Video Games are not Art

Was he right? Why/why not?

Video games are glorified toys.

People don't consider card games or board games art. Why is it different with video games?

Games aren't art.
So logically video games also aren't art.

we literally just had this gay thread and it was exactly the same as all 10000 other times it's happened

Neither critics
They are not even artists

He was right.

Games are not art. They aren't nearly pretentious enough to be art yet.

We're on our way there, though.

You don't need to be an artist to critique art you dumb shit.

When games become art, they are no longer games and become interactive movies.

Who said that, stupid fuck?

He was right.

Games are created by committees.

Committees cannot create art.

is chess art?
no!

That's like saying graphic design is not art.

>he
that's clearly an old woman

What aspects unique to video games allow them to be art?

(Cont)
Who is he to call art? He is not even an artist
The only true connoisseur of art is an artist
He is a movie critic, who clearly doesn't even understand the vidya medium

So Undertale is art?

>hire graphic designer for art on board game
>this makes board games art

Neither can several hundred people on a film set. Or five people in the post-room.

"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."

By this definition video games CAN be art.

I would argue that more vidya is more art than music.

It had 2 other people working on it, so no.

his opinions were so shit, his jaw fell off

He's dead.

Undertale is aut.

Everything is art
Art is the product of the work of an artist
This post is art
The art of a shitposter

From my very limited understanding of art, can't anything really be considered art? But art doesn't necessarily mean the thing is automatically good.

hence the was ya dip

Thats a bullshit liberal participation trophy tier definition of art.
By the way not every flick is art

He probably would have liked Dragon's Crown.

What defines art?

Wet assess #23 is art for the butt aficionado

If a hipster can slap paint on a canvas and call it art, then a video game can be art.

If a movie can be art, a video game can be art.

If a nigger banging sticks on rocks to make music is considered art, then a video game can be art.

Egbert thinks cinema is art simply because it is his medium

It's not art. That's what people say when they want to feel special about their game that ends up flopping.

Anyone trying to pass their game as "art", is trying to scam people for money.

Games are entertainment.

Art is in the eye of the beholder.
Or some shit.

Games aren't art, and it literally doesn't matter. It's *Actually Literally* arguing semantics. Assycreedy, COD, and any other games for that matter, aren't going to sell any more or any less if some critical mass of art critics bestow/deny the title of art on vidya. The argument is literally videogame journos that wish they were 'real art' critics trying to whine and cry videogames into art-level so they don't have to feel shitty about their jobs.

I consider anything that had time and dedication put into it, along with the creators having a striving passion to make the game the best it possibly can be, to be art. So yes, for most games, I would consider them art. Simple games like Cave Story to extremely-detailed games like Bloodborne, they all express human creative skill and imagination. Meanwhile, shitty pixelbit SJW gaymurr indie games that are made solely for making a quick buck I would not consider to be art.

t. faggot studying art history

Okay, now I see you guys are overthinking this.

I agree
People throw the art moniker to hide that something is literally shit

He loved video games especially NES games as a kid

Implying I care about Egbert expertise on mario3

He didn't believe it was art because of his lack of knowledge of the medium

and movies are glorified comic books

Depends what you define as art.

If you define art as "The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination", then all games are art by default.

BUT if you add "made to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power", then things are a little more complicated.

Under the second definition, I think some games CAN be art.

However, unlike the nu-males and legbeard landwhalesI don´t think neither devs or gamers have any obligation to turn games into art.

>Committees cannot create art.
Somebody better tell that to the Sistine Chapel.

The question he poses is if something stops being art once it becomes interactive.

Watching a play is experiencing art. But is being an actor in the play experiencing art? Or is it just being part of creating it? You and the game are equal parts of the experience that's being created.

It's kind of funny because then something like watching a Lets Player by that definition IS art. Like some kind of terrible performance art.

maybe they just wanted some money as penitence for this cancerous industry destroying their dreams?

because art is not inherent in the medium, so you can't say video games are art.
some video games can be art, but an arcade shmup, however great, isn't art, just real good entertainment.

if he could motorboat

>especially NES games as a kid
>Ebert born in '42
>NES came out '85, when he was already 43
>"as a kid"

Bullshit. Doubt he ever actually touched one in his life, and even if he DID play an NES that's one of the worst examples you could pick to form an argument about "games as art". Things have grown quite a bit since then.

How young do you think Ebert was?

ITT: subhuman fagots who never read icycalm

I don't care if he's right, but I want certain indie devs and people like David Cage to think he's right.

>Talk shit your entire life
>Die of mouth cancer

really makes you think

I don't see anybody saying that avengers is art

>be artist
>want other better artists notice
>join industry aimed at 4-20 year old males
>get upset when you realize your choice isn't art

Shit like Revolution 60 and Depression Quest are the consequence of the mindset that video games can be art.

they're pop art

he was wrong , but now he has scared off all the artistes so our industry is even more artless.
the true meaning of art; is in the eye of the beholder.
what a dildo I used to like him.

The problem is that he was using art as in high art not the generic definition of art...games aren't art because are games first, it's like saying architecture is art

Only tangentially.
Games like Rev 60 and Depression Quest are the consequence of people who fail at other forms of art making games because they think the bar on games as art is lower.

As well as Shadow of the Colossus, Silent Hill 2, Drakengard, and so on. Even mediums that are normally accepted as art such as films have shitty pretentious student films everyone hates.

Vidya is some weird fucking hybrid of art and mindless entertainment. It defies classification really.
The problem is everyone involved in vidya bar some indies are absolutely full of shit and don't even understand what makes a vidya a vidya, let alone what makes a vidya art.

2 of those are good games though

The way I've always seen it is you can appreciate art without participating.

You can go walk around a city and admire its architecture, go to an art gallery, listen to music in a variety of ways, read a novel whenever you want etc.

Vidya is different.

Vidya requires a hefty and constant financial commitment, so it's really a hobby.

Also, games are often restricted to whatever console they were released for, so you have to hunt classics down as well as the old console to just enjoy the game.

Then there's the learning curve. All of this is participation.

I can explain this better with an example:

You go for a lovely meal and have a seat booked to see the London Symphony Orchestra. The meal has left you relaxed and satisfied and now you're looking forward to a pleasant evening of music.

When you get to the concert hall you are handed a musical instrument and given a seat on stage. You are then expected to play in the orchestra. You do, and badly, and your appreciation of the music is ruined.

All art can be appreciated without actually participating. You don't participate because you are not the artist, you are admiring the work of the artist. You can't do that if you're expected to do the work.

The easy answer is games are just entertainment. It's no more art than poker or chess is.

>he doesn't think silent hill 2 is the greatest masterpiece of all
You just didn't see the deeper meaning of the coin puzzle.

He underrated many good movies like Blade Runner when they came out and overrated crap like the Zookeeper and the Star Wars prequel. He was plebbit incarnate.

>blade runner
>good

You being contrarian for the sake of it?

But in all seriousness, Drakengard is arguably the most brilliant game of all time if you take a magnifying glass to it and genuinely try to understand what the point is. It's just that enjoying it on an ordinary, emotional level requires being more in tune with the metaphysical plane like with Eraserhead or Finnegan's Wake. Or in other words, just be a masochistic fuck.

Wrong considering that he took what he said back.
Games are like architecture- you can appreciate how well constructed the good examples are. Making a rule system that's so solid it's almost impossible to break is a feat of artistry in of itself.

the insane story wasn't the part i didn't like

>Making a rule system that's so solid it's almost impossible to break is a feat of artistry in of itself.

just because it's hard doesn't make it a feat of artistry

also, there are several ways to approach architecture, not every example is regarded as art, theres cultural patterns involved too

>catch 22 sucks so bad amirite
If the tedious weapon histories, monotonous gameplay, or obnoxiously obscure and artificially difficult the weapon unlocking was, that would be understandable, but what was so bad about the story in particular?

Ah fuck, I misread that.

Like I said, it's not made to be fun. It's made to convey a particular morbid experience that could only appeal to a particular group of people. The entire experience is harmonious in its sheer dissonance, including the story (which is practically made of plot holes no matter how you look at it, by the way). Although the gameplay is painful, the way weapons slide through enemies like butter is pleasing in a way, although the very dark color of blood used is quite disgusting. The music can be incredibly grating and actually disorienting, but the player adapts. The way you can wipe out so much with the dragon is even cathartic, if bizarrely difficult to control (as the dragon is quite the misanthrope). The gameplay, music, and art all come together to both allow the player to relate to Caim and enjoy him while also being disgusted by everything happening in the story.

...

Language has all sorts of trouble when it comes to categorizing things. Is Gone Home really a game? Is Pikmin an RTS? I saw someone the other day ask if Dark Souls is really just a rhythm game. FFXV looks completely unrecognizable to FF3, is FFXV really a Final Fantasy game? And thats before you get into the nonsense about what constitutes a "gamer" or if something is "reddit".

Most of these discussions boil down to how much the participants like a certain think. "I like games so Ill argue that games are art", "I dont like gone home so Ill argue that its not a game".

>He actually quotes a dictinary definition
How retarded are you?
Dont you understand that when asking if video games are art or not we are essentially arguing over what art is? the dictionary definition is simply as generic and all inclusive as possible. That is what dictionary definitions are for.
A very general point of referance not exhaustive and refined conclusions.

I guess you only just started your studies then.
In art intention and pretention matter.
Meaning that for a game to be art the creators must set out for mthe start to make a piece of art.
This is what seperates a simple family home video from a piece of vide oart in the museum.
The declaration something is art, the intent.
In short, keep studing faggot.

With music, visuals and writing.

Than how do you have the experience, or even the right to critique?

What would make any critics opinion valuable? Because you like them?

When you ask this, you're asking "are video games high art?"
The answer is no, and that's purely because of how mainstream society views video games. Artistically, it's the most expansive medium; gameplay, game mechanics, graphics, the art of rendering games, art style, art design, music, sound design, voice acting, story, writing, incorporating story into gameplay. Lots of these elements can tie into the base gameplay of a game, in a lot of cases.
Games have immense potential when put in the right hands. If Tarantino or Kaufman directed a video game and took full advantage of the medium, with real gameplay and story and graphics and etc., not just making an interactive QTE David Cage shitfest, we could possibly have one of the greatest artistic works made in the past decade.

Some (not all) video games have an actual story. If you can't understand why Monopoly and something like Ace Attorney or Planescape: Torment are different from each other, then you're fucking retarded.

>Than how do you have the experience, or even the right to critique?
>What would make any critics opinion valuable? Because you like them?
So you never critique anything ever? After you watch a movie you think to yourself "well I'm not allowed to have feelings about this because I can't make movies"

You could call Monopoly art. It's a metaphor for capitalism explained through a game.
Hell, the fact that it's bought and sold in stores plays into the artistic aspect of it.

>Tarantino

Are you first year in film school? kek..
If you think tarantino is "high art" you are beyond redemption.

Of course he was right, art is a label elitists stick to shit no one cares about to pretend everyone should appreciate it.

Video games are unique in that they blend aspects from activities like sports and board games with art mediums like movies and books. A game may or may not be particularly artful depending on which aspects of the medium it focuses on.

I just thought of the first director to come to mind, I'm a complete movie pleb

The gaming industry is one of the most arrogant industries. Not only do they claim gaming is art but it surpasses all other mediums.

They seem to ignore that most of the best games (or at least according to them) are shameless ripoffs of much superior works.

He never took it back. He literally was still defending his opinions on the comment section of his articles days before he died.

I have a friend in the industry who is desperate for it to be recognized as art. It's hilarious because it never will be.

The gamers themselves make sure of that. With such immature and temperamental people, it will never happen.

Soon, video games will be considered art

i like this kind of threads on Sup Forums, but i think most games are services, but games like MGS2, SH2 etc those are art

Why are there handprints on his ass?

>They seem to ignore that most of the best pieces (or at least according to them) are shameless ripoffs of much superior artwork

Wow, it's like pottery

You need to look at the intentions put into the creation.

When you read interviews by Team Ico about making SotC and they talk about how the game was meant to inspire a sense of loneliness in the player by surrounding them with massive structures, using low camera angles, and having no other life in the world, those are the sort of things that make art.

When you look at the newest CoD and they talk about how they wanted to make it fast and give it a wide appeal, or Battlefield Ones justification of giving nearly every class full auto weapons because they were what people are used to, you realize that these are products made by committee to turn a profit.

Videogames have art on them, but the final product isn't art, its a game and an experience, but it isn't art, it doesn't need to be art to achieve what was created for and since it has an specific purpose, it can't be art,

That doesn't mean you can't appreciate the art on them though.

He was right that video games are not art.

Videogames, however, are the ultimate form of art.

Define art.

Exactly, people think just because it's art it should be good, that's why they freak out with minimalist or modern art and call it not art.