Video games are highest form of art! Why are they ONLY judged by gameplay?

+
How about next time reading what im saying and addressing my points properly ;) i have not even used the word "art" i was talking about gaming as a medium should be more interactive ,what is the point of having an open world that you cant interact with it? thats it nothing more nothing less ,mini games is one of many ways you can make it more interactive ,i mentioned games like Skyrim ,DOS 2 and Deus ex neither of which had mini games IIRC yet for some reason you wanted to latch onto mini games.

speaking of which art is not up to you to decide its subjective ,Mario 64 was the game that convinced gabe newell that video games are art are you going to "lol" at him now?
You problem is there's no barber shop in Night City. You can have your opinion, same as Gabe, not here to judge. In my opinion it just wierd to bring something like pointless minigames to discussion about art in video games. Barber shop won't add anything to video as form of art. Visuals, story (narrative) and music is main source of art in video games.
Isn't Cyberpunk interactive, is someone holding your hand when you do quests, drive around city, listen to radio?
Right now I'm playing RDR2, there's more interactivty with street NPCs than in Cyberpunk (and you can cut your hair!!!), but game lacks well presented story (cutscenes are chaotic, some character are cartonish) music is let down, not exisiting ambient music, world is psuedorealistic without bigger artistic vision (world is just pretty). So how this "interacitivity" makes RDR2 some kind of art?
Games are not really great form of art right now, there's no audience for that, people prefer barber shop over 10/10 soundtrack. That's reality.
 
Visuals, story (narrative) and music is main source of art in video games.
Interestingly, this could also describe movies. You've left out the one thing that makes games different from movies - gameplay. If you absolutely have to judge a video game for its artsiness, shouldn't this be one of the most important points to focus on since this is what makes video games unique?
 
Interestingly, this could also describe movies. You've left out the one thing that makes games different from movies - gameplay. If you absolutely have to judge a video game for its artsiness, shouldn't this be one of the most important points to focus on since this is what makes video games unique?
Is why in games awards (and movies) have different categories (like visuals,story,sountrack) and you can fail in one or another or all. And as always,there is a degree of subjectivity in all the categories (barbers and factions weight very low in my scores for gameplay,for others might be the crucial point).
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
Interestingly, this could also describe movies. You've left out the one thing that makes games different from movies - gameplay. If you absolutely have to judge a video game for its artsiness, shouldn't this be one of the most important points to focus on since this is what makes video games unique?
It probably depends on what you mean by "gameplay".
Sure, hardcore Rockstar groupies are going to be outraged over inability to play GTA 2077. For me, melee is adequate, stealth is good and gunplay is better than in any other action RPG. Open-ended level design of this quality and detail doesn't exist in other open world game. Driving is more satisfying than in GTA5 and Watch Dogs 1 (haven't played its sequels).
Gameplay is not the strongest suit, but it's not something to be ashamed of, either.
 
Interestingly, this could also describe movies. You've left out the one thing that makes games different from movies - gameplay. If you absolutely have to judge a video game for its artsiness, shouldn't this be one of the most important points to focus on since this is what makes video games unique
What kind of art is gameplay ? Movies are judged not only via artistic values, but also many technical aspects: sound design, montage, camera work, lighting etc.etc. Some form of arts can exist alone like painting, music, literature, for example, some can't - like movies, video games.
Not only gameplay makes games different from movies, but many other things you decided to ignore.
 
gameplay and interactivity are the most important parts that are diffeent, though. Many other aspects are similar to movies - you have sound design, cinematography, story, characters, music, design etc in both mediums. And why should gameplay not be considered art? Look at Dark Souls or Hades.: There, the core gameplay loop is so integral to the game and so brillinatly designed, why wouldn't you call that art?
Btw, as I've mentioned before, I think the whole "what is art" discussion is useless anyway, because you'll always end up having these discussions about definitions instead of about content.
 
What kind of art is gameplay ? Movies are judged not only via artistic values, but also many technical aspects: sound design, montage, camera work, lighting etc.etc. Some form of arts can exist alone like painting, music, literature, for example, some can't - like movies, video games.
Not only gameplay makes games different from movies, but many other things you decided to ignore.
I don't judge these things separately, but as a whole. You can have the best graphical presentation while the music and ambience track is garbage, pulling it down. So, looking at visuals or music separately doesn't tell the whole story to me. Cyberpunk 2077 has the visuals, the music, the combat, parkour/movement top-notch. What pulls it down a bit is: a) the lack of content (which is a work-in-progress through DLC's) and b) glitches (also working on presently). It's a pity the hype forced their hands to release the game when they did, but what could they do? Doomed if you do and doomed eternally if you don't. The fallout from the release will propagate well into next year.
 
What kind of art is gameplay ? Movies are judged not only via artistic values, but also many technical aspects: sound design, montage, camera work, lighting etc.etc. Some form of arts can exist alone like painting, music, literature, for example, some can't - like movies, video games.
Not only gameplay makes games different from movies, but many other things you decided to ignore.
I guess that depends on how you look at it. Books can be labelled as "artistic" because they pair words together to create emotional responses, provoke deep thought and tell interesting stories. In a way where they could even be considered "beautiful". Why isn't pairing various gameplay mechanics together in creative ways to achieve some goal in impressive fashion not valid?

Even if we insist gameplay cannot be considered artistic in nature it certainly has the potential to enhance the areas we would call art. Much in the same way those technical areas for movies can enhance, amplify or detract from the artistic elements within them.

The main reason gameplay even entered the discussion is because it's a part of the experience. Yeah, games have artistic elements to them. Those should be considered when evaluating the product. So should the gameplay. You can't accurately evaluate the game without considering all of it's constituent parts. The elements perceived as artistic, gameplay, technical areas, interface, controls, QoL, the whole nine yards should be evaluated.
 
gameplay and interactivity are the most important parts that are diffeent, though. Many other aspects are similar to movies - you have sound design, cinematography, story, characters, music, design etc in both mediums. And why should gameplay not be considered art? Look at Dark Souls or Hades.: There, the core gameplay loop is so integral to the game and so brillinatly designed, why wouldn't you call that art?
Btw, as I've mentioned before, I think the whole "what is art" discussion is useless anyway, because you'll always end up having these discussions about definitions instead of about content.
Not everything in movies is considered as art. Sound design is important part of medium, but it's technical part.
Gameplay at core is not art, otherwise playing pinball would be considered as art. You don't have gameplay artists or something like that, just designers. It can enchance experience just like sound design for example (storytelling for example) , that's it.

I don't judge these things separately, but as a whole. You can have the best graphical presentation while the music and ambience track is garbage, pulling it down. So, looking at visuals or music separately doesn't tell the whole story to me. Cyberpunk 2077 has the visuals, the music, the combat, parkour/movement top-notch. What pulls it down a bit is: a) the lack of content (which is a work-in-progress through DLC's) and b) glitches (also working on presently). It's a pity the hype forced their hands to release the game when they did, but what could they do? Doomed if you do and doomed eternally if you don't. The fallout from the release will propagate well into next year.
Well that's your thing not mine. Visuals, story and music work separated.
a) you don't need more content for game to be more artistic, that's nonsense, otherwsie artistic values of books, movies would be judged by their length, or paintings by their size.
b) never experienced glitch that would decrease value of artistic part of game, so that's subjective
I guess that depends on how you look at it. Books can be labelled as "artistic" because they pair words together to create emotional responses, provoke deep thought and tell interesting stories. In a way where they could even be considered "beautiful". Why isn't pairing various gameplay mechanics together in creative ways to achieve some goal in impressive fashion not valid?

Even if we insist gameplay cannot be considered artistic in nature it certainly has the potential to enhance the areas we would call art. Much in the same way those technical areas for movies can enhance, amplify or detract from the artistic elements within them.

The main reason gameplay even entered the discussion is because it's a part of the experience. Yeah, games have artistic elements to them. Those should be considered when evaluating the product. So should the gameplay. You can't accurately evaluate the game without considering all of it's constituent parts. The elements perceived as artistic, gameplay, technical areas, interface, controls, QoL, the whole nine yards should be evaluated.
it's not main reason it entered discussion. Gameplay (shooting, driving, dialogue system, style of plays: thief, mage, warrior etc.) in Cyberpunk is from good to very good, people just talking about type of content they would like to see (barber shop for example). There's nothing artistic about gameplay, when you willl separate it from sound and visuals.
 
Last edited:
Hairdressing is an art, you won't make friends :sad:
But anyway, mostly everything can be considered as art.
Cooking > aito: The Sushi God of Tokyo
Fold pieces of paper > Origami
Serve tea > Chinese Tea Ceremony by Tea Artist Si Chen
Writing > Paint Japanese Shodo Calligraphy
Carve a tree > Bonsai
Video games are an art form (mostly), whether we like them or not, it's different thing :)
I'm sorry but I don't think everything can be art and not everything what is considered as some kind of art like for example so called applied arts it's on same level as art like music for example.
If you could go to barber shop ingame and make haricut you can only imagine that would be something different than adding function to change your haristyle after creating your charcter and 2nd example was discussed here.
This talking about gameplay it's also weird, because give some example where pure gameplay is some kind of form of art by that I mean devs expressing something via pure gameplay, then we can discuss, but I don't think that's case.
In my opinion: you won't make driving (by this I think about its functionality) art in video game, and you won't make shooting art in video game, because it's not art irl.
 
I wouldn't say that they are the highest form of art, but I agree that it is. It's in the eye of the beholder. Games are probably the highest form of art for people like you and me.

Music wise yes, CDPR does well there. I listen to Witcher soundtracks often.

Movie wise, there's a huge list of art in my opinion. Pulp Fiction is art. Deadwood is art. etc etc
 
This talking about gameplay it's also weird, because give some example where pure gameplay is some kind of form of art by that I mean devs expressing something via pure gameplay, then we can discuss, but I don't think that's case.
In my opinion: you won't make driving (by this I think about its functionality) art in video game, and you won't make shooting art in video game, because it's not art irl.
Some examples of "driving art" :)
- Burnout Revenge, couldn't not been more far as reality.
- TrackMania could aslo be "driving art".
Edit : I could also quote WipeOut which at the time was a breathtaking visual experience (also some sort of art).
Candy Crush could also be art, the art of making gamers addicted even with basic gameplay :facepalm:
 
Last edited:
Some examples of "driving art" :)
- Burnout Revenge, couldn't not been more far as reality.
- TrackMania could aslo be "driving art".
Candy Crush could also be art, the art of making gamers addicted even with basic gameplay :facepalm:
But you have to put it into to some context. Driving and its function itself isn't art. Driving in game like Cyberpunk can't be used as form of art, because it's only utility skill. Your examples are also can't be separated from visual part of it, because that;s main part of art in these games. Cars are some kind of form art irl partially (applied art), but not driving as skill. Same you can say about cars in Cyberpunk, there's artistic vision behind world and cars, how they are designed are part of it.
if you want dance to be art, you need dancer who can make it art. Never heard about driver-artist, but maybe I'm ignorant.
 
it's not main reason it entered discussion.
It entered the discussion because regardless of whether gameplay could be viewed as art it's relevant for evaluating the game. The artistic elements of visuals, audio, story, or whatever else one deems "art" can be as good as possible. Yes, if those areas are good they should be recognized. A game still doesn't get a pass if it's gameplay fails to keep the user invested. Gameplay is pretty important for doing that in a video game.
b) never experienced glitch that would decrease value of artistic part of game, so that's subjective
I'm glad you're not in the surprisingly well camp. I'll bet people in that sinking ship are intimately familiar with the concept of glitches marginalizing art. It's hard to appreciate the beauty of the city and it's inhabitants when the textures don't load in properly.
Gameplay (shooting, driving, dialogue system, style of plays: thief, mage, warrior etc.) in Cyberpunk is from good to very good, people just talking about type of content they would like to see (barber shop for example). There's nothing artistic about gameplay, when you willl separate it from sound and visuals.
That's a matter of opinion. I'd agree those areas range from respectable to very good. The non-linearity of the gameplay, where it exists, is good. There are many more areas involving gameplay I'd consider far less impressive. Quite poor, really.
 
My problem with looking at the "pure art" parts of the game as divorced from the game itself is that I literally can't do it - nor do I want to.

Example visual art:

I have the CE, because I really like the game's design and visual art. The artbook contains beautiful concept art and explains a lot about the inspirations etc. There it begins. The art design cannot be separated from the ingame lore. The ingame lore cannot be separated from the game's characters and story. And the story cannot be separated from the whole gaming experience, since it is expressed via the interactive medium "game".

I simply can't just look at the pictures and say "this is great art", it comes with all the baggage from the game. For example, for some reason, in the fucking artbook, Panam and Judy both get two pages and Kerry and River only get one. That immediately reminds me that in the game, they are also treated as second class love interests. Or I look at all the interesteing snippets and information about the Valentinos and what inspired their design and reflect on how this is expressed ingame (not really well, I'd say, because you don't get to know them properly).

Maybe if I had never played the game and looked a the artbook without knowing anything about the lore and story, I could avoid this. But, on the other hand, I would miss many vital parts of what makes the art design interesting and meaningful in the first place. So many design decisions in Cyberpunk are based on the internal art and design history of the game world. Character design obviously also cannot be divorced from what role the characters play in the game and how the designers wanted to express this. So, looking at the art divorced from the rest of the game would also rob me of these really interesting details.

So you see, even when it comes to something like art design that at first glance looks like you can judge it comepletely independently from the game itself, turns out you can't actually. You have to take the complete gaming experience into account, because art design in games is intimately connected to the rest of the game.
 
My problem with looking at the "pure art" parts of the game as divorced from the game itself is that I literally can't do it - nor do I want to.

Example visual art:

I have the CE, because I really like the game's design and visual art. The artbook contains beautiful concept art and explains a lot about the inspirations etc. There it begins. The art design cannot be separated from the ingame lore. The ingame lore cannot be separated from the game's characters and story. And the story cannot be separated from the whole gaming experience, since it is expressed via the interactive medium "game".

I simply can't just look at the pictures and say "this is great art", it comes with all the baggage from the game. For example, for some reason, in the fucking artbook, Panam and Judy both get two pages and Kerry and River only get one. That immediately reminds me that in the game, they are also treated as second class love interests. Or I look at all the interesteing snippets and information about the Valentinos and what inspired their design and reflect on how this is expressed ingame (not really well, I'd say, because you don't get to know them properly).

Maybe if I had never played the game and looked a the artbook without knowing anything about the lore and story, I could avoid this. But, on the other hand, I would miss many vital parts of what makes the art design interesting and meaningful in the first place. So many design decisions in Cyberpunk are based on the internal art and design history of the game world. Character design obviously also cannot be divorced from what role the characters play in the game and how the designers wanted to express this. So, looking at the art divorced from the rest of the game would also rob me of these really interesting details.

So you see, even when it comes to something like art design that at first glance looks like you can judge it comepletely independently from the game itself, turns out you can't actually. You have to take the complete gaming experience into account, because art design in games is intimately connected to the rest of the game.

It's all matters of tastes/opinions/points of view.
For example, when you said :
"You have to take the complete gaming experience into account, because art design in games is intimately connected to the rest of the game."
You apparently, me not :)

The "drinving" to take an other example (I could also take the fights, the graphics, the story,...), for me, in Cyberpunk, it's just here for go from point A to point B (nothing more, mothing less). So even if it was the worse "driving" ever, that would not prevent me from appreciating the "artistic beauty" of the city.
But it's just my point of view, if you don't share it, I will not try to convaince you ;)

To take others examples, just for mixte the game contents (and like always, just my opinion).
- First time in Lizzies Bar with the music Night City in background...
- First time in Corpo path, the path to the Lizzie's bar in the AV...
- Driving in JapanTown at night on Jackie's Arch with Night City music...
- First time I have played "Pyramid Song" or "Little Help From My Friends"...
Oh boy, damn good moments... And frankly, I think I would remember those moments, all my life :)
 
Last edited:
I agree with you about the driving. It doesn't distract from the story or visual design - apart from the fact that fast driving leads to framerate drops and textures/cars popping in, which indeed distracts from the visual design. But the driving mechanics themselves don't.

I think there are some parts of games that are more connected to the "artsy" elements than others and it also depends on the type of game. In Dark Souls I'd say the combat is central to how you experience the whole feeling and atmosphere of the game (and atmosphere and art direction ARE connected after all), in Cyberpunk less so and in games built aroung quick time events even less so.
 
My problem with looking at the "pure art" parts of the game as divorced from the game itself is that I literally can't do it - nor do I want to.

Example visual art:

I have the CE, because I really like the game's design and visual art. The artbook contains beautiful concept art and explains a lot about the inspirations etc. There it begins. The art design cannot be separated from the ingame lore. The ingame lore cannot be separated from the game's characters and story. And the story cannot be separated from the whole gaming experience, since it is expressed via the interactive medium "game".

I simply can't just look at the pictures and say "this is great art", it comes with all the baggage from the game. For example, for some reason, in the fucking artbook, Panam and Judy both get two pages and Kerry and River only get one. That immediately reminds me that in the game, they are also treated as second class love interests. Or I look at all the interesteing snippets and information about the Valentinos and what inspired their design and reflect on how this is expressed ingame (not really well, I'd say, because you don't get to know them properly).

Maybe if I had never played the game and looked a the artbook without knowing anything about the lore and story, I could avoid this. But, on the other hand, I would miss many vital parts of what makes the art design interesting and meaningful in the first place. So many design decisions in Cyberpunk are based on the internal art and design history of the game world. Character design obviously also cannot be divorced from what role the characters play in the game and how the designers wanted to express this. So, looking at the art divorced from the rest of the game would also rob me of these really interesting details.

So you see, even when it comes to something like art design that at first glance looks like you can judge it comepletely independently from the game itself, turns out you can't actually. You have to take the complete gaming experience into account, because art design in games is intimately connected to the rest of the game.

This reminds me, music that would otherwise be 'just fine' becomes something greater. Mainly, because all the great moments are tied to listening to the music. When you then listen to the music outside of the game, the music becomes something greater, because you remember sub-consciously the great moments into the game itself. That's why certain pop-culture references have a greater impact than they should have by just itself.
 
This reminds me, music that would otherwise be 'just fine' becomes something greater. Mainly, because all the great moments are tied to listening to the music. When you then listen to the music outside of the game, the music becomes something greater, because you remember sub-consciously the great moments into the game itself. That's why certain pop-culture references have a greater impact than they should have by just itself.
Exactly! Sadly, this can also work the other way round. I really liked Never Fade Away, but when I came to the end of the game, with the depressing downer endings and the song playing during the credits, the song was really ruined for me. I can't listen to it anymore, because it instantly reminds me that my V has plot cancer and has turned into an asshole. :giveup: I hope I'll be able to overwrite this negative reaction with the help of some positive DLC or something...it would be a shame about that song.
 
Top Bottom