Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigmund
Point to refute this part of your argument: Pixar movies. They're nothing but excessive programming made possible only through the power of modern computers. But will say that if movies are art - then by this assertion the amazing works of Pixar are not?
|
No. There's a huge difference. Let me see if I can explain it.
Because Pixar movies are a non-interactive medium, the entirety of the computer programming invested into the product is made to improve the aesthetics. It's an entirely artistic endeavor. They're creating a series of images for an audience to react to.
(Then of course there's the
really evocative art of a Pixar movie, which is more the incredible storylines and less the CGI.)
But all the CGI programming is on the "visual" side. There's no coding of an independent 'game engine' designed to register exactly how much HP is taken off when your character is hit with an attack or the way enemy AI "strategically" attempt to take down the player.
By contrast, there's actually
two elements of programming going on with videogames. There's the artistic side of the project, where the programming corresponds with Finding Nemo or The Incredibles; they're creating evocative images designed to register a response in the player, to convince the player that he's actually engrossed in the world presented on the screen. Then there's the algebraic side of the equation, which is really just programming artificial rules (battlefield mechanics, turn-based DnD style combat, real-world emulating physics, etc.) into the game.
The former, in my opinion, is art. The latter, in my opinion, are just a series of mathematical rules, akin to how a series of math equations ultimately comprises much of the complicated real-world phenomena we witness as science.
It's like...here's a legal analogy because I'm in a law school class right now: it's the difference between the "artistry" of a Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Scalia and the content itself. Separating your disgust with Scalia's politics with his linguistic ability, the guy's a gifted writer. Many of his opinions are scathing socio-political critiques. I'd rank at least a few as 'artistic,' in the same way a well-reported nonfiction story might constitute 'art' as journalism. His command of language, the flow and structure of his written work, the word he chooses that fits just right to complete a metaphor;
that's art.
But all the legalese? All the rules Scalia's actually operating under, the Constitutional constraints that actually influence and dictate his opinion? That's not art. Those are the rules of the legal game; they're almost more scientific (or at least politically scientific) constructs. There's nothing artistic about a series of equations that Scalia utilizes to make a decision as to whether an Executive Agency meets Constitutional Qualification X or fails to meet Congressional Qualification Y.
Similarly, all that HP/MP, enemy AI, press the X button three times to progress the scene stuff...that
isn't art. It's a vital component of videogaming and it's amazing stuff, that we can manipulate a computer in such a way to simulate games on a screen and program conditions that result in "victory" or "defeat" and correspond to buttons that are pressed, but it's not art.