Video Games: Art Form or Entertainment?
I was showing one of my online friends a few character concepts I had come up with for a role-playing game of some sort. A pipe dream, I am well aware, but I enjoy the theory crafting regardless. A debate ensued which I realized had some very philosophical undertones. I am curious how you all feel about this, although I reckon I know which way this forum will typically swing.
Rough text in question --
Raziel: Raziel is a true "wingman" as he will stick by the protagonist like glue, trying desperately to be considered your right hand man throughout the story. Obviously this leads to some tension between him and Claire. While he acts tough, his nature to be always jealous and always needing positive reinforcement of words betrays his insecurities. His banishment has not served him well; he seeks a place that he belongs since he was fired from the guard. Raziel believes this to be your group of mercenaries and by your side.
As such he will give you strong "bro" vibes if you are male. If you are female and meet his other programmed requirements he may romantically pursue you in somewhat of an awkward manner. Should you "friendzone" him he will try to act cool but truthfully it eats at him somewhat. Verbally abuse him and he will leave, otherwise he will stay despite his emotions. If instead you tell him you are sexually incompatible with him as an excuse (e.g. your character is lesbian) he will distance himself a fair bit, not really knowing how to react. Raziel will pitch in his two cents here and there but you will not get the camaraderie you would otherwise. He doesn't know how to treat a lesbian whom he is attracted to. Raziel is attracted to Strength and Charisma.
Exchange --
Aryn: Not sure I agree with your relationship method on Raziel
Quartz: Lmao, "agree" is probably not the word you're looking for, but elaborate. I am not at all an expert on relationships so I would appreciate your input.
Aryn: :T
Aryn: This is my personal opinion
Quartz: xD
Aryn: I don't like how if male, he will send out STRONG BRO vibes and if female, he will have a attraction already
Aryn: Or the female lesbian part really gets me
Aryn: "He will distance himself a fair bit"
Quartz: He's attracted to the female but she's a lesbian. Of course he's awkward. He's Raziel, he's a tough guy, not good with emotions and stuff. A blunt guy
Aryn: I'm not talking about the lesbian part
Aryn: Why does he have an attraction at all?
Quartz: Because people dig that in RPGs..? Lol
Quartz: I'm not sure I understand.
Aryn: Can't you add in that the option of the player taking an interest instead of him already being attracted?
Quartz: You should prolly look at the other characters. Some work that way, others don't.
Aryn: But Raziel is the main dude
Aryn: Everybody is gonna like him
Aryn: And if they don't like what he does, he's not gonna be as likeable
Quartz: Fair point. Current idea I have is that, should he fail to be close with the player character, Claire will end up being the sort of right hand man instead.
Quartz: Good characters aren't going to be liked by everyone.
Aryn: :T
Aryn: I know that
Quartz: I have little fondness for the Dragon Age 2 approach of charactization where it is all pandered entirely to the player, that's unrealistic.
Aryn: It's a videogame, Quartz
Quartz: On the other hand, one doesn't want characters being too independent, or they are as you say unlikable, a pain.
Qurtz: I reckon the answer is a balance between the two.
Aryn: If people wanted realism, would they be playing video games?
Quartz: A video game and a story
...some other irrelevant bits...
I believe we touched slightly on why the media tends to view video games as they sometimes do. Every medium has gone through this struggle. Movies were considered fickle at first, too, but once it was used enough in artistic manners, people began to understand that they can be more. Many see video games purely as a source of entertainment, fun, a stress reliever, a way to pass the time. However us total geeks who pour out our heart and soul into games folks who are more passionate about their hobby often see the story and connect with the game in an emotional sense as well.
This has been absolutely key to role-playing games in particular for many years. Now that games are getting more advanced, and can tell a story through more than just text, but with imagery, the story-based games are becoming more and more common in every genre. Even first-person shooters, which have unfortunately often been considered the most brainless of games; the success of BioShock Infinite is proof that even first-person shooters can be "deep."
I reckon, given that this is a Baldur's Gate forum, one of the many games that helped usher in plot-based action games, most here will agree that video games can be both entertainment and an art form.
However, we also touched on another subject, though it plays into the former. That is the subject of: Should the creators of video games form dependent characters that they know will entertain the player to the maximum, do they make characters with great independence from the actions of the player for the sake of realism, or somewhere in the middle? As you can see from my comment, I am of the belief that the pandering many of us witnessed and disapproved of was prominent in Dragon Age 2, a quality game that launched to mixed reviews.
I personally believe that the answer is somewhere in the middle for this reason: Very few of us enjoyed how many of the NPCs in Baldur's Gate 1 would up and leave the game world entirely if we booted them from our party, despite that being accurate to the character in question. However, if the characters are entirely dependent on the actions of our character, they feel like sheep, mindless; unsurprising to the player. I reckon that there is great pleasure to be had in meeting a character, getting to understand and know them, and just when we think that they are simply an assortment of if-then statements, they throw us a curveball with their own thoughts, their independence from our character and their mission. They have their own life, and that itself spurns our imagination forward, and entertains us.
Anyway ... What do y'all think?
Rough text in question --
Raziel: Raziel is a true "wingman" as he will stick by the protagonist like glue, trying desperately to be considered your right hand man throughout the story. Obviously this leads to some tension between him and Claire. While he acts tough, his nature to be always jealous and always needing positive reinforcement of words betrays his insecurities. His banishment has not served him well; he seeks a place that he belongs since he was fired from the guard. Raziel believes this to be your group of mercenaries and by your side.
As such he will give you strong "bro" vibes if you are male. If you are female and meet his other programmed requirements he may romantically pursue you in somewhat of an awkward manner. Should you "friendzone" him he will try to act cool but truthfully it eats at him somewhat. Verbally abuse him and he will leave, otherwise he will stay despite his emotions. If instead you tell him you are sexually incompatible with him as an excuse (e.g. your character is lesbian) he will distance himself a fair bit, not really knowing how to react. Raziel will pitch in his two cents here and there but you will not get the camaraderie you would otherwise. He doesn't know how to treat a lesbian whom he is attracted to. Raziel is attracted to Strength and Charisma.
Exchange --
Aryn: Not sure I agree with your relationship method on Raziel
Quartz: Lmao, "agree" is probably not the word you're looking for, but elaborate. I am not at all an expert on relationships so I would appreciate your input.
Aryn: :T
Aryn: This is my personal opinion
Quartz: xD
Aryn: I don't like how if male, he will send out STRONG BRO vibes and if female, he will have a attraction already
Aryn: Or the female lesbian part really gets me
Aryn: "He will distance himself a fair bit"
Quartz: He's attracted to the female but she's a lesbian. Of course he's awkward. He's Raziel, he's a tough guy, not good with emotions and stuff. A blunt guy
Aryn: I'm not talking about the lesbian part
Aryn: Why does he have an attraction at all?
Quartz: Because people dig that in RPGs..? Lol
Quartz: I'm not sure I understand.
Aryn: Can't you add in that the option of the player taking an interest instead of him already being attracted?
Quartz: You should prolly look at the other characters. Some work that way, others don't.
Aryn: But Raziel is the main dude
Aryn: Everybody is gonna like him
Aryn: And if they don't like what he does, he's not gonna be as likeable
Quartz: Fair point. Current idea I have is that, should he fail to be close with the player character, Claire will end up being the sort of right hand man instead.
Quartz: Good characters aren't going to be liked by everyone.
Aryn: :T
Aryn: I know that
Quartz: I have little fondness for the Dragon Age 2 approach of charactization where it is all pandered entirely to the player, that's unrealistic.
Aryn: It's a videogame, Quartz
Quartz: On the other hand, one doesn't want characters being too independent, or they are as you say unlikable, a pain.
Qurtz: I reckon the answer is a balance between the two.
Aryn: If people wanted realism, would they be playing video games?
Quartz: A video game and a story
...some other irrelevant bits...
I believe we touched slightly on why the media tends to view video games as they sometimes do. Every medium has gone through this struggle. Movies were considered fickle at first, too, but once it was used enough in artistic manners, people began to understand that they can be more. Many see video games purely as a source of entertainment, fun, a stress reliever, a way to pass the time. However us total geeks who pour out our heart and soul into games folks who are more passionate about their hobby often see the story and connect with the game in an emotional sense as well.
This has been absolutely key to role-playing games in particular for many years. Now that games are getting more advanced, and can tell a story through more than just text, but with imagery, the story-based games are becoming more and more common in every genre. Even first-person shooters, which have unfortunately often been considered the most brainless of games; the success of BioShock Infinite is proof that even first-person shooters can be "deep."
I reckon, given that this is a Baldur's Gate forum, one of the many games that helped usher in plot-based action games, most here will agree that video games can be both entertainment and an art form.
However, we also touched on another subject, though it plays into the former. That is the subject of: Should the creators of video games form dependent characters that they know will entertain the player to the maximum, do they make characters with great independence from the actions of the player for the sake of realism, or somewhere in the middle? As you can see from my comment, I am of the belief that the pandering many of us witnessed and disapproved of was prominent in Dragon Age 2, a quality game that launched to mixed reviews.
I personally believe that the answer is somewhere in the middle for this reason: Very few of us enjoyed how many of the NPCs in Baldur's Gate 1 would up and leave the game world entirely if we booted them from our party, despite that being accurate to the character in question. However, if the characters are entirely dependent on the actions of our character, they feel like sheep, mindless; unsurprising to the player. I reckon that there is great pleasure to be had in meeting a character, getting to understand and know them, and just when we think that they are simply an assortment of if-then statements, they throw us a curveball with their own thoughts, their independence from our character and their mission. They have their own life, and that itself spurns our imagination forward, and entertains us.
Anyway ... What do y'all think?
8
Comments
Obviously most will say that "art" is a subjective term and anyone can create whatever set of standards they want to determine whether some medium qualifies or not.
However, as we can see from Baldur's Gate and I"m sure many other games, it is a pretty decent medium with which to tell a story. Some are better than others, and I have a feeling that, as with most genres, each generation of videogame creators are getting better at telling stories than their.
My friend and I eventually started comparing videogames with comics. At the time I was HUGE into comics, as much as he was into gaming. Comics started out as a very simplistic form of art that was looked down upon as a children's medium
Because, les be reel yo, it kinda was.
Yet as time went by and comic fans trew up and then became comic writers, they realized that a lot of the folk who used to like the medium as kids still kinda liked them as adults. So they started catering to this new audience. Long story short, capitalism rules and now comics were more adult-oriented.
As the medium grew, so did the number of writers. And of course, the bigger the pool of talent, the better the chances are of getting quality. Comics became a more respectable medium and nowadays there is quite a lot of good work out there.
I imagine videogames to evolve in a similar way. The people who grew up with Mario and Sonic are the same as the kids who grew up with Superman, Shazam and later on Batman. Then Stan the Man Lee came and made stories with a little more depth (not exactly high art, but he added angst). This was the Silver Age with Spider-Man, Fantastic Four and the X-Men and stuff. Excelsior!
Finally we got some more serious work in 80s and then there was a little thing in the 90s that we should all forget about (big guns! grimaces! boobs!) until finally in the early 2000s I think comics really broke out as a medium with a lot of good work. I mean its not exactly Steinbeck, but I like it!
Sorry if this is off-topic, lol, but I feel like Baldur's Gate was the Stan Lee of videogames. I imagine more games will come out like Dragon Age and stuff (not really a fan, but I understand the appeal) and then that will be followed by even more involved games with better stories. As time goes on and the medium grows even more (its already pretty big) I'm sure it will evolve as an art form in ways we don't even imagine at the moment.
Maybe games with NPCs that are taylor-made to your PC will thrive, or maybe games with more independent NPCs will do better. Why not both?
I agree with you about the balance. I like it when someone has their own desires/goals/missions that are independent from yours, but also puts them on the same path and makes you likely allies.
For example:
Kivan hates the bandits, bandits work for Koveras, so Kivan travels with you! Makes perfect sense. He has his own life AND his story coincides with yours pretty well.
Yeslick was captured by Iron Throne lackies, you fight Iron Throne
Xan capture the same way
and more. This seems like a very nice balance imho. If characters just followed your PC blindly and their personalities were built solely upon your responses, then they won't be that interesting. However, if they don't have compatibility with your PC you simply won't like using them. So compromise!
So, trying to achieve 100% realism is a bad - and unattainable - goal (just go outside and strap a sword on; see what happens). I'm not saying you were condoning total realism, I'm just ruling out one extreme end of the scale. Certain elements of plot and characterization just make for a better story even if they aren't realistic (plot, rising action, connected events, etc.). What ratio we should be striving for is a bit fuzzy, and I agree that a balanced approach works. Look at the original Baldur's Gate: we have comic relief characters, serious characters, believable characters, outrageous characters, player-tailored characters and difficult-to-use/get-along-with characters. There is a bit of something for everyone, a group built for fun, a group built for mechanics, a group worthy of writing stories about, and yes, a group that is dysfunctional to the point of believability.
Of course, we can never code in all the capricious vagaries that make up life, so at the end of the day no matter how hard we strive it will still be a story of some sort. If we want more "art" and less "cheesecake" (thinking of photography here, where "cheesecake" means "looking at the camera," i.e., the character is written for the player), we would populate the game with characters who have complex motivations and personas, who may often question your decisions or otherwise be difficult to get along with. Some characters *just won't be romanceable even if they're single,* and the ones that are romanceable won't necessarily be pansexual (open-minded people are wonderful boons to our society, but it isn't realistic to create a game world where 9 of the 10 characters can all be wooed by the PC regardless of gender, religion, politics, intelligence, etc. Real people are often specific in their likes and dislikes, and the character is not Abdel Adrian... hopefully). Yes, your players will complain, and mods will be written to circumvent the artistic choices you've made to allow total player agency. At least your starting point more closely resembles a believable facsimile of reality.
But hey, throw the players a bone. Maybe one of the more beloved characters *will* be open-minded and allow fantasies to come true. Perhaps the chain of events really will resemble a plot and the player won't be left standing in the middle of Minecraft. Humor is a powerful tool, and despite the potential to backfire and polarize your audience it is often worth the risk. Strike a balance, I say. Once you have a firm vision of what you want your game/story to be, you can set out with a goal informing your decisions along the way. It might even be worthy of the name art; I consider art anything that expands and enriches our life experience, and I have played games that did so for me.
Music, movies, theater and books are both art and entertainment.
"Art : The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."
Check and check. Emphasis mine. That's from the Oxford Dictionary.
If some people don't consider video games as art but do with mainstream movies or music, they're narrow minded and don't know the definition of art. End of story, for me.
Sure, some are less deep than others but so are some movies, music, paintings, books or whatever.
When people still play e.g. AoE and AoE 2, HoMM 3, BG 1&2 it means that these games are not entertainment only.
They have some good design, they have new approaches to how a story is told, how it all should look like, they have balanced characters, they stay in our memory and they still have something that forces us to try them again and again.
Any medium that moves you emotionally in some way, is art. Or something that makes you stop and think. Challenging you, mentally.
But we can say that digital interactive media holds, at the very least, the necessary foundation for creating artistic works.
EDIT: To expand on that, Monopoly is a board game, and D&D is a board game if you use miniatures, but I imagine Milton Bradley wasn't thinking "art" when they created Monopoly, whereas there are many, many DMs who use D&D as a form of storytelling, which elevates it to the level of "art". Thus board games are an artistic medium, but that medium is not always used with the purpose of creating art.
I'd say PS:T is a piece of art, but when I look at console games lika call of duty, I feel like they were for just selling them, for entretainment and brainwashing.
Besides, I thought about what could/could not be considered art, and well, it's more independent from the purpose than how I said before, much more open and considerate than my old point of view. Yeah, that was something I didn't had in mind.
My more ignorant and close minded past self would say that videogames are definitely not art. My present self would say that it depends on the definition of art. A very self-comforting one to me is that as long as the person have desire to make what his/her mind imagined a reallity. Therefore, regardless of quality, if you have an idea you want to make a reallity, then you are an artist. Even thought the fact that quality doesn't matter is hard to swallow to me for some reasons.
Back to the videogames, I think what could make a difference between art and entertaiment is the dispositon of it's authors. If something isn't really made from a heart, it's not art. So, could cash-grab games be considered an art? I doubt that, because is more likely that developers, graphics and other artists created the game because they were ordered to do so, not because they sincerely wanted to.
I would say that Pillars of Eternity looks like art to me, while Call of Duty don't, even if it does tell story, has music, graphic and other essentials.
To be honest, I'm much more interested in peoples' thoughts on the latter part of my post. I haven't gotten much action on those last two paragraphs; It almost makes me wonder if most people skimmed my post. I wasn't going to say it, because I appreciate all responses, but as long as we're being blunt, eh.
On your topic, I'm all for realism. Prefer dirty, gritty, realistic characters rather than just catering to the audience. I do however recognize they fact that videogames are made for a profit, not just for artistic expression(touching on the art topic) and if you just do whatever and don't pay attention to your audience, you won't make any money.
So realistically, there has to be a balance.