Video Games As An Art

Since I have arrived at Champlain College, eagerly enrolled in the Game Art and Animation program here, I have heard this same question quite a few times: “Are video games art?” Well I don't want to force my opinion on anyone, and while I do believe it is pretty factual, I will leave it open, and state my reasons for believing so.

Let's look at what a video game is made up of. It usually begins with an idea of a game mechanic (these days, it is likely it must be unique). A game designer passes in this idea to the higher-ups, and if it gets approved, different fields of workers are pulled into the job. We have more designers, artists, and programmers (and producers, etc.).

So, designers – what do they do? Well, a VERY BASIC explanation would be that some write stories and some design levels (among the ones that work on mechanics, which were already mentioned).

Literature. It's something we consider art, isn't it? Stories and the like? Well, we have our designers writing narratives so that our video games have plots. So we have our plots and stories in our game. There may even be some character development. A story, whether it is in a video game or not, is art. And level design is an art in that the designer is almost an architect, placing themselves in the shoes of a game player, deciding what would not only function in the game the best, but what would be aesthetically pleasing also.

Artists' place in this debate is almost self explanatory, but here we go anyway. Typical “big name” video games have a vast department of many, many artists. Lead artists decide the overall look of the game, and instruct their department. Big video games have can have their departments divided up so much that some artists work strictly on animating water (like in Bioshock).

"We've hired a water programmer and water artist, just for this game, and they're kicking ass and you've never seen water like this." - Ken Levine, Designer of Bioshock

Have a look!

As Anthony DeLuca says in the interview, everything in Bioshock has to work together, simultaneously, as one living, breathing thing. It's the designers', artists' and programmers' job to get this done effectively, so that the player is immersed and has fun.

If you consider cooking, or culinary arts, a true form of art, this may be a stretch of a relationship, but please follow. Culinary art is another thing I'm into. It requires A LOT of thought. You might be thinking, “What's the big deal, it's just cooking and it looks nice.” Cooking is a science. Chefs add certain ingredients and have certain techniques to have effects like add to flavour, or to add texture, etc. For example, if you mix muffin dough too much, your muffins will come out dense, instead of light and fluffy. Here is a video from The Food Network Challenge – a show that has a lot of great examples of cooking as a science and an art:

See a sugar and chocolate sculpture!

With all of that said, I think video games are the same. They are a combination of science and art. Science, because a lot of thought must go into the psychological reactions of the player, relating to the aesthetic of the game, and the story of the game, and because of the programming aspect of the creative process. I think the science aspect is an argument people could use against video games being an art. Science does not overshadow art. It, in fact, works quite harmoniously with it.

Another reason I think people would argue against video games being art is that the point of video games does not get across to them. Someone who does not like a video game is probably less likely to consider it as much of an art form as oil paintings or marble sculptures. This might be behind the theory that a lot of people think video games are a lot of “KILL KILL KILL” action. My entire family pokes fun at me while I'm playing video games with questions like, “What are you killing today,” and statements like, “DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE!” While a lot of video games require destruction, that is not always the point of the game. Most games I play are more for the social aspects. Yes, it is in our human nature to have fun destroying things in a world that is not ours, but that doesn't mean that's all we (game players) are about.

I admire game artists more than any other artists because of their ability to create worlds, usually completely from imagination, write it, sketch it, sculpt it, and make it “real” so that a player can interact with their world. The reason why you've ever become immersed in a video game is because of the art. If the art was not what it was, it would have been much more difficult. So, this art, to me, is the greatest form of art.

Works Cited:

1. “Bioshock Water Effects and Enemies Interview”. Perf. Anthony DeLuca. 23 September 2010. YouTube. 6 October 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixqJ1ff5mdw

2. “Exteme Candy Carnival – Food Network”. Perf. Tracy DeWitt. 21 July 2009. YouTube. 6 October 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SofWyy0MrEA

"They're coming to get you, Barbara!"

Countless movies have been made about them. Board games, video games, and huge community games have been created to model them. Books have been written about them, television shows have always included them, and a hobby of many people is preparing for them, though they will possibly never come. They are zombies.

For years, people have speculated about zombies and the Zombie Apocalypse. What would trigger it? Perhaps some sort of virus developed in a lab and accidentally let loose like in "28 Days Later," or perhaps radioactive contamination from a space probe exploding in the Earth's atmosphere? Other interpretations believe in a more religious cause, stating that "When there's no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the earth" (Dawn of the Dead).

A zombie as defined by the Meriam-Webster dictionary is "the supernatural power that according to voodoo belief may enter into and reanimate a dead body." In popular culture, the voodoo belief is removed, usually substituting some form of virus as the cause. The common factor is that zombies are the dead who have risen again with a taste for human flesh. Any living human bitten by a zombie will soon die and turn into a zombie. The only sure way to kill a zombie is to remove the head or destroy the brain.

Zombies are perhaps one of the most infamous horror/science fiction creatures. Entire books have been written solely for the purpose of informing the public on the anatomy of a zombie, real life accounts of "zombies," and the best way to survive a zombie outbreak under any circumstances. One of the most famous zombie books, Max Brooks's "World War Z," gives a detailed account of the "Zombie War" from the perspectives of multiple survivors. From the same author comes "The Zombie Survival Guide," which gives an incredible in-depth report on what to do before, during, and after the zombie outbreak.

Today, zombies have "infected" almost every aspect of entertainment. Many video games come standard with a zombie killing level or mode. Colleges across America have begun playing a week long zombie tag game called "Humans vs Zombies." Popular posters have depicted the signs of zombification and how to dispose of said foe. Friends get together and form impromptu think-tanks on what to do in case of a zombie outbreak.

Some reasons about zombies appear so connected to real science that many speculate that zombies are a possible outcome of the future. With modern technology, zombies could be a viable danger in the future. So ready your shotgun and baseball bat, fortify your bunker filled with non-perishable food and lots of ammo, and get ready for the most intense battle for survival of your unlife.

Dawn of the Dead. Dir. George Romero." Perf. Emge, David. United Film Distribution Company: 1978, Film.

Garland, Alex, Script. 28 Days Later. Dir. Danny Boyle." Perf. Murphy, Cillian. Fox Searchlight Pictures: 2002, Film.

Streiner, Russell, Perf. Night of the Living Dead. Dir. George A. Romero." Perf. Steiner, Russell. The Walter Reade Organization: 1968, Film.

Stick Waggling: Motion Controls in Video Games.

There is no denying it. The hilariously named Wii has dominated a good portion of the gaming market with it's advancements in the fields of motion controls. To those who are not aware of the revolution; motion controls allow video game players to actually move physically around either through a special controller, pad, or camera in order to interact with the gaming world. Sports games, like Wii Sports, actually get the player to move around and make them feel like they're playing baseball, bowling, or what have you.

Nintendo's massive success with the concept has caused the company's two major game console competitors (Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3) to announce their own attempts to join the motion control band wagon. Microsoft has introduced it's own Kinect, a bold plan of attack that uses motion control with no controller and only a camera. While Sony has released PlayStation Move, which is similar to the Wii in the sense that it uses a controller but it also uses a camera to track the wand rather than a light sensor.

You can bet we're going to see some huge console wars, with players fighting over what companies did motion controls better.

But I digress. Motion controls have indeed sped the improvement of technology within the gaming industry. Companies are now focusing on improving the basic hardware of the actual systems to improve the controls, rather than trying to top the last generation's graphics. There generally has been improvement of motion controls as a whole, as demonstrated with the PlayStation Move.

Now that I got the good of motion controls out of the way, let's move on to the bad.

Gaming is still a young industry. However, it is a media no different than books or movies. Games tell stories and reveal art through the most interactive means currently out there; by involving the audience in the story and allowing them to choose what they want to do. But it's still a media. It's a means of entertaining yourself between the brief windows of breaks in your everyday life. Books, movies, music; they all are meant to accomplish the same thing. They entertain people.

It's difficult to argue that motion controls do not entertain people; you've probably picked up Wii Sports and have enjoyed a game or two at least once in the past year. But how long does that last? An hour, maybe two? There are games meant to last longer for these systems, of course, like Super Smash Brothers Brawl or even serious games like Silent Hill and Heavy Rain. But here's the thing.

How long do you like to play a game? Usually it's just until you get bored or until you run out of free time. Your body is completely relaxed and you can savor the fun of the game. It's no different than when you read a book. You don't run around like a maniac while trying to read a page, you find a quiet place to sit down and relax. How in the world are you supposed to relax and enjoy yourself when playing a game with motion controls? Flailing your arms around like ants are in your pants can only lessen your time playing the game because it's a good way to tire yourself out physically.

People have claimed "Oh, it adds fun to the game. It really makes you feel like you're in the world." People play games to take them places they've never been before; but I don't think they really want to be in those places themselves. I know I'd be the first to soil myself if I was ever in the position my character is in every five seconds of Call of Duty. And now I'm expected to move around like my guy in the game? No chance, I'm not fit enough to be whipping my limbs around like I've got a spastic twitch. Besides motion controls don't make you feel as you're in the game world, they make you feel like you're doing an aerobic exercise routine in your living room. And its true motion controls are fun for now, but that neatly brings me to my next point.

A gimmick can only be described as something meant to make a product stand out in order to make it sell better. You're supposed to have fun with motion controls, that's the point of the advertisement. A fun, new way to play video games. But please bare in mind; Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are all business companies. They're not like Mickey Mouse, waving you into a colorful of happiness and wonderful rides. Businesses only care about you because you give them money (Okay, so maybe they are like Mickey Mouse). The point of a business is to earn more money, you are a customer and you have money. See the connection here?

This is nothing new, companies have always tried to grab our attention with "new shiny objects" that will sell their products. The Wii in particular sold well because it targeted a new audience that had otherwise been neglected this whole time, casual gamers (Older folks, children, families, etc).

How about the PlayStation Eye? A camera that let an image of you play on the TV screen early on in the PlayStation years. Maybe Virtual Boy? Or remember the Zapper Gun from the NES? That was a gimmick as well, but now most people only remember it for the game Duck Hunt.

Right now, motion controls are, hopefully, a temporary thing. But many hardcore defenders of the consoles advertising motion controls claim it's a new and interesting idea that will revolutionize gaming. It's a gimmick people; it's no different than 3D in movies. You can't revolutionize the gaming entertainment field by using something that was meant to initially bring in the big bucks.

(WARNING: Video has somewhat offensive language and material.)



Last but not least; motion controls are not an effective means of playing a game, period. What have most of the games that advertise motion controls done with them? Some games do use motion controls as an optional mechanic, but usually it's safer to play with a real controller. Take Super Smash Bros Brawl for example. You CAN play with a Wii Remote, but most people who play it will reach for a GameCube Controller before a Wii wand. Some games like Monster Hunter Tri, don't even play well at all with a remote and force you to buy a D-Pad Controller add on if you want to have any chance of playing the stupid thing.

How about combat based games like God of War? How in the world am I supposed to do a fifty hit combat with a PlayStation Move controller? Why not just rip my arms off from the start? They're going to be useless after I attempt it anyway. Then there's the Xbox's Kinect. Do I even need to explain what can go wrong when your controller is a camera? What happens if you step on the cat while playing?

I'm sure games for these systems will come up with clever ideas to avoid these problems but here's the thing. Isn't that just dodging the issue? If motion controls were the new revolution of the gaming industry, why are they altering their design to meet the standards of traditional gaming? The answer is simple; for gaming consoles, motion controls are a fad.

There's no doubt that research into motion controls will continue into the beyond; maybe until there is at last a virtual world. As they stand now, they have a limited lifespan on gaming consoles. Let's move onto the next gimmick.

10, Roger EbertMay. "Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3D Movies - Newsweek." Newsweek - National News, World News, Business, Health, Technology, Entertainment, and More - Newsweek. Web. 14 Sept. 2010. .

Croshaw, Ben "Yahtzee" "Video Galleries : Zero Punctuation : E3 2010." The Escapist. Web. 14 Sept. 2010. .

"Gimmick." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 14 Sept. 2010. .

"Virtual Boy." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 14 Sept. 2010. .