Unit 5

This was the timeline I produced:
http://prezi.com/ll2bartgrvjr/copy-of-contextual-influences/

Our next task was to write a 1000 word essay, which may seem a daunting task to begin with, but with 100 words being three lines, it shouldn't be overly difficult. Below is an attempt at said essay:

When we think of art, we think of paintings, sketches, drawings, maybe music or dance depending on your trail of thought. But not many will think of games immediately. The question is, can we count games as an art? Are all games art, or just some? Infact, one big question is when does something stop being classed as art, is there a boundry? And if so, are games within, or just outside this boundry? But the question I'm going to be discussing is, has art actually influenced game design? I'll be exploring several art styles and examples to come to a conclusion on whether art has indeed influenced the way games are designed today.

First, lets look at what art is. Art is meant to be expressive in a variety of ways, either through visual representation, audible sound and more. They can range from so many things that it's hard to tell when something stops being art. In order to work this out, we first need to understand exactly what art is. This however is a very difficult question to answer. Art is essentially whatever you want it to be. If you look at something, it causes you to experience an emotion, then you call it art, then it is.

So, lets have a look at a few professional definitions: "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." -Google. This is correct. But then, not entirely. The purpose of a definition is to sum up an item or subject (or anything else for that matter) completely, this only explains a small part of what art is. This definition therefore, is correct, but not entirely, therefore fails to be a definition. It is correct in saying "to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." Since that is the reason for arts existence, to create an emotional reaction, and anything can be appreciated. So as you can see, art is very hard to explain.

Now we are trying to work out whether games are art, so first, what are games? Games are blocks of code put together to form a seemingly interactive situation, often with 3D or 2D environments. They can instil emotions in people due to certain characters in story games dying or action sequences that fill the player with adrenalin. Games are made to have an effect on people from distress to glee to anger to corruption. Games can tell a story, provide a show of skill, teach you a lesson, or sometimes just to confuse you for the fun of it. As an example, I'll be focusing on the game Antichamber.

Antichamber is a first person puzzler. This means it's set in a first person perspective, so you're looking through the eyes of the protagonist. The controls are simple and so too is the art style using minimalism and so very few colours. “Antichamber is a game about discovery, set inside a vibrant, minimal, Escher-like world, where geometry and space follow unfamiliar rules, and obstacles are a matter of perception.” This quote demonstrates antichambers art style and mentions it’s a very psychological game. The art style of minimalism means it can focus on getting the point of the game across with no aesthetic designs to distract the player while at the same time, looking good. It focuses on breaking most known common concepts about games, down to things as small as: "Do you jump or walk off a ledge?" And "Is it really a dead end if I speed walk at the wall face first?" Not only this, it also breaks 3D dimensions, with cubes containing something different depending on the side you look at it, and going into a room simply by looking through a hole and nothing more.

The question is; is Antichamber classed as art? I’d answer this with a sure yes. Antichamber causes players to feel emotions of wonder and confusion, it makes them happy when they progress, and is pleasing to look at, with the art style being curious and unique to the game. The fact I actually call it art means it is indeed art. As I explained before, if someone perceives something as art, then it is art.

But does this mean just games with interesting visual art styles or complex mechanics are classed as art? The answer is no. Lets take another game as an example: Call of Duty. This game is one I personally do not find to be entertaining, it’s a generic brown shooter with no mechanics other than point and click, there are gadgets occasionally but I’m talking about the base concept here. It’s a game so obviously made purely to get money out of people and nothing more. It’s a bad shooter to me. But is it art? I’d say yes here as well. It provokes an emotional response in me, which is pure hate, but it’s still an emotional response. But some would class it as an art, so it is, simple.

Art has been created in many ways from dance to lines on paper to music. It's always trying to give you an experience, a way to go through what the artist was going through when it was created. Games do something very similar; they give you an experience of being part of another world or another person’s story. “Video games are a way to jump into a different world. You get to forget about your stressful, busy life and become someone else for awhile.” –Bandini (username for comment section) Sometimes art will take other types of art and use them in its own design. For example it could take the art of music and use it to improve its design by giving the game atmosphere and a memorable style. Sometimes it will use a custom art style or use one similar to another but with a twist. Some games are drawn entirely in pencil, some games are created with floating music making lights in darkness, some are filled with wonder and a need to explore, games take all art types and put them in one, to give you another experience all together and keep you hooked until the game is finished. And even then the experience can continue.

However, not all games are a brilliant art created to give you an experience you've never seen before. Some mainstream games are created and sold just to make a profit. Not much thought has gone into most parts of the game and there doesn't tend to be much variation. They find a style that seems to be successful and stick with it. They are, however, still classified as art, because people get an emotional response and class it as art. Other games like indie games for example, are not restricted by big companies that change the game until their game is no longer their game anymore because of various changes made. Indie developers create what they want to create; therefore these games tend to come directly from the artist and so are more likely to deliver the experience the artist intended.

So the question is; “how has art influenced game design?” The answer is, in every way possible. If games themselves are art, then surely games must have been influenced by other art to make them so. Games from all genres have been influenced heavily by art because of what art is. Art is anything that invokes emotion. When someone makes a game, it’s usually based in some way shape or form on something we know of. Racing games, fighting games, puzzle games, even antichamber has been influenced. Architecture is an art, Antichamber plays around with this and makes you think all the while. Games tend to give you an emotion because of its content, and its content is art in itself, this content has been taken from other art, therefore influencing the whole game.

A prezi showing the contextual studies worksheets can be found below: