Inspired by a conversation had in the delicious new podcast, I came to ponder the nudity in video games thus far. It could have been a good time.

Aside from what’s in a tremendous amount of fan art, there really isn’t a whole lot that’s palatable in this day and age. Sure, we had the opportunity to see some pixel-sized nipple back in the day with Custer’s Revenge, but I would hardly say that’s in accordance with good taste. In fact, there’s hardly a game out there that treats nudity tastefully. (continue reading…)

There’s no need to argue at length over whether or not games are art. It’s just like any other form of media.

No. Games are not art. Some are artful and transcend into a form of art in their own kind. As a whole, they are not.

In that same line: Movies are not art, music is not art, writing is not art, sculpture work is not art, and canvas work (aka art) is not art.

Art is a culmination of thoughts and intentions that are formed in some way physical, material, mental, or supernatural that the audience then recognizes and receives and perceives to be beautiful. This perception is based on recognizing the intentions and finding that they have succeeded, which indicates that art is subjective, of course. In very rare cases, intention is reversed due to a mistake on the artist’s part and by chance invents something new, in the way that new devices are often created.

For games, artfulness arises from completeness and wholeness. It is not the story that is the centerpiece (this is the first mistake for most). Video games are games, and in this regard they must be fun to be artful. They must offer full forms of gameplay that blend and uniquely exploit its own designs and complements its other parts, such as sound and story, which must then, in turn, complement the gameplay, effectively compiling a whole entity and not a set of pieces. Graphics do not need to be “artsy”, but they do need to complement the gameplay so as to fit to the game’s design. Likewise, the story has no need to “compel” the player to the point of tears or convince him of political standpoints. The story must, again, compliment the set of elements in order make the game complete.

• One example of art by intention is Sonic the Hedgehog 3 & Knuckles. In this case even the packaging is set up uniquely: there is so much to it, the game needs to be sold in two parts in order to deliver it effectively. The game offered a unique and interesting implementation of speed-based gameplay that blends with the fresh platforming on every level, sound design that plays to the theme and aesthetic of each stage while capturing the feel of the character of Sonic, a story that was quick and effective to offer just enough to drive the player and link the stages, and graphics that were as sharp and as fast the characters they portrayed. The game represents full-form art that has yet to be replicated today, that still has fans clamoring for more, and still elevates Sonic to a high, popular status despite his floundering as a character today.

• An example of art without intention (or by mistake) is Street Fighter II. The game was a pinnacle of fighting games, but what makes it artful is the glitch that allowed players to cancel out of attacks and into others, effectively creating combos for the first time, and essentially creating the fighting genre as we know it today. This–in addition to the excellent gameplay, unique fighters, memorable sound design, and fresh graphics–drove this game to the top of tournaments and reinvigorated arcades.

These are opinions, of course, and are relative to myself; I cannot claim them as absolute fact. If you disagree, then certainly post what you believe to be artful. Let me just first say that Okami does not immediately qualify as art. It is an imitation of an art form and an imitation of another game. By this design, it is not automatically excluded, but it lacks the other necessary components to drive it fully forward into the realm of art. Even so, It’s still an excellent game well worth playing.

Post your thoughts.