Notgames Forum

The Escapist has published an article I have written about how game developers refuse to embrace video games as an art form despite of this being necessary for the medium to mature.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_291/8608-Almost-Art (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_291/8608-Almost-Art)

The original title was "Games, dare to be art!" by the way. But they didn't like that. The text was edited quite a bit elsewhere as well. I agreed to most of it, but now that I've reread the article, it feels a bit rough here and there.
I also did not choose the illustration. I would not have used a picture of The Path, or any other artistic game. Since those are exceptions and the article is about what's common in the the industry.

A good read. "To hell with efficiency!" is a nice slogan. Niklas, the painter & artist who I'm working with on my current project has really made it clear that that's how he wants to work, after having bad experiences in other groups. I must confess that as the leader for the whole project I have to fight the instincts that tells me that we have to be more efficient. It is absolutely clear though that this way of working will lead to a much better result. As long as we don't starve to death first, that is. I guess that ultimately we are out of money and food the same day that the game goes on sale.

It's not a general rule. It depends on what your goals are. If you want to make something artistic, you'll need to create space for that mysterious art thing to happen. A tight schedule can be the death of that.

But maybe it's possible to switch modes at some point. To work in a non-efficient, artistic way during the first part of the production and then switch to a more efficient way when it has become relatively clear what you're making.

We're still experimenting with this ourselves. Because our super-slogan is "It's better to make something than nothing!" :)


Hehe. I've noticed that having some games out there that generate a bit of cash can allow some flexibility in such an approach.

Good luck!

I didn't really read them but a diagonal scan of the comments to the article reveals a pretty sad situation. I thought I had written a positive article with a recipe on how to turn video games into a medium that everyone can enjoy. But most comments seem to just say "games are art", sometimes even repeating the arguments I had already dismissed in the article.

I see art as a solution out of the gridlock that video games are stuck in. But apparently The Interwebs see art as a Problem, at least in the rare cases when the reasoning goes a bit further than a banal discussion about the definition of the term.

I guess the real issue is that fond gamers don't feel that there is a problem. Either they are happy being part of a mega-niche or they feel the rest of the world should just adapt. As a creative person, I cannot agree with such sentiments. And as a human being, I think it is criminal to hold this medium hostage.

I guess this is why Notgames exists. To get away from such destructive mobs.  :)

It might be rough but you make your point well. I think it's a good article. I couldn't have said it any better. :)

I find your article quite interesting, Michaël, but I find myself musing about the subject...

It started when I noticed you did not provide any tools for how a reader may go about making games art. In a way it made me feel as if I (along with you) could expect the reader to 'switch on' his artistic sense and makes games which 'mean something'. But the high art we today comfortably enjoy was the product of centuries of advancements in artistic thinking. Thinking back over the past few years I have met a large amount of young people who wanted to do something with games and art but did not have a clue how - which I suspect is the cause for the never-ending stream of 'interesting' art projects. Perhaps there is just something lacking in many of the young minds of today, to the extent that I sometimes hate my impotence in regaining artistic merit myself.

But this makes me think that what really is needed is beyond simply more examples is a way of conveying the right mindset. If we say 'X is filth' we have nothing to back it up with - even Gamasutra knows no quality. Rather we need to find a way to convey the joy of having caught the essence of something beautifully - like happens in the art pieces we sometimes mention.

Perhaps this article is now where the discussion is but should not be - perhaps what we need to manifest forth is the right line of thinking. That sensation seeing 'A Moorish Interior': that is what we need to find ways of evoking the desire for again .

How may we explain the essential difference between the plot of Bioshock and the plot of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress not on a 'goal' level but rather a qualitative level and have people crave for the later?

EDIT: In fact, it frustrates me to see so many people with aspirations having no clue how to make anything of art. It is as-if there was a century during which calculus was heavily unpopular and now you see bright sparks walking about going 'I read there is this trick with a triangle.' It is painful - these people should be training in the academies to heights not yet seen. At present even if they are as fortunate as to see the goal of artistic expression in games they lack the positive freedom to make these games. They ought to receive it so plentiful they can hardly handle it.

This is because I left out the third problematic factor. I figured my "traditional" view on art and my rejection of games as artistic would be more than enough for the internet to deal with. The next step is of course that you need an artist to make art! And that's not a popular notion among geeks who tend to think they can do whatever they set their mind to. But I believe that being an artist is a calling. Like being a priest. It takes not just skill, but also talent and vocation. For the games industry, my recommendation would be: hire more artists and give them a leading role in your productions.

I'm not sure if this is necessary. I'm really not hoping for games to become a high art form. I'm talking about far more common forms of art. I'm talking about the difference between Bioshock and The Matrix. The latter is made from an aesthetic mindset and executed in such a way that it became an amusing experience. The former is made as a fun commodity that some pretty pictures and storylines were slapped onto.

I want there to be "high art" games. But those will always be a minority. What I am claiming in the article is that for games to become truly popular, they need to become artistic (in the common sense). I guess I want games to be made as "expressions". And I don't believe most games today are made as expressions.

I was thinking about this the other day: most contemporary fine art is purposely shallow or ironic in terms of content but often well made, aesthetically, while your run of the mill "art game" is super-heavy and "pathetic" in terms of content but mostly aesthetically amateurish or rough.

This is a very interesting comment that I do not immediately know how to think about. In a way I understand what you mean - I suppose I am only on the two front-lines at once. I see your difference between Bioshock and The Matrix but I struggle to lay my finger upon it.


I think this can be blamed on a lack of context. Contemporary art does not want to exist within a large, human, realistic continuum, art games frequently are made by people who do not know of a large, human, realistic continuum. I believe with both education has failed, I have even spoken to people who had been actively discouraged to compose harmonic and tonal music. When I heard this I was so shocked I wondered why nobody seemed very disturbed about this, it seems like a Toohey plan, or a 1984-scheme to ruin art. Autodidaction is qualitatively incomparable with proper teaching even when it occurs.

I see some contemporary schools which offer drawing courses of many years with plans which involve only copying masters for a year, with strict hours. These are growing in number and produce some work which is quite uplifting, so there may be a return to better spirit.

This will remain my thesis. It is not so much the fault of 'the industry' which consciously refuses art, it is that Western culture is yet to recover from the mediævalism of the 20th century - and that this recovery will be with the grace of pockets of experience persisting and the immutability of human knowledge in archives.

When I focus on fine art, I cannot but agree with this sentiment. But when I look beyond the narrow confines of museums and galleries, I find a lot more hope. I feel that cinema, music, theater, dance, literature and even illustration have gotten through the 20th century in much better shape. They all have had their modernist and "anti-human" pieces but, as opposed to fine art, they seem to have dealt with them in a much more healthy way. Modernism has refreshed literature and cinema, even if it has utterly destroyed painting and sculpture.

But maybe this is how it goes: art follows where people go, with their technology. Artists who don't keep up are left behind. I think there's a lot to say for the idea that the great tradition of painting that culminated in the 19th century was continued in the 20th century, not in painting and sculpture (obviously), but in cinema! I think the sort of artists who want to celebrate life and involve their audience in meaningful ways, tend to fondly embrace new techniques and technologies when their use can increase the impact of their work. If this theory is true, that cinema is the true continuation of art, then it stands to reason that video games would be the next step in this evolution.

With a bit of optimism, I can see a direct line from 19th century painting over 20th century cinema to 21st century video games. And best of all: we don't need to reject modernism (and long for going back in time). We just incorporate modernist ideas -instead of being overwhelmed by them.

First off: Nice article! Think it it was a good summary of the basic ideas of what it means to have more art in games.


After reading some comments (to the extent I could stand it :)), I am again hit by the notion that many people do not see a reason to create artful games. Most present-day players (and, perhaps even more so, developers) do not see anything wrong with how games are made today. The comment "But what about the artful games that ARE made? He sure did not mention those!", often citing Ico, Planescape torment or whatnot.

I am wondering what this comes from, because I am sure the same people (as by Michael's example above) liked Matrix. And in the Matrix vs Bioshock discussing I can find two large differences in these:

1) Matrix uses a great deal of its material to bring forward the themes. Even action scenes have some sort of connection and can be discussed. Bioshock has none of this, the themes are just fancy background and the players activities never tie into them.

2) The activities portrayed / performed vary a lot in diversity. Matrix has something like 10% action sequences and the rest discussions, etc and all sort of other things. In Bioshock it is 95% of looting and shooting (the other part is passive monologues that are mostly not connected to the themes).

Bioshock is basically a bad Jackie Chan movie with some unconnected theme slapped on to it (just let Jackie roam Rapture and you got it). In Bioshock you really need to struggle to get anything deeper from it. In Matrix the deeper content comes naturally, it is bound to give you lot to think about.


So to sum up, I think another problem here is also to convince "gamers" that they actually want the artsy games too! Because if we do that, then the industry might see an opening, change direction and then people that never played games becomes interested too, thus further broadening the market.

I'm not sure that the audience for notgames will come from the "gamers" demographic. I do think there can be a mass market for interactive computer "experiences" (gah, too many quote marks!). However, I believe the market for art will continue to be what is always has been, no matter what the medium.

Thank you for supporting my eye-rolling at the comments to the article, Thomas. It's a sad situation. And your analysis is to the point: why do these people happily enjoy art in other media and do they seem to reject it in their dear hobby? It always feels like they are afraid that their hobby will disappear. But I doubt that it will. If video games ever become a widely accessible medium, it will not happen at the expensive of "game-games". These will continue to exist. Or is it that they enjoy being part of a niche that is misunderstood by the rest of the world? Do they resent the idea that perhaps tomorrow their sisters might like some games too. Not the modest casual games that they are allowed to play now, but real full budget video games that are every bit as spectacular as their own shooters. I wonder.

Part of the "discussion" is just internet, though. Many posters make statements that I already refuted in the article. Somebody even posted a picture of Duchamp's urinal. How low can you sink? The argument that "everything can be art, so games are art" is just dumb and needlessly defensive.

Especially in a context that is not about whether games are art or not, but that instead suggests a new way of approaching the medium. I hate how the internet makes me doubt my use of the A word. But f* it. I have more right to it than they do.

Regarding gamers, it's a bit of an uphill struggle. Because the press and many developers have been defending the primacy of gameplay for years, if not decades. The idea that someone might like a game for its story or for how it looks or makes one feel or think, is still very contestable.

But the technology being as complicated to use as it is, and the prejudice against games (not just video games) being what it is, it may be difficult to get non-gamers on board. Unless there is a way to explicitly present the work as completely different from games.

I wouldn't reject all gamers out of hand. Many people who enjoy an FPS or an RPG once in a while, are also interested in other types of interactive entertainment. This is perhaps a small group but not insignificant. A second, larger group consists of people who are capable of enjoying a film or a book and yet don't look for those kinds of experiences in games yet. It may be possibly to surprise these people, given smart design and adequate guidance.

We should not give up on trying to address the non-gamers audience. But we should also not give up on all gamers just because some core minority rejects us.

I've seen similar things happen in music -- you take a genre that, depending on your opinion, is stable or stagnant and add your own twist on it. No matter how well you do, you will have some people screaming and crying because you're not doing the original style justice and that you don't know anything about it and blah blah blah. In the end, some just refuse to accept that a genre/label/style/whatever isn't a rigid, inflexible category so much as an adjective, and you're not going to win them over short of giving them a lobotomy.

And the ones who might dig on what you do? They're a lot quieter, because chances are they have better things to do than sit around writing incendiary screeds against things they don't like and arguing with people who have differing opinions. But they'll still enjoy it and probably spread the word as well.

Michael, you sparked debate and got people thinking at least and that is a good thing.

I really wonder about the value of these internet debates.  ::)

But the noise they make does work as advertising for our cause.  ;D

I do hope so.  :-*