CS-Nation

Covering the future of Counter-Strike
adaptation
counter-point: adaptation
The question of whether games are art is one better left to philosophers and the artists themselves than to two guys writing for a website. Undaunted, rizzuh and asspennies try to tackle the subject anyway. In this issue of Counter-Point: games, art, and whether there's any confluence between the two.
From: asspennies [mailto:asspennies@counter-strike.net]
To: rizzuh [mailto:rze@counter-strike.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2003 10:00 PM
Subject: But I know what I like

Art. What is it?

Ok, that's a really tough question to answer. It's got multiple definitions depending on your mood and your perspective. It also contains an emotional connotation that is very hard to quantify, if it's possible at all.

I've seen many people remark on the art, or lack of it, in games. I remember seeing clips from a presentation given a few years ago by "Sims" creator Will Wright. He compared the evolution of games to the evolution of art.

It was interesting from a purely academic standpoint. He showed slides of various art forms and described the games he felt they applied to. For instance, cave paintings were pong. Egyptian art was Pac-Man, Space Invaders. Middle Ages art was Doom, System Shock, etc. Renaissance art was Half-Life, The Sims. The next level would be the next games, Picassos and Rembrandts. For those, we'd have to see what the future holds.

Like I said, interesting, but not exactly useful as a good example of whether games are art. To Wright, he was describing the evolution of art in games. To me, he was just describing the evolution of games in general, using the evolution of painted art as merely a clever form of illustrating a more classic timeline. After all, it took thousands of years for art to evolve into its present form. Does Wright seriously believe that we have accomplished similar artistic leaps in a mere 25 years?

I'm not trying to argue that games cannot be art. If you describe art as merely a human endeavor that has not been quantified into absolutes e.g. a science, then games certainly qualify. However, almost any creation by humans would then qualify as art, and the idea of games being a unique art form starts to lose some of its meaning.

If you think of art as something that moves the human soul, something that causes a genuine emotional outpouring, than I definitely think some games can be considered art, but most are merely entertainment. One of those games that are merely entertainment is Counter-Strike.

This is not to imply that Counter-Strike is not a good game. MYST instantly pops into my mind as an example of a game that was also art, but it is a much poorer game than Counter-Strike.

What about you—do you think games can be reasonably called art? Further, does Counter-Strike qualify as art, or is it merely entertainment of a different nature?
From: rizzuh [mailto:rze@counter-strike.net]
To: asspennies [mailto:asspennies@counter-strike.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2003 10:40 PM
Subject: Painting the picture

Art and entertainment aren't mutually exclusive. Throughout human history, however, art and interactivity have been separate. To me, that has changed. Games can be art. The previously mentioned MYST and other titles like Deus Ex can successfully tell a great story on a grand scale.

Games are primitive at this point. Art that is primitive is still art.

For me, there isn't a doubt that single player games have plenty of artistic merit in presentation, expression, and story. This doesn't hold up for multiplayer games, though, and most people don't even think that any games can be construed as art.

Certainly the actual architecture and, uh, "art" used in games are art, but is the overall multiplayer gaming experience an expression of art? It's a tough question to field and the gut answer is a simple no, but I have too much respect for the medium to leave it at that.

Back to inactivity, an artist painting a picture is fully in control. A game designer making a single player game can control most of what the player does, in the general sense (things required to transverse a storyline, for example). An artist painting a background and leaving the foreground blank is the job of a multiplayer game designer; players paint the foregrounds with their gameplay. A problem is that there are no multiplayer game designers.

While gaming itself is new, multiplayer gaming has only been "big" for about six years or so. Creating a multiplayer game is usually just a random summation of some features and gimmicks. Counter-Strike's three gimmicks are its real life theme, the death that matters, and money. It didn't take four years at art school to come up with that magic, but logistics like "it requires an artist to make art!" are distracting from the point (and not true at all).

Imagine the day when multiplayer games, on top of the action, have huge story arcs, amazing character development and ways to make the players feel emotion. A time away, I'll admit. Counter-Strike however, tries at these things. Story arcs are player deaths where the tides change; character development is getting to know your teammates; emotion is the thrill and anger of loss and defeat. Just because gamers get to paint half of a painting, doesn't mean that the painting doesn't exist.

Multiplayer games are primitive at this point. Art that is primitive is still art.

Counter-Strike is art in the sense that very, very bad movies are art. Counter-Strike is art or nothing in this genre can ever be called art, and that's a bad precedent for anyone to set.