Talk:Video game art

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Untitled

Added the Ludology mergeto; while I don't think either Ludology or Machinima encompasses this article's content completely, "Artistic computer game modification" seems, to me, to be crying out to be merged, or split between several articles, or . . . something. It seems a bit overbroad. Also, from what I understand, Treewave writes their music on older computers, especially C64s, but not necessarily inside game environments. Anyone have any thoughts? - Tzaquiel 09:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why merge?

I don't see anything to be merged here. This would the same mistake as merging Video art with Video, Internet art with Web design, Sound art with Music, etc.. Game-art is an artistic genre, not a design technique. One change that could be done though, could be to rename the article as "Computer game art" (as a branch of Software art) so that it includes not only modifications, but also simple "artistic" games created from scratch. --spAs 13:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement. "Computer Game Art" or "Videogame Art" sound much better defined and less all-encompassingly cumbersome. I'll rename the page in a week or two if there's no objection. - Tzaquiel 18:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose merging - this is a distinct subgenre of digital art and not the same as machinima. Strongly support renaming this article "videogame art" (prefer this to "computer game art") as it better describes the range of work in this field. When/if that article grows too big, we can split part of it off into a "Mod art" page (prefer that shorter and more commonly used title to "Artistic computer game modification"). - DryCleanOnly 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, merging is out for me, as well. I made the merge recommendation many moons ago, when there was not an awful lot of content here. The article has come into its own and has a good deal more focus than it did previously, and certainly deserves to be kept - but the name still kind of sucks, IMHO. Tzaquiel 13:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed cleanup spam tag in artists section as it seemed inappropriate given that all the links were internal Wikipedia links. Also removed timeline section as it was so incomplete (3 items) it wasn't worth having. DryCleanOnly 13:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

The so-called references are not actually cited in the article, and also need to be assessed for their worth (reliabity, relevance, etc). In addition, sections such as "Well Known Video Game Artists" are a magnet for dickheads looking to promote themselves.--Drat (Talk) 05:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive edits and consistency

I added back the links to the Clarke/Mitchell book and journal which was removed the edit "16:57, 6 December 2007 JzG rm spam masquerading as source". It is unclear why this link to a book was deleted and the other links to books were kept - it seems arbitrary and undermines the editor's claim that it was being removed as spam. There aren't many books specifically on this subject (videogame art) so to remove the link to one will restrict the helpfulness of this article substantially. It also seems arbitrary to delete the links to Mauro Ceolin's artworks (for example) and not to Julian Oliver's (this was done by someone else, not JzG).

Could people try to add more meaningful content to this page? Apart from the introduction, there is little analysis or discussion on it. The article is just being edited to death - going through the edit history, it seems to be just be various artists adding links to their work, and other people deleting the text as self-promotion and the links as spam. When there is a bit of self-promoting text, there appears to be just a knee-jerk reaction to removing it, rather than assessing the artistic value or importance of the artwork/artist mentioned and rewriting the offending text to tone down the self-promoting aspects and place the artist in context. Try to be more constructive.

--DryCleanOnly (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art games are distinct

I have arrived here at this article after trying to find an article on the concept of the "art game". I notice that "art game" has been made into a redirect and while there is overlap between the two concepts they are actually quite distinct. The way I understand it "video game art" is an artistic concept relating to the medium of its production whereas "art games" are games, first and foremost, whose expression are characterized by artistry. Thus, "art games" contain "video game art" but not vice versa. Notably, none of the references cited use the term "art game." As such I propose to undo this edit to restore it to the last version by User:Leonard G.. Is there any opposition to this?

Secondly, there are a number of additional problems with this article as it stands. Of primary concern to me is that I believe the term "videogame art" means something entirely different to the majority of gamers. A quick google-check reveals that to most people "videogame art" means something more like in-game artwork, fan art, or possibly cover art. Even though the article seems to explain itself somewhat in the lede, I believe this term is misleading and thus violative of WP:TITLE#Use the most easily recognized name. Perhaps a better title for this article would be "Art mod"?

At the very least, though, I believe it has become convention to use the term "video game" (as two words) rather than "videogame" (as one word). Minor support can be found here, and I think WP:VG has spelled this out in detail. Even if there is opposition to the above suggestion(s), I believe this move should definitely be made.

Thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you on your first point. I'm not familiar with what you refer to as "art games" but your reasoning is sound and videogame art is specifically gallery-based art that uses videogames as raw material. I'd support undoing the redirect. As for the second point, my concern is that "videogame art" is now an accepted term within art. The article right now is not in good shape and lacks sources, but there are a growing list of publications that deal with the subject and most if not all refer to art gallery-based videogame art as just that, "videogame art." I understand what you're saying about the terms being confusing, and this is always an issue (see conceptual art versus concept art). We could consider some sort of disambiguation, so that it can be used for all possible meanings, since we may be talking about coining a term by using "art mod" (unless you have some sources to support that). freshacconci talktalk 17:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am relatively unfamiliar with the topic of the article so I'll take your word for the fact that the term used is the one most commonly used in the community. I still don't think it is the most commonly understood term in the broader video gaming community, however this is a problem that should be addressed in the lede and possibly by adding a dablink to Videogame artwork (as suggested by Leonard G. below). I also maintain that "Video game" is preferred to "videogame" at wikipedia by convention, so unless it would be a source of confusion to members of the videogame art community to rename the article "video game art", I believe this move should be made here and a redirect set up for "videogame art"->"video game art". Unless there is opposition, I will give this a few more days and then undo the "art game"->"videogame art" move for lack of objection and per Leonard G.'s notice of the fact that it was improperly merged. -Thibbs (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular objection to redirecting Art game (a very minor article that I originally created) to Videogame art, although I notice that the article was not properly merged (the external reference, still valid was not included in the destination article). I do suggest that an article Videogame artwork should created and to be distinct to cover the in-game artwork, cover art, etc. that is distinct from this article. - Leonard G. (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"videogame" -> "video game"

WP:VG General Naming Convention #6 suggests that the two-word phrase "video game" should in general be used rather than the word "videogame." This is just a general rule so if there is a specific reason why this article employs the single-word variant then there may be no need to rename the article. Does anyone know of a specific reason not to rename it? -Thibbs (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any good reason not to.--Drat (Talk) 16:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Thibbs (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Machinima Category Edit

Do not see the point of putting works like "Red vs. Blue" in this category. Removed it. Although I am full support of entertaining game fanboy narrative works, "R vs. B" is more relevant for the linked comprehensive Machinima wikipedia entry that mentions it. Media/Game art academics might agree that a piece like "Shiek Attack" from 1999, the classic piece of video made with game footage initially disseminated primarily in the art/academic/film festival world, could be more appropriate. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just keep in mind it's about context. Whatever term to describe it is used, "Art Games" is specific movement that began with a handful of artists in the mid/late 90's, who created work that was disseminated in sites like museums, galleries, art event spaces as well as online. It is fairly well documented online and in print if anyone wants to take the time to look. There is so much demographic crossover in genres like this, of course gets blurry. Hopefully this is a conversation that will be continued.

Although the old "well known game artists" section was ripe for exploitation and had weak references, it was generally accurate and helpful. Bubba1000 (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree with this edit, but it seems like a number of the pieces that are described in the URLs you added are in fact artistic games (i.e. art games) more than they are art from games as in the case of machinima. I guess the difference is really the degree of interactivity the viewer has with the piece of art. In an "art game" the viewer is a player whereas in "video game art" the viewer is a viewer (if that makes sense). -Thibbs (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major Page Revision - Should It Be Done?

Though this page can be considered "Video game art", I believe that this page should deal with information concerning art in video games rather than art made from video games. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to move the present content of this article to an entirely new page. Video game art to me seems to relate to the actual artistic content of video games and not simply artwork that uses video game elements. For example, there is a form of art called found art, which relates to the use of pre-existing items to create art. I would not expect there to be a new article called "Video Game Found Art", but I do believe that the content should be placed into a separate location.

I already tried to alter this page with a few tips of information to at least get the ball rolling (this can be found in the second-to-last version of this article in the History panel). Unfortunately, I must obtain community consensus before my version of the article is to become live. Please agree with me on this subject, and thank you for reading! Zack2495 (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that this the article is in a bad shape; it is full of unverified/unsourced claims and major original research. However, the current content was slowly expanded by many different users, all of whom seem to have shared the same concept of what video game art is. Unfortunately, your personal perspective does not necessarily represent what others believe or what the term refers to. In fact, it does not matter what I, you, or others think of the subject, as Wikipedia is about neutral, sourced content. It all comes down to you being able to support your changes with reliable secondary sources. A poor, but still usable example would be this. You have burden of proof on you to show that your changes are actually valid and correct.

I actually have no prejudice against scrapping the whole article and starting anew, if the content is to be built from sources, and not personal knowledge/experience/opinions. If you want my help on making this particular topic better or incorporating other points of view (that is, yours), then be ready to provide actual sources, otherwise it will be hard time for you to convince the community that your changes are justified. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not in good shape, so a major overhaul would receive no objection from me. However, "video game art" is a legitimate art medium in visual art, so we do need an article on that separate from the topic of artwork within video games. If the same term is used in both (and in the gallery/museum world it is usually called video game art) we'd need to disambiguate it, although I have no idea how we'd identify each, i.e. video game art (something in parenthesis). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshacconci (talk • contribs) 15:08, December 17, 2010

This article currently is about artwork from video games and it will remain the primary topic for this until somebody creates another article of a topic with the same name. Again, sourcing should come before speculation. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who you are addressing here. Yes, the article is about artwork using video games as material, i.e. gallery-based art. What Zack2495 appears to want is to remove that material and focus on art within video games, i.e. graphics. I'm just saying that these are distinct topics that use the same term, so it may be necessary to create a second article and rename both. freshacconci talktalk 04:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't disagreeing. I was saying that the current topic is the primary topic, at least for now, so no broad undiscussed changes or moves should be made right off. That said, if Zack can provide good referencing for his topic, then I will not have any problems making this page a dab and having two articles with dab brackets. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

This article has been relatively lacking in citations. On the other hand, assuming that video game art is a type of art, there is the other article Video games as art. How about a merge? Shawnc (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original video games

The article seems to exclude from video game art the creation of the original video games and it seems to include only their modifications. Is it a mistake or is it on purpose? 80.98.146.68 (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just set up a disambiguation page to help solve this confusion:

Art game (disambiguation).

Hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lede rewrite

The lede is intended as a summary of the contents of the article. While I agree that topics like Cory Archangel's "Super Mario Clouds", the works of Ian Bogost, and Rhizome, etc. are important to cover here, they shouldn't be jammed into the lede. They need to be worked into the article's body where their significance in relation to the topic can be better explained. -Thibbs (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Video game art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Both of these check out. Sourcing should be improved overall, however. -Thibbs (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Video game art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]