Games Aren’t Art, They’re Products

Analog Addiction writes: "Now that I have your attention with that, dare I say it, frankly inflammatory title, I’d like to introduce you to the world of game publishers.

I, being a young and supple boy at the age of twenty, can’t remember a time when publishers were not the gatekeepers to triple-A game production. EA, Activision, THQ (may you rest in peace, my sweet prince), Capcom, Konami, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony and more were in charge of what games got made and which ones didn’t. I always thought to myself, “Wilikers! These guys must really love games to be putting out so many of them!”. "

[Argus9]

I had the lowest expectations going into this article, but I have to say, I really enjoyed it. Perfect examples how publishers are becoming too money-grubby and are hurting the industry.

At the same time, I feel this is a big reason there's such a prevalence of surprise indie hits coming about, a lot of them re-visiting more "outdated" gaming philosophies.

I think it's time we stirred things up. If enough gamers can vote with their wallets, maybe things will take a turn.

[knowyourstuff]

Just because something can be commercialized to make money doesn't make it not art. It just makes it commercialized art aka products. You can sell your art at an art gallery, and invite billionaires from everywhere (particularly those who aren't fond of each other) to come and bid on it just to get the best chances of getting the highest price and making the most money. You're doing things to get the most money, you're selling a product that people are buying, whether anyone thinks that the art is good, or bad is irrelevant, don't turn around and say it isn't art to begin with because it made someone money.

There seems to be a disconnect between people's view of art, and capitalism. Just because you view something as something to make money on doesn't make it not art.

[rainslacker]

I had a friend who was an artist. He apparently did alright, even though I never saw any of his art. He said the problem most modern artists have is that they don't know how to commercialize themselves to actually make money, so they can't survive as an artist.

He said the modern artist is not about technique or ability, but making people believe that you created something worth spending money on.

The same is true in the game industry. To publishers, it doesn't necessarily have to be good, so long as people believe that they want it, and will spend money on it.

For the most part, I think developers actually love what they do, and want to do the best job possible, but they are constrained by deadlines and budgets. That however is a completely different debate.

Publishers don't exist to further the art of games, they exist to sell them. They are a necessary evil, but it is pretty apparent how big indie gaming has become because it focuses more on the art side than the business side.

[Argus9]

I think the writer is saying that publishers have this disconnect; they don't see it as art, just as a product. The article isn't saying a piece of art that makes money is bad, it's saying that publishers don't care about video games as a medium, just as a product. They only care about price points.

[s45gr32]

Not only can we vote with our wallet but we can fund and promote the games we want to play through kickstarter or indie gogo projects.

[MacDonagh]

Art is a tricky thing to define. For me personally; the audience is just as important as the artist. The MOMA in New York City recently had 14 video games in an exhibit.

The audience in gaming has yet to mature but it will eventually.

[dedicatedtogamers]

I do love me a good "artsy" game every so often. However, I do get tired of devs - especially some indie ones - who skimp on good game design simply because "it's my creative, artsy vision".

[CrescentFang]

The same could be said about anything, but enough talk have at you!

[RandomDude655]

Imma go play Castlevania now.

But anywho....everything is a product, even *gasp* art.

[Hicken]

That's what immediately came to my mind. Many of the greatest works of art in man's history were SOLD to the person who funded it. It was produced for a person who paid for it.

That's what we call a "product." The Mona Lisa is a PRODUCT. Still art, though.

[s45gr32]

Well a well written article that is all I have to say.

[contradictory]

it's not very easy to determine if a game is art

games more often than not become a tool to make money for big companies

[BuffMordecai]

I'd take commercial game art over some pretentious, subjective,and empty so called "modern art" any day.

[trenso1]

Of course games aren't art they're a collaboration of designers and coders coming together to join character models and active scenery in an journey with engaging dialogue and story telling leaving a lasting impression on you, creating a thousand sentences not words......but yea video games aren't art

[Jamiex66]

Nice to know you didn't read anything but the title ;)

[TheRealSpy]

The movies that do best at the boxoffice don't have anything in them that resembles art.

[ShaunCameron]

Did they ever claim to have anything in them resembling art?

[TheRealSpy]

My point is that they aren't mutually exclusive, and that art is subjective.

Thanks for your absolutely irrelevant response.

[Theangrybogan]

Wow! What a great article, it's a shame a lot of people commenting here obviously didn't read past the title.