular artistic vision in the same way alsmot all other media, leaving the role of the 'artist' shared between the game's makers and it's players. In a way, a game only fulfills it's potential as 'art' once the gamer has added their own input.

    I think that is why critics generally don't classify games as 'art' as they only really become such through the player's interaction. Without any player interaction, games aren't really anything at all in an art sense.

  • spongebob #31 5 years ago

    The argument that anything can be art is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. Everyone single person who uses that knows nothing about art.

    While it most definitely is hard sometimes to say what is art, the mere fact how easy it is to point out what is definitely not art should make everyone understand how it's completely paradoxical to make a claim that "everything is art".

    However, it is possible to turn something that is not not art into something that is. It's all contextual. But just playing Crackdown on X360 doesn't make you an art lover. Nor does watching Predator on DVD.

    I think that is why critics generally don't classify games as 'art' as they only really become such through the player's interaction. Without any player interaction, games aren't really anything at all in an art sense.

    What kind of horse manure argument is this? This is almost like that old saying "does tree make a sound when it falls in a forest if no one's listening". Surely nothing is art if there's no one witnessing it. To me it sounds like you're limiting your art thinking to paintings and other mediums where people just watch them. Well, guess what, videogames aren't the first form of art to use interactivity. Would a dance performance even take place if there were no people attending? What about improvisational theatre? I don't need to go on...
    Edited by 1 at 27/06/07 @ 16:25

  • afghan_jones #32 5 years ago

    @spongebob

    Yeah, that was kind of my point, originally in saying that art needs to be presented by an artist as part of an idea. In that context, any mundane items can become 'art' through context and juxtaposition as defined by the artist who is trying to convey an idea or feeling to the viewer. These items are not art to begin with but can become art through their presentation by an artist (whether they become good or bad art is down to the viewer to decide.)

    This was why I feel games have a hard time calling themselves art, as they are not presented as part of an artist's vision, rather a mixture of the original intention plus the input of the gamer.

  • zuljin #33 5 years ago

    @Genji
    ""The sooner we have games about gay cowboys and butch lesbians exploring their sexuality the better."

    gears of war gets halfway there"

    Damn I gotta pick me up a copy!

  • spongebob #34 5 years ago

    afghan_jones, check my edit on my post above. I think you need to broaden your knowledge on contemporary arts before making any more statements how videogames can't be art just because they require interactivity.

  • kangarootoo #35 5 years ago

    @spongebob

    "The argument that anything can be art is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. Everyone single person who uses that knows nothing about art."

    Lol. "knows nothing about art". I love it every time that one comes up.

    Given that this discussion is about whether something can be definied as art or not, and is therefore a case of pure semantics, explain to me how I need to "know" anything more than what my dictionary tells me?

    My very first post on this thread included a handy link, but let me repeat it here for convenience.

    [link url=http://dic tionary.reference.com/browse/art
    ]http://dic tionary.reference.com/browse/art
    [/link]

    One the rerences reads "skill in conducting any human activity", whilst another reads "an artifice or artful device" (which is the definition I was referring to when I previously described art as anything that could be subjectively considered "artful";).

    I know that high brow people like to pretend that "art" is actually something specific, so they can attribute relative value to it, and attribute value to the apparent "knowledge" of it. But it is purely a human creation, a word to express how something makes you feel. And if something can make you feel that it is artful, if it can generate emotions that you believe result from an artistic presentation, then IT IS ART.

    But please do point out the paradox, 'cos I love to learn ;)

  • Xerx3s #36 5 years ago

    Art cannot be defined by simply saying this is or isn't art. The definition of art is broad, variating, dependent on culture/social & political background, dependent on what art discipline follower you are, etc. People who dismiss something as 'not art' with such ease might want to do some coursework in art definitions.

    That said, I think that games have a long way to go before they reach the level of other art mediums. But so did film. And writing. And everything else.

  • afghan_jones #37 5 years ago

    @spongebob

    I get your point, but I think I meant something slightly different. A dance performace wouldnt take place if no one was there, because it wouldnt be very successful financially, but a dance performed in front of an audience and one without any audience could be identical. they still present the same ideas from the artist(s).

    By contrast, a game's audience (players) are wholly necessary for the game to unfold and so they are separated from other passive media in the sense that without the audience participation, they do not happen. Whilst dance or other arts need an audience to validate and appreciate them, they could exist as art without an audience. Games, by contrast, are shaped by the players to an extent.

    A dance could be performed to a packed house of dance lovers, to a disinterested group of football fans or to an empty room and the same ideas would be presented each time by the artist although the response would differ.

    A game played by an aggressive teenager, a thoughtful, methodical mature gamer, and a six year old girl will present slightly different ideas each time as the player shapes the actions that occur. Obviously the level of variation depends on the restrictions the game places on the player.

  • konniehuqfan #38 5 years ago

    of course games can be art! but they'll never get the same respect as books, films or tv.

  • L0cky #39 5 years ago

    My very first post on this thread included a handy link, but let me repeat it here for convenience.

    http://dic tionary.reference.com/browse/art


    A dictionary is a running commentary on common use of words, not the other way around. This is why dictionaries are updated constantly. There is no Dictionary God that dictates to us what words mean; and words are only a tool to convey a meaning, not define it (I guess you could call that art!).

    If your dictionary definition does not convey the same meaning as inferred by the original context, then it is irrelevant.

    Besides, anyone who points to a dictionary in an argument is being a twat.

    Also, anyone who says 'ooh I feel that's artful' or describes something as 'arty' is being pretentious.

  • zuljin #40 5 years ago

    @L0cky
    "A dictionary is a running commentary on common use of words, not the other way around. This is why dictionaries are updated constantly."

    Read his first post, I think the context comes through better.

    Kanga wasn't laying down the law and saying "this is the only acceptable use of the word "art"", he was pointing out that the dictionary has so many variations on what art can mean.

    So much so that it is almost pointless to discuss "what is art", because everything and anything can be referred to as art.

    Well thats what I got from it at least.

  • kangarootoo #41 5 years ago

    @L0cky

    "Besides, anyone who points to a dictionary in an argument is being a twat. "

    Heeheehee, well thank christ you managed to back your argument up with a well placed insult. For a minute there I thought I had you over a barrel, but I can't really aregue with the logic of being called a twat can I? All power to you professor.

    "Also, anyone who says 'ooh I feel that's artful' or describes something as 'arty' is being pretentious."

    Well so says you, which is mighty convient for you I'm sure, though again I am not sure of the relevance as part of an adult discussion, or have I walked into the wrong meeting room by accident?

    So far your efforts to confidently point out how much nonsense I am talking have boiled down to nothing more than insult and subjective personal commentary.

    Thanks muchly to zuljin for reading all of the actual words, understanding my point exactly, and not embarrassing himself. You on the other hand fail on all counts.

  • Les #42 5 years ago

    "It would appear pretty much everything is art."

    As soon as a single person is convinced something created by another human being is art, it's art. Art is nothing but a nice marketing moniker for pretentious handy work.

  • L0cky #43 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Many words have multiple meanings, that doesn't automatically make them somehow ethereal and non specific. When quoting "skill in conducting any human activity" from the dictionary you knew fine well that wasn't the meaning that was being used by Clive Barker, or Roger Ebert for that matter.

    Clive actually defined his meaning: 'If the experience moves you in some way or another... Even if it moves your bowels...'; this seems pretty specific to me.

    What constitutes art (in the context of this article) is up for debate but not on such a loose scale as you're describing. The debate is about whether games are capable of conveying a specific message or emotional journey; which is made gray by the player's ability to choose how the game plays out.

    If you took my comment as a personal insult that's up to you, but I stand by it. Referring to a dictionary and playing semantics is choosing to ignore what people actually mean in favour of what you want them to mean and undermines the discussion/debate/argument. For what purpose would you do this?


    "Also, anyone who says 'ooh I feel that's artful' or describes something as 'arty' is being pretentious."

    Well so says you, which is mighty convient for you I'm sure, though again I am not sure of the relevance as part of an adult discussion

    I was actually agreeing with you when you said...

    I know that high brow people like to pretend that "art" is actually something specific

    So when someone describes something as 'artful' or 'arty' what exactly do they mean? You've already stated that they would be pretending to be talking about something specific; but now you appear to disagree that it's pretentious. Make up your mind.

  • Nikanoru #44 5 years ago

    In art, the constant is the image presented to the viewer, the variable is their reaction. In games, the image presented is both constant in one sense, as the story & levels are the same for each gamer, but also variable as their input and approach dictates in part, thier response. No other medium considered as art does this and this is where the schism arises from.


    Right. So what about sculptures? There are a whole lotta angles from which to approach one. Architecture? What if you enter through the backdoor instead of the front door?

  • afghan_jones #45 5 years ago

    @Nikanoru

    Umm, yeah, dont think youve quite got it there mate. Yes a sculpture can be seen form all different angles. Thats kind of what they're all about. They are still a single idea presented by an artist which isnt affected by the mentality or actions of the viewer.

  • Nikanoru #46 5 years ago

    I don't think you've quite got it, really.

    Any argument you're making for sculpture or architecture, you're making for games. How is seeing a different shape depending on how you approach it, not something affected by the actions of the viewer?


    But just for the heck of it, if that's not good enough, how about this one. You know how, when you read a book, you've got a certain visual image in your mind of what a person or place looks like, sounds like, feels like? I can absolutely assure you that this image is going to be different for every single individual who reads it. In fact, it's the very reason often quoted as to why many people still prefer books over other media! Tell me just exactly how this is not an experience being affected by the mentality of the reader?

  • zuljin #47 5 years ago

    @Nikanoru
    The analogy kind of fails. See when you read a book or see a sculpture, the physical object is there, and there for all to see in complete splendour/glory.

    A game isn't quite the same in that a lot (not all) games completely restrict you from some experiences due to actions.

    Simply seeing a sculpture from one side will not stop you from seeing the other side.

  • afghan_jones #48 5 years ago

    @Nikanoru

    Its not the same with a book.

    With a book, the author presents the story, characters etc. This is presented the same way to every reader, the same characters are described in the same way, the same story is told. While each reader may respond differently to the information, they are all presented with the same tihng from which to draw their conclusions.

    With a game, the story is affected in varying degrees by the input of the gamer who is also the audience. In this way, my experience of playing a game, and the sotry and information presented to me will differ from the story and experiences you have whilst playing the same game because our inputs will be different.

  • L0cky #49 5 years ago

    But at the same time, in most games you won't experience something that the designer didn't intend (save for bugs), and certainly what the designer didn't create.

    The article actually reminded me of Ocarina of Time. When you first leave Kokiri Forest your friend Saria calls you back on the bridge and says goodbye with some sadness. The scene marks the end of a chapter in Link's life (his innocent childhood) as he ventures out into the world to begin his adventure.

    Interestingly though, it's a non interactive cut scene.

  • afghan_jones #50 5 years ago

    @L0cky

    True, but it depends on the level of freedom given to the player.

    Obviously cutscenes will present the same thing to the player each time, but everything in between can usually be approached in different ways, sometimes in a different order, and can be played in different ways.

  • L0cky #51 5 years ago

    Many games have non linear sections that ultimately draw you back to the story line; even GTA does this, and non-interactive cutscenes are used to present the story arcs.

    I agree that as soon as the player has freedom the ability to convey anything is lost - sticking to GTA, think about the simple act of driving around. If you ignore this part of gaming you both end up with something more akin to a 3d movie and with something that is no longer a game.

    So perhaps gaming can be used for art, but it's just not a very good medium.

  • fungaloid #52 5 years ago

    I think games can be art but only if they move from being object oriented to subject oriented.

    Pun intended.

  • afghan_jones #53 5 years ago

    @L0cky

    GTA is a good example actually.

    In the earlier cutscenes especially, CJ is just looking out for his family, doesnt really want too much trouble, etc.

    However, between these cutscenes showing him feeling bad about him mum and looking out for his sister, the player is free to rack up a four digit headcount, put on 200 pounds and make it with hookers.

    Equally, a player couuld follow in the spirit of the cutscenes, concentrate on the missions needed to progress and avoid collateral damage.

    So in the first example, the players actions are wholly at odds with the story and characters the games designers are trying to create, making the character of CJ much less empathetic to the player.

    Its a crude example, sure, and GTA does allow more freedom than a lot of games but you get the idea.

  • Les #54 5 years ago

    “So perhaps gaming can be used for art, but it's just not a very good medium.”

    It’s as good a medium as any, just hasn’t been around that long so the establishment doesn’t recognise it as art. Pretty much like what happened with impressionists or cubists back in the days.

    ‘Art’ is a completely subjective label that is given a false sense of objectivity through considerable consensus amongst a small elitist group.
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/07 @ 11:31

  • kangarootoo #55 5 years ago

    My parting comment, as I kind of regret going big guns on a couple of people on a couple of threads recently and I don't want to bate anyone any further... until next time ;).

    Sounds to me like the general perception of video games is core to this whole discussion.

    For some in the mass market (general public, call it what you will) it seems that the assertion that video games cannot "be art" is actually just a club with which to beat something that don't hold in very high regard.

    On a slight tangent, I recall once reading a review of a film, which was described as having a plot "no more complex than a video game", which seemed to be akin to saying that a particular book "teaches the viewer nothing more than a stage play". I.e. confusing content with delivery medium.

    Anyway, back on point and to summarise. I think one of the issues that restricts the likelyhood of games being accepted as otential art media is not the inherent ability of said games top convey whatever it is that art conveys, but rather acceptance of games overall among some parties.

    Until there is greater acceptance of games as "valid ways to spend time" (which lets face it, many do not consider them to be), people will always find ways to contrive examples of how games can never truly be art.

    Byee :)

  • VMerken #56 5 years ago

    Ahh, the eternal, utterly pointless art debate which rages on as seeking definitions is part of man's nature.

    I see that some raised the argument that video games aren't art because they aren't "static" due to player interaction. That's one way of looking at it. I guess that then, a painting isn't art either because it is susceptible to "player interaction" as well.

    Anyway, a video game can present itself in many ways, even "static" ones. For example, a video game "out of the box" is a large array of fixed code stored on a medium such as a CD, DVD, Hard Disk, etc. This code is "static" - the definitive (barring updates etc) creative vision of the coder - and can be visually observed. You can look directly at the surface of a CD for example, or put it under a microscope for more detail. As such, you can watch the video game's physical representation in a "static" way as if you were looking at a painting. And be emotionally touched, appreciating it on many levels and so on.
    Edited by 1 at 28/06/07 @ 15:18

  • L0cky #57 5 years ago

    I think one of the issues that restricts the likelyhood of games being accepted as otential art media is not the inherent ability of said games top convey whatever it is that art conveys, but rather acceptance of games overall among some parties.

    Heh yeah, if you took a game to the national gallery the curator would probably puke on your shoes. If he didn't, Jack Thompson would start wearing a t-shirt with 'Life Imitates Art' on it.

  • L0cky #58 5 years ago

    On a tangent...

    [link url=ht tp://www.intothepixel.com/view-art.php?year=2007
    ]http://ww w.intothepixel.com/view-art.php...[/link]

  • spongebob #59 5 years ago

    If anyone's still reading this, I want to ask you a question: what games (that have been already released) you personally consider art and why?

    For me there are some games that have made me think and even experience somewhat complex emotions, but mostly all games that use narrative have failed in where art in other mediums have succeeded.

    From a purely visual standpoint, there are a few games that I'd call art. One of these is Rez, albeit I hate the in your face message of it.

    Also, I still think the argument, that games can't be art because the gamer creates the experience is utterly and totally wrong. There's no art rulebook where it says that art is only pure and valid when it's the same with or without audience response. You may have heard of interactive art, you may have heard of media art. There's dozens and probably even hundreds of art pieces in the contemporary arts where in fact the piece relies on audience interaction. There's art that evolves during it's exhibition in ways the creator never imagined, in fact, some art is about this and this is what the artist wanted, to see, how it would turn out in the end.

  • Nikanoru #60 5 years ago

    A game isn't quite the same in that a lot (not all) games completely restrict you from some experiences due to actions.

    Simply seeing a sculpture from one side will not stop you from seeing the other side.

    Simply playing a game one way will not stop you from restarting and playing it another way.

    What happens if I break the sculpture? Has it never been art, even when it was whole? Through my actions I was able to restrict myself from an experience.



    With a book, the author presents the story, characters etc. This is presented the same way to every reader, the same characters are described in the same way, the same story is told. While each reader may respond differently to the information, they are all presented with the same tihng from which to draw their conclusions.

    With a game, the story is affected in varying degrees by the input of the gamer who is also the audience. In this way, my experience of playing a game, and the sotry and information presented to me will differ from the story and experiences you have whilst playing the same game because our inputs will be different.

    I believe now you're arguing semantics, and losing the big picture. The readers' imagination is part of their experience, not simply their reaction. Whether or not the words in the book can change has no relevance.

    In fact, for most games, I think one could probably say that the personal distinctions caused by the way different readers experience people and places in a book are far greater than those caused by the order in which players shoot the bad guys in a game.

  • zuljin #61 5 years ago

    @Nikanoru
    "Simply seeing a sculpture from one side will not stop you from seeing the other side.

    Simply playing a game one way will not stop you from restarting and playing it another way."

    You're missing the point. Noone is stopping you from restarting, and playing it a different way, but there are times you will not experience the same path, and will never really experience the same path as someone else. Everyone that I know of thats played STALKER seems to have had different experiences. It is rare this happens in a game tho. But nonetheless you are restricted in your view of the game, by its creator.

  • Nikanoru #62 5 years ago

    There are so many ways one can be restricted from seeing a part of any piece of art. In some artworks it might even be the point that a part of something is covered.

    I don't see why people seem to persist with these vague notions.

    Somewhere near my place, there's a huge sculpture sitting in a field between two roads. It definitely looks different depending on which one you see it from. The roads are not connected anywhere near there. I never actually drive on the other road, I've never seen the other side and it wouldn't really be practical for me to do so.

    Ergo, this statue is not art?

    It's all just the vague ramblings of a film reviewer who has a deep hatred for gaming in general. It holds no water, he's trying to find a point where there is none to be found.

    Also, you should read Spongebob's post up there.