Controversial opinion: Game design itself is no art

[cantrip]

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.

Well, i am a coder myself, but i think both coders and game designers are crafters rather than artists. I do not mix them up. Infact, a game designer combines mechanics and makes concepts, and a coder implements the mechanical part. But even if a game designer creates a concept, it is not art he creates, but simply a blueprint for how the mechanic has to be implemented. A blueprint is no art. Game design decision are based on many different scientific results, are based on a (most time given) design philosophy and utilize psychology to actually create mechanics which engage the players.

But nothing of that actually is art. I, as a coder, am no artist. But a game designer also is no artist. A coder implements the mechanical part. An artist implements the art a game designer needs for his game design decisions. Well, that is, if you have team roles. If you have no team, sure, sometimes those roles overlap. But lets talk about the industry, and not about small indie studios.

[Kumorii]

Well, i am a coder myself, but i think both coders and game designers are crafters rather than artists. I do not mix them up. Infact, a game designer combines mechanics and makes concepts, and a coder implements the mechanical part. But even if a game designer creates a concept, it is not art he creates, but simply a blueprint for how the mechanic has to be implemented. A blueprint is no art. Game design decision are based on many different scientific results, are based on a (most time given) design philosophy and utilize psychology to actually create mechanics which engage the players.

But nothing of that actually is art. I, as a coder, am no artist. But a game designer also is no artist.

No. A designer doesn't combine mechanics...they CREATE mechanics.
Who is coming up with the mechanics that they use? It's certainly not artists... is it the coders?
A blueprint is literally art with guidelines on how to recreate it. If I create it, I have to create the art you have to replicate. How can a designer gives you instructions on how to create something without actually coming up with the thing you should create?

Are concept artists not artists? They are forming the blueprints for the modelers to create the assets. If they are artists are modelers just craftsmen? A concept artists job is to work with the designer to visualize their design. Does that mean concept artists are just craftsmen since they are following the idea and creation of the designer if only by description?

But lets say you are right. Lets say all the designers do is just put pieces together that everyone else has created.
Putting things together to create new things, as you often do, is also creativity and art in of itself. if I take multiple pieces and create a completely new thing I have utilized creativity and imagination to accomplish it... thus it's art by definition.

What exactly is your definition of art? It's not clear tbh.

[cantrip]

No. A designer doesn't combine mechanics...they CREATE mechanics.

No, actually they combine existing mechanic sets into new systems most times nowadays. And inventing a new mechanic also would not be art but just a newly implemented system component.

Who is coming up with the mechanics that they use? It's certainly not artists... is it the coders?
A blueprint is literally art with guidelines on how to recreate it.

A blueprint is literally a concept how to implement a result. And no art inherently.

How can a designer gives you instructions on how to create something without actually coming up with the thing you should create?

Game designers rarely tell artists how to create their art. Is telling an artist "I want a blue pigeon flying in blue sky" artistic? No, it is simply the topic a painting should be about.

Are concept artists not artists?

Yes, they are. But they are no game designers or vice versa, except you are both a concept artist and a game designer. Which does not make the role part of a game designer artistic.

They are forming the blueprints for the modelers to create the assets.

No, they actually create concept art, which has nothing to do with desinging game mechanics.

What exactly is your definition of art? It's not clear tbh.

Art in general is a wide range of human practices to create cultural participation. You have architecture (creating new building models), you have visual arts (images, graphics in general, paintings etc.), literary arts (fiction, drama, poetry etc.), performing arts (like music, dancing etc.), you have textiles and fashion, folk art, storytelling (lore in games), concept and installation art (like putting a building into white silk), culinary arts ... You need to employ skill and imagination to create art.

[Kumorii]

Art in general is a wide range of human practices to create cultural participation. You have architecture (creating new building models), you have visual arts (images, graphics in general, paintings etc.), literary arts (fiction, drama, poetry etc.), performing arts (like music, dancing etc.), you have textiles and fashion, folk art, storytelling (lore in games), concept and installation art (like putting a building into white silk), culinary arts ... You need to employ skill and imagination to create art.

So designing is art by your definition.

[cantrip]

So designing is art by your definition.

Thats a fallacy. As you also need to employ skill and imagination to create crafted items.

Your fallacy is:

A needs C
B needs C
A is B

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting article:

https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design...es-are-not-art

I do not agree to that article. I think games are art as they consist art and only the gameplay will bring you the art impression of the art contained.

[NineSpine]

No, actually they combine existing mechanic sets into new systems most times nowadays. And inventing a new mechanic also would not be art but just a newly implemented system component.

A blueprint is literally a concept how to implement a result. And no art inherently.

Game designers rarely tell artists how to create their art. Is telling an artist "I want a blue pigeon flying in blue sky" artistic? No, it is simply the topic a painting should be about.

Yes, they are. But they are no game designers or vice versa, except you are both a concept artist and a game designer. Which does not make the role part of a game designer artistic.

No, they actually create concept art, which has nothing to do with desinging game mechanics.

Art in general is a wide range of human practices to create cultural participation. You have architecture (creating new building models), you have visual arts (images, graphics in general, paintings etc.), literary arts (fiction, drama, poetry etc.), performing arts (like music, dancing etc.), you have textiles and fashion, folk art, storytelling (lore in games), concept and installation art (like putting a building into white silk), culinary arts ... You need to employ skill and imagination to create art.

To say that there is no artistry in the time reversal mechanics of Braid or the kill-or-not mechanics of Undertale is absurd on its face.

[Kumorii]

Thats a fallacy. As you also need to employ skill and imagination to create crafted items.

Your fallacy is:

A needs C
B needs C
A is B

You have to elaborate this, because I can't see how that applies to anything I said. I have never claimed game design is like painting for example.
You are making it sound like I think Mona Lisa and a sculpture is the same because they are both art.
They are both art, that's my argument. They are different, but still art by the definition of what art is.

proper summarization would be

If you have C it's art
A has C
B has C
both A and B have C thus both are art
but A is not B.

Interesting article:

https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design...es-are-not-art

I do not agree to that article. I think games are art as they consist art and only the gameplay will bring you the art impression of the art contained.

This article summarize it well... Even though it talks about games as a whole rather than a part of the game development. And the conclusion is it's art and more, same as architects are artists and more. Things can be more than one thing. Game designers are surely using metrics as you mentioned, same as they are trying to make some beautiful. You can't design a good game without artistry involved in the process. It's all about combining things to give an experience same as painting is combining strokes to give an experience or invoke a feeling.

Think I've said everything at this point though. Don't really have much to add more, nor do I really care to.
Don't think we will come to an agreement.

[Vorkreist]

Game Design includes choosing which art/music to use and where to put it.

That's the job of producers / creative directors. Designer's are tasked with thinking up game play systems or general content ( what's inside a level , how does it work and why would it be fun for a player ) .
Game design can be an art as well its just that you rarely see it that elevated in a world were 99.99% is copy pasted ideas. Game design mostly stands out when new gameplay and genres emerge.

- - - Updated - - -

You need to employ skill and imagination to create art.

So the guy tasked with creating fun gameplay systems requires no skill imagination and creativity ? You're coping hard.

[Aydinx2]

Oh yeah, so you say he is like a museums director? That guy also decided where to put art. No sorry, that is bullshit. The guy who shows paintings in an exhibition is not the artist except if he painted the paintings himself. The artist is the artist. The guy who painted the painting.

You have a very disappointing view of peoples contributions to art.
And you seem to have a very personal vendetta against game designers based on the way you talk.

Designing mechanics is art. If you think it isn't you just don't understand what art is.

- - - Updated - - -

You need to employ skill and imagination to create art.

So you agree that game design is art. Thank you.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting article:

https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design...es-are-not-art

I do not agree to that article. I think games are art as they consist art and only the gameplay will bring you the art impression of the art contained.

The gameplay and how the art is presented is more the art than the drawings themselves. Nobody would care about what a texture looks like if it wasn't in the context of a game.

[Rinnegan2]

I agree with the OP somewhat, but I think there is a point to be made that some parts of game design that most people wouldn't consider art actually do have a touch of art to them. take a class designer for example. if a rotation is really fun and feels satisfying to do, then I think that's art - at least to a degree. and this is something that hasn't really existed before video games. or think of a raid encounter that requires lots of coordination between players - it's kind of like performing a dance together - which would be art.

I guess what it comes down to is this: some parts of game design are obviously art (music, story), some parts of game design are obviously not art (coding, math) and then there are some parts of game design that aren't considered art - yet (player performance (rotation), player coordination(boss design, pvp))

[Katchii]

As others have already stated, it's a bit weird to try and separate the different parts of the game and say X is art but Y is not, just like with other forms of art, it's the combination of all the things that went into it that made it what it was, including the boring mechanical parts.

Also, I hard disagree with the idea that Game Design is not art. There are plenty of folks out there who have years of experience designing games, and therefore have the mechanical and engineering skills to do it...that doesn't mean that what they create is good or enjoyable, it just ticks all the boxes and has all the elements of what game design is. Great game design takes more than just skill, it takes imagination and creativity too.

[GreenJesus]

When I went to the Versailles palace in France there was an art exhibit going on. Apparently 7 vaccumes in see through boxes stacked on top of each other is considered "art".

So who knows what art is.

[Kumorii]

When I went to the Versailles palace in France there was an art exhibit going on. Apparently 7 vaccumes in see through boxes stacked on top of each other is considered "art".

So who knows what art is.

I feel like the higher degree of arts are just people trying to troll others.
Or no one has any clue whatsoever on what they are doing but people are to proud to say "I don't get this?" because that would nullify them as an art connoisseur.

[Katchii]

I feel like the higher degree of arts are just people trying to troll others.
Or no one has any clue whatsoever on what they are doing but people are to proud to say "I don't get this?" because that would nullify them as an art connoisseur.

I had a legit discussion about why two pieces of "art" that were literally identical except for who made them. One made by a child with finger paint who wanted nothing more than to just draw a picture of their family and another, created by an "artist," done purposely in that style (child finger painting) to evoke some thought process...or something but the end result looked exactly the same.

They said one was art, and the other was not. Because, apparently according to their art appreciate teacher/professor or whatever, it's not just the skill it's the mentality and mind set behind the presented piece and WHY it was made the way it was, the purpose behind it and what feelings it evokes. I'm not meaning to dismiss the argument, I just can't wrap my head around it and it doesn't make sense to me so I can't articulate why they said what they said.

But translating that mentality to game design, we as the player would likely not be able to see or understand the WHY behind it, we just see the end result. However, we do know that they HAD a why, that features were designed with specific things in mind it wasn't "just because." In that regard, based on the "rules" about art from that previous discussion I had about it, because there is a WHY and there was a purpose behind the decisions made and thought went into what would be evoked within the player/consumer/viewer it would be considered "art."

That said....art is subjective. So, whatever. I don't care about whether it can or can't technically be called "art" by whatever seemingly arbitrary definition people put on it, all I care about is whether I enjoy it and/or can appreciate the skill, ability, creativity and imagination went into it. And game design absolutely takes all of those things.

[Triceron]

Art is expression of the author. So it depends on whether the designer(s) intend the game to be art or not, really.

Like the ikea chair example above, it depends on whether the craftsman/creator considers it an expression of their creativity or not. That Ikea chair can be considered art if presented as such. Art is expression (of creativity), and it is not really defined by any other standard. Whether we regard it as being meaningful or not doesn't change whether it is considered Art or not.

In terms of game design, it really depends on whether the creator themselves define it as an expression of their creativity and whether they personally regard it to be art. Cuz Art is literally defined by intent.

[El Gucaragua]

.. 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?

I'm trying to understand. Are you saying then that you can't criticize music, sound design, and graphics because those are strictly art but systems aren't therefore it's able to be critiqued? Because that's a weird take.

A game is art. All art is made by a multitude of components/techniques that in unison create that which we call art. You don't consider a vacuum cleaner art on the surface, but when you break down it's construction through development it still follows that same principle.

You also do not have to just simply except art 'as is'. If we did, then you couldn't criticize art to make it better/improve the quality. This is why objectivity is so important.

[Kumorii]

I had a legit discussion about why two pieces of "art" that were literally identical except for who made them. One made by a child with finger paint who wanted nothing more than to just draw a picture of their family and another, created by an "artist," done purposely in that style (child finger painting) to evoke some thought process...or something but the end result looked exactly the same.

They said one was art, and the other was not. Because, apparently according to their art appreciate teacher/professor or whatever, it's not just the skill it's the mentality and mind set behind the presented piece and WHY it was made the way it was, the purpose behind it and what feelings it evokes. I'm not meaning to dismiss the argument, I just can't wrap my head around it and it doesn't make sense to me so I can't articulate why they said what they said.

That's actually interesting to hear. I kinda understand it.
If you slap someone during a skit for comedic effect the same slap outside of it with anger behind it changes the message of said slap.
however, how would anyone know the mindset of the artist?

That circles around to my first point, because it's presented in an art gallery and have high status, i think people apply their own views on it which is independent from the artist. the art HAS to mean something and if you say you can't see it "you just don't get it".