Video game/Computer game a definition war I was never aware of.

To define something as art I guess you first have to define what that something is, as I found on Videotopia there seems to be quite few different ideas about what defines a computer and a video game. I always thought that they were one and the same, and that the American video game was what the English referred to as a computer game and vice-versa. From what I can tell a video game is something played on an arcade game (coin-op). Whereas a computer game is played on a Home PC or console. In the case of conversions from one to the other it is the whatever platform the original was written for that gives the game its definition. Although another argues that the difference is more social,

'Bennett Campbell: I think of the main differences between video games and computer games is the level of social interaction. Video games are played in highly sociable places like arcades, bars, arenas, and the like. Computer games are played at home, often alone.'

If this is true then what is a Massively Multi-player Online Role-playing Game (MMO or MMORPG) defined as? It is played on a home computer but by it's very nature you are interacting in the same world with hundreds if not thousands of other people, yet unless you're networking the game in the same room as others then you are playing at home alone. So by the above quote is it video or computer game, or is it one of the many paradoxes that is blurring the lines between one and the other? He goes on to say;

'I'm a college student, and I've met more friends playing games in the arcade than I have in my classes. When a dozen people are clustered around a game of Tekken or Soul Edge, you can't just ignore the other people. The link that everyone shares - the game - holds that crowd together with something in common.

Computer games, on the other hand, often focus on strategy and use the computer's AI much more intensively. These games can and are played for hours on end, one lone person sitting at a computer. Lately, many of these games have gained the option of playing another human via the internet, yet the player is still isolated by themselves, with their computer. The minimal amount of chat that goes on is nothing compared to the social gathering of the arcade. Games like Command and Conquer, Civilization, and Warcraft are all solitary games, though they can be shared by multiple players far away.'

Bennett seems to think not, but being a player of an MMO I can say from experience that chat is not always minimal in fact quite the opposite at some times, also certain programs allow players to talk to each other with microphones as they interact with each others virtual characters. So if you can speak to people as you play and interact with them in a virtual environment then surely it becomes, to a certain extent at least, a social gathering. It seems to me that if there was ever a difference between a computer and a video game it has all but disappeared, with so many titles coming out at the arcades and then consoles and PC's can we really say which is which anymore?

Found on: Videotopia

' an international traveling museum exhibit chronicling the history of mankind's first interactive media'

"The games of a people reveal a great deal about them." -Marshall McLuhan

"I don't believe anyone ever expected videogames to have such a fundamental impact on our society in so many areas. [They] have become an integral part of the fabric of American life, changing the way we think, the way we learn, and the way we see the future." -Dr. Christopher Geist, Chair of the department of Popular Culture at Bowling Green University, member of the Videotopia Advisory Panel.

Unfortunately the exhibit doesn't seem to have made it as far as England yet, it's last place of exhibition was 'Singapore Science Centre - 10/21/04 - 2/14/05'. I've e-mailed them asking for more information on when and where the next exhibition will take place, so watch this space.

An exerpt from Aaron Smuts 'Video Games and the Philosophy of Art'

'Video Games and the Philosophy of Art'

'Unfortunately, there has been no sustained argument on either side of the video games as art debate. An early attempt to defend the notion of games as art can be found in Chris Crawford's book The Art of Computer Game Design. Although academics have not sustained the debate, the issue has remained active in court cases involving video games and the First Amendment. For instance, in American Amusement vs Kendrick, Richard Posner argues that video games should be given full First Amendment protection partly because they share themes with the history of literature and they often try to evoke similar emotional responses from their audiences. Although there have also been several journalistic attempts to declare video games outside the realm of art - and a comparable number of court cases in agreement - no one has carefully sorted out the issue. Making matters worse, the caliber of the debate is fairly low: most arguments against the video- games-as-art position merely repeat some form of the primitive entertainment-art distinction.'



Unfortunately I couldn't find the date for when this was written but it seems that this question has been asked before and at least up to the stage this was written no definitive answer has been reached. The 'primitive entertainment-art distinction' could mean that the artistic worth of something is reduced if it is seen to be a form of mess entertainment. If this is true then it must also hold true for a lot of music and film to. Or is it not so much the medium but the commercial success of the specific work that renders it unworthy as art? This can't be true, as most successful artists both contemporary and deceased would become non-artists purely by the fact that there work had created revenue.

Or is it the fact that Games are driven by companies who aim to make a profit? The intention not being to create something of artistic merit but to maximize revenue. Is this even the case?

Can/should computer games be seen as an art form?

Although so far my research is fairly scant on this subject I just thought I'd get the ball rolling as soon as possible. It seems to me that a better way to look at it is how can a computer game not be art? I remember doing a set essay during my BA entitled 'What Is Art?' I recall at that stage finding that it is pretty impossible to give art a concise definition. If then 'Art' comes down to personal choice/interpretation then it would follow that anything can be art, and the onus is on the person who wishes to disprove the artistic merit of the subject in question.