Will Video Games Ever Be Seen as a Serious Artform?
The Blind Eternities forum
Posted on May 26, 2020, 1 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
As difficult as it may be to believe, movies (originally known as moving pictures) were once regarded as little more than cheap and vapid entertainment, a passing fad that could never compare with the serious depth of literature or stage plays.
However, over a century after their invention, movies are now one of the most respected forms of art in the world, with there being countless examples of films that audiences now regard as masterpieces.
Video games are currently in a situation similar to that in which movies once were; the earliest video games were seen as little more than cheap entertainment with no depth or serious value, but they have become increasingly complex and involved as time has passed, so I now am wondering if they shall ever be regarded as highly as are movies, today.
What does everyone else say about this? Will people ever regard video games as serious art, or do they already?
Movies have a few advantages over video games in their usefulness as an artistic medium.
-
Movies are relatively short--you can tell an entire story in 2-4 hours. Games tend to be much longer than that--you have to commit to a 10+ hour game (sometimes much longer) where you are focused and paying attention the entire time.
-
Everyone has the same experience with a movie. Sure, they might take different lessons from the film, but they saw the same thing as anyone else. With a game, your decisions might matter. If I sided with the Stormcloaks and you sided with the Thalmor, we can still discuss Skyrim, but our different experiences might skew that conversation.
-
Video games have a barrier to entry--you have to own specialized equipment. Be it a game system or a computer powerful enough to run new games, not everyone has access to such a system. Comparably, you can either go to a movie theater or just use a television, a device you likely already have at home.
-
Video games have a skill component. Sure, you can turn the difficulty down (though some games are super obnoxious and label their lower difficulties as "weakling mode" or something similarity mocking the player). Large parts of the population not being good at games makes it a tad difficult for widespread artistic appeal.
-
Games have longevity issues. Even computer games, like Fallout 3, might break when played on newer operating systems. Sure, that's a problem for film as well (we have lost a bunch of the really, really old films), but films have the advantage that they're a bit easier to convert into a newer format--you don't really have to worry about system compatibility issues.
-
With a movie, the viewer is put in the shoes of the characters, and forced to see through that character's eyes. It is the actors and the directors who are driving the story, telling it to the viewer. With a video game, you are one of the characters--you are, in a sense, telling yourself the story, which creates a bit of an immersion issue. Further, it changes the focus of how the game is made--artistic movies are made to make a point; a video game is generally made to allow the player to live vicariously through their avatar.
That's not to say they cannot be artistic. As mentioned above, Bioshock was a beautiful, intelligent game, and probably should be considered a work with great artistic merit. But, great as Bioshock is, we are not yet at a point where people are willing to read a 1,200 page novel, then play through a 10+ hour work of literary criticism.
Maybe one day--a day which would come sooner if intelligent games like Bioshock were made with greater frequency--but, for now, games have too many drawbacks that prevent them from taking off as movies did.
May 26, 2020 5:22 p.m.
They already are it just depends who you talk to. Not everyone can see artistic value in Cinema either. Not everyone can even see the value in actual famous pieces of art.
Very few movies nowadays are "works of art", same can be said for video games. There is always going to be the cheap, chintzy, money grabby type things that dilute the overall perception of the medium.
But I also do agree with Caerwyn that the barriers preventing people from getting the full experience is real. I've wanted my wife to see some games that I consider art, but she hasn't been able to grasp the game part of it enough to enjoy the story or imagery. Not everyone is going to make both the financial investment and time investment needed to both have access to this experience, and actually be skilled enough to attain the full experience.
We forget that most of us have been playing games since we were little. People that didn't can't always grasp the hand movements and coordination that seems to come naturally to those that are used to it. This is extremely frustrating to inexperience people, and most won't want to go through all this for "art".
Last_Laugh says... #2
People's answers are going to depend on a few things. First, their age and attachment to graphics. Second, the type of games they play. And Last, what they consider art (story, visuals, etc.).
I started playing on the nes, love jrpgs, and fantasy novels so I'm inclined to go that route due to personal bias. However as far as a melding of good storytelling, visuals/atmosphere, and more mass appeal I would say the original Bioshock made more people respect the medium as a form of art for the first time.
May 26, 2020 3:42 p.m.