Controversial opinion: Game design itself is no art

[cantrip]

You're making a serious category error here by lumping design and execution into one. Following the instructions to build a Lego model isn't art. Neither is writing the instructions. But designing the model IS.

Be very careful what you're actually talking about, because you're equating things here that are very much not the same.

No i actually simply state that game design in itself is no art, but utlilizes art. As i argumented in my posts in this thread. And it takes more than an upset game designer to convince me otherwise. Only because some developer believes he is an artist because he created a few quests does not make him one. You are only an artist if you create art. And not because you think your crafting work is art.

- - - Updated - - -

Sadly, people themselves are allowed to decide what art is and what is not. Ever heard of NFTs? Yeah...."Art".

Some people even believe that things you can mass produce, put in a package and sell in a store is no art. While i disagree here, as it simply could contain art and be derived from it. As like computer games.

[Calfredd]

No i actually simply state that game design in itself is no art, but utlilizes art. As i argumented in my posts in this thread. And it takes more than an upset game designer to convince me otherwise. Only because some developer believes he is an artist because he created a few quests does not make him one. You are only an artist if you create art. And not because you think your crafting work is art.

A few points. Have you acknowledged yet that art can, in fact, be criticized? Second, sure the quest that tells you to gather poop might not be art but the ones that tell a story can be art unless you then claim that literature can't be art either.

[cantrip]

A few points. Have you acknowledged yet that art can, in fact, be criticized? Second, sure the quest that tells you to gather poop might not be art but the ones that tell a story can be art unless you then claim that literature can't be art either.

But the story told in a quest is created by story writers, and not quest designers most times nowadays. So my statement still stands.

About the question if you can critize art.. yes, sure you can. An artist just should not care about criticism. As it is his artwork. And only he decides what it should be. And people may either accept his work as art or do not, which means they simply do not consume it. An artist is free to create art by his own style and decisions. While a crafting work is based on logical mechanics and blueprints you use. And which you may criticize based on logical approaches. A philosophy may also be criticized as it inherently is based on a logical approach which is a matter of discussion.

The problem about game design simply is that some game designers also hide behind the idea that their work is art, and also believe that their approaches to crafting a game should not be subject of criticism, based on the fact that it is their freedom to create art the way they want. Which means, they simply get rid of every kind of logical argument by bringing in the argument that they create art. And that the design process itself is their artist decision.

Some game designers even act like pop stars, as if their creation process was anything unique. While they simply were part of a successfull project way bigger than them, including real art even if it was not their work. I think game designers should accept they are crafters. They should accept that their work is subject to logical argumentations.

[Biomega]

You are only an artist if you create art.

Cool story.

Any more pearls of wisdom? Perhaps that you're only a gardener if you do gardening, or that you're only a cook if you do cooking?

"Art" in itself is an incredibly difficult concept to define, and that goes for both the philosophical and the vernacular meanings. But if you can agree to anything it's that art is a creative process that can't just be reduced to simple, replicable components. The whole POINT of calling something "art" is that you can't just give instructions about it to someone else and achieve the same result - which is absolutely the case for construction or engineering, and absolutely not the case for design. Those are very different things.

Your entire case rests on a category error: you lumping together the process of designing something, and the process of creating something out of that design. But that's two very different things.

You say it "utilizes art" - but what you mean by this is artWORKS or art ASSETS. You're again using one term to describe different things. If you really meant "art" as a concept rather than a product, then your statement would already prove you wrong: anything that "utilizes art" (with art as a concept) is by definition "art". By confusing the two you are again committing a category error that conflates two different things. That's why it seems so obvious a point to you; and why it seems so obviously wrong to others.

There also seems to be some confusion for you as to what constitutes an artwork. You grossly generalize that something that is merely "utilizing art[work]" is not art in itself; but that's also a flawed argument even if you had made it correctly. Putting existing things together in a certain way can ABSOLUTELY be art, and make previously disparate pieces of artwork into a new artwork. Otherwise, things like assemblages or collages or any other form of transformative art wouldn't be art. The creative process doesn't just come into play when you create something ex nihilo. In fact it's not very different from taking objects like pigments and binder (which already exist) and combining them in a new way; we call that painting, and you probably wouldn't hesitate to call it art. Yet somehow taking other already existing things and combining them in a new way ISN'T art for you? Why? How do you distinguish in that process?

Could it be... the creative process I spoke of earlier, that doesn't lend itself to easy replication? GASP.

[Rageonit]

And it takes more than an upset game designer to convince me otherwise.

Lets make it obviously clear so noone gets confused for no good reason: nothing will convince you.

[Stornholio]

Some people even believe that things you can mass produce, put in a package and sell in a store is no art. While i disagree here, as it simply could contain art and be derived from it. As like computer games.

Well, that's the whole point. Everything CAN be art, but not everthing people call art, might actually BE art. A good example would be the woman who wanted to kill puppies in the name of art around 2012. The complexity of the work is not the point, but ONLY the perception of people. Which, frankly, is rather stupid and ingenious at the same time.

As to videogames, I don't think that just any game is art - just like not every caprenter is an artist.
One VERY good example would be Persona 5. This game is an artistic masterpiece in my eyes. The whole game is just done right. Color palettes, music, story, thematic, gameplay - it all is just a very coherent package.

And then there are things like modern Ubisoft games. There is nothing artistic about them.

[ldev]

Yea I agree. Game design is calculated. Like, teleportation mechanic - where to put it so that time spent would feel good. It's not art. It existing is not art.

But wrapping up these game design mechanics in lore/whatever is art - giving lore reasons for teleportation to exist, then implying that you are no longer you, because you die on the entrance and just a copy and the exit, artistic backdrops where these teleportation points exist - that's art.

[Kumorii]

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination

Seems like design is art.

What's the point of this even?

[Rageonit]

I will never forget my first encounter with the Clockwork Mansion and the Stilton Manor in Dishonoured 2. The design of those levels was pure art. And I'm not talking about presentation here (which was obviously jaw-dropping); I mean the sole idea behind those levels. Especially the Stilton Manor - when it dawned on me what's going on and what possibilites have just opened up, I was simply awe struck. I could experiment with that level for hours, just for fun and all the differtent options! (And the timeline change? So brilliantly obvious when it happened, but it was yet another WOW! moment). Since then, I have no doubt in my mind design is also art. But it's rarely obvious, since most games just copy existing ideas.

[VinceVega]

.. but only the parts which create art, as like music, sounds, graphics.. game systems itself is simply craftmansship, gameplay is simply craftmansship. So it is open to be criticized rather that art which you have to accept as it is.

Do you agree? Disagree? Do you understand what my point is?

When was that not the case?
Game systems have been criticized left and right since forever. Even Art can be criticized. People don't have to agree with you.
There are awards for art. If you cannot criticize it you also cannot pit art against others or award one piece but not another.

Example: Berserk anime. HORRIBLE. In my opinion. Lazy half assed animations. And in my opinion that can be extend to nearly every anime that uses CG.Just doesn't work. That is my opinion. You can agree or not. That is ok.
SnyderCut. Many people hated the 4:3 ratio. Me too. I hated it. But it was his expression. It took me out of it until the halfway point of the movie where i got a bit used to it.
FF14s anime-fication. Fistpumps. Giggles. Cutsy Pedo races. Cringy story. My opinion again.

And game system have been and will be criticized forever. I don't like FF14s interface. I love its class system. I like wows raids. I cannot stand mythic+.


The problem comes when people frame their opinion, which is basically subjective criticism most of the time, as an universal objectiv fact. Everyone is allowed to criticize everything. But you have to be aware that objective criticism on something like video games is very hard to accomplish.
So just because A says game system 1 is bad and not a good system doesn't mean that B has to agree to this and maybe likes system 1 very much.

Biggest example: Asian games in the west. They have certain characteristics taht rub many people in the west the wrong way. But in asia and for many others in the west this is the height of video game design. Grindy games for example or the acceptance of P2W.

[bloodmoth13]

.. but only the parts which create art, as like music, sounds, graphics.. game systems itself is simply craftmansship, gameplay is simply craftmansship. So it is open to be criticized rather that art which you have to accept as it is.

Do you agree? Disagree? Do you understand what my point is?

No i disagree, you can criticize art.
What on earth happened to people that made them think they cant criticize art? what a ludicrous statement!

[Athorha]

Having a child aint science

[Rageonit]

Or Portal - that game was a true piece of art, design-wise. When you play games like this, you always start to wonder: "This concept is so simple, why noone else did it before?". To say that it's pure craftmanship is an understatement. Craftmanship is when you design a simple table with four legs, because everyone knows how to make a table. Before Valve, noone had an idea how to make a game like Portal. Noone even knew it could exist! Coming up with an idea like that is NOT craftmanship.

[Dhrizzle]

This is a conversation that can only get bogged down in semantics as to what the difference between arts and crafts are.

[Kumorii]

This is a conversation that can only get bogged down in semantics as to what the difference between arts and crafts are.

Thing is... They are linked. They both include a little bit of each other.

You need the craft to showcase your art and you need art to make a craft. The only time art is taken out of the craft is when you follow a blueprint to a tee. Which doesn't apply to game design at all.

[Soulwind]

But it's rarely obvious, since most games just copy existing ideas.

Most if not all art is iterative, too. Copying the right ideas for your game is also part of the design, and many games implement mismatching elements or feature-creep themselves into a mess that could have been a tight set of core mechanics instead.

Since the OP isn't really arguing in good faith, I think the best that we can do is present arguments and examples for other potential readers.

I'll focus now on one aspect of art that is usually agreed on: Art makes you feel things.

In written media, the right words can make you feel sadness, joy or anger. You may start reading a paragraph feeling one way and, as it progresses, your feelings change.

Now, I think it's easy to find that in interactive media. Let's imagine a particularly difficult encounter. A videogame boss, or a puzzle, or a labyrinth. You may begin with confidence, then doubt, then rage. You may even quit the game and cool off. But eventually you come back. And you keep trying. Eventually your determination is rewarded, and you win the encounter. You feel excited, and look back fondly to the moments in which you had a hard time with that part of the game.

Does it really matter what that encounter looked like? What the music was, or if there was any music at all? The story behind the encounter? Obviously all of that helps, but ultimately, what made that experience special wasn't the context, but the challenge, the mechanics involved in your interaction with the encounter and your own ability to succeed.

Interactivity is what sets this medium apart from the others, and game design is the process in which one defines how the player interacts with the game, and what that interaction should feel like. A game that's meant to be relaxing can have all the calming music and pretty backgrounds in the world, but it will still fail if the gameplay is frustrating or confusing. A game which pursues player agency can have the most complex dialog trees and the most advanced character creation, but it will still fail if all characters play the same way. That is what makes game design an art.

[Super Kami Dende]

Art is a diverse range of human activity, and resulting product, that involves creative or imaginative talent expressive of technical proficiency, beauty, emotional power, or conceptual ideas.

I'd say that is exactly what Game Design is.

Also you can criticize Art entirely. Like there are literally People who's Job it is to be an Art Critic. Wtf do you even mean...

[cantrip]

Thing is... They are linked. They both include a little bit of each other.

You need the craft to showcase your art and you need art to make a craft. The only time art is taken out of the craft is when you follow a blueprint to a tee. Which doesn't apply to game design at all.

No, they are not linked. A game designer simply utilizes art, but does not create it. A game actually is a mix out of crafting game mechanics and arts (sounds, images, music, lore). Creating a game mechanic simply is not art, but just decisions based on philosophy, psychology and mathematics and statistics used to implement them. It is a combination of many different crafting activities which incorporates art rather than creating it. I mean, a guy who writes a story is an artist, but the guy who creates the book at a printing machine is not.

[Rageonit]

I mean, a guy who writes a story is an artist, but the guy who creates the book at a printing machine is not.

You're mixing things up again. A book is not only a set of words - first, there has to be an idea behind it. Only when you have the idea, you shape it into words. Game design is coming up with an idea, game art is shaping it into an audio-visual experience. Both is art.

[Kumorii]

No, they are not linked. A game designer simply utilizes art, but does not create it. A game actually is a mix out of crafting game mechanics and arts (sounds, images, music, lore). Creating a game mechanic simply is not art, but just decisions based on philosophy, psychology and mathematics and statistics used to implement them. It is a combination of many different crafting activities which incorporates art rather than creating it. I mean, a guy who writes a story is an artist, but the guy who creates the book at a printing machine is not.

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination

Seems like design is art.

I think you confuse a designer with a coder... a coder, if that's their only role, gets instructions from the designer, hey we want to create this. Can you do it or what problems will we have? etc etc.
you'd have more of a point if you are talking about coders... but then again, there is creativity in coding as well.

A designer however, has to have imagination and has to have creative skill to design the game. Which is foundation of what kind of art the artists are making. As above said... the designer is the author. The craftman would the ghost writer.

There's very few craftsmen that has 0 art skill implemented in their craft. Hence they are linked.