At what point to video games become "art"?

Because it certainly doesn't correspond to indie developers' hot ideas about art.

Never.

Video games aren't art, they're products.

Who the fuck ever said that game was art?

On that note, is there a link to the thicker body mod that works with the Steam version? The ass in that webm is fucking hypnotizing.

is this art?

Film and music are created to be sold
Paintings to a lesser degree are too, but still the same

it's amazing how fast you don't even notice the ass and tits in this game
you're too busy cursing the maze and how fucking shit you are at running it

Paintings are commissioned mostly. They're not created prior with the intent to sell.

Movies nowadays are just as bad as games.

Art is poor word to categorize things.

Therefor any piece of interactive fiction has to be art. It is composed of different art forms to begin with.

Now the fun part comes, what video games can be considered High art?

Stuff like Tetris is High art.

what game is this

Being art doesn't mean something is good or excuse it from valid criticism
A three-year-old's macaroni painting is technically art, but I wouldn't go hanging it beside the Mona Lisa

Probably with mass effect 3's ending. That was so awful it practically was an art, even the devs claim it was art

Haydee

All good h-games are like that
You boot up ROBF or EN and three hours later you're skipping through harpy anal to find a sword in a desert.

it has decent porn but not enough

Video games were always art. It's only """gamer""" faggots who ever had a problem with it.

It's the equivalent of that video of a guy puking shit while dressed as an ass.

Haydee have workshop

Art is a vapid term used by the pretentious to give an air of importance to their products. And ignorant people, who assume the pretentious people know something they don't.

Sound Art + Visual Art + Technical Art + Animated Art = No Final Art
This is the main argument made by many people who cannot see art as games. Art takes shape in many mediums, interpretations, and forms and as such games should be considered art. However games also have a threshold similiar to "modern art" and "tradition art" from the displayed art culture. Some games could display more technical art, some games could be a la toilet urinal modern art, and other games could display visual, emotional, and thought provoking art.

Games are art, but what you're really asking is why should some games be considered art when they are pure trash? Refer to modern/traditional art as a rebuttal.

Everything there is helmetless or a port from another game, aka rubbish.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reddit

>Paintings are commissioned mostly. They're not created prior with the intent to sell.
when you're 16 maybe or still in art school.
actual artists have to eat and know they'll be trying to sell

There are two ways it can go in my opinion. Either you think nearly everything is art. If you think movies are art then games are art.

Or you think only top tier literature, poetry, sculpture, paintings etc are art. In that case then no games aren't art.

>he doesn't paint with his shit ahead of time and then sell it at an art museum as progressive modern art for thousands of dollars
Disgusting.

Are sports an art? What about board games, like monopoly, are they art? No, they're games. You can make your game as pretty as it can be or have dialogue that really makes you think, but in the end it will never be considered art because it is, at its core, a game.

Art is dead. Whether games are or aren't art does not in any way validate or invalidate them.

Actually sports are considered art by a large collective inside the art community and culture.

They don't, it's an entertainment medium

Alright, better question. What isn't art at this point? If this is the path we're going down I could classify my toenail clipping as art and nobody could refute that.

So is literature.

Video games are art though because the person is creating something in a form of expression.

However, is the art good? that's something debatable.

Is this modded?

Genre Fiction maybe.

Art isn't a creation of expression. Expression is expression.

Nah, even great literature is intended to entertain on some level.

If that's true then why is it so boring? roflmao wrecked.

Haydee was unironically a pretty good game.

Just because something is made to entertain, it doesn't mean it'll entertain everyone.

However, you should see how literature academics wank over that shit. People who study poetry suffer the most, it's amazing how they always seem surprised when people's expression reveals they don't really give a fuck.

Because it's all old and everyone back then was stupid and boring. So it was entertaining to them.

You are creating something in a specific medium.
How is it not expression?

All games are art, regardless of quality. You could make an argument that none are, or that art itself doesn't exist, but to argue that there's a certain "point" at which things crossover into art within one medium is retarded.

The creation does express something. But the fact that the creation expresses something, doesn't make it art. As expression already has a word to describe itself: "expression". Giving expression the label of "art", is needless.

Say you make a painting. And the painting is meant to express something. Then you would call that painting expressive. Not artistic.

It's the expression of human skill. Regardless of quality.

Videogames are a medium just like movies, music, painting, etc. in which artistic values can be found. Just like not every single movie or song is a piece of art, doesn't mean every (or none) vidya can or cannot be art. Every medium has its own set of traits in which a work can be loosely argued about its artistic merit, (movies have cinematography, music has composition, literature has narrator/wordsmithing, etc.) it's just that in videogames this isn't very well-defined or universally agreed upon since a game can contain many elements that appeal to different people.

The problem with the word "art" is that it's too broad, and is an abstract concept which we attribute abstract subjective value. Everyone has their own criteria as to what they consider something to be art or not; in most cases it isn't a simple black and white thing.

Now, a much better point for discussion that is more focused would be to ask WHY is X game art? Why is it not? But of course that'd require critical thinking, and having played the game which no one does but shitpost anyway.

No it's not... well you're kind of right. But not in the way you're thinking. You're thinking that expression of human skill relates to the product, ie a painting a novel, a carving, etc. But in actuality, it relates to the human itself. The art is what the human does, not what the human produces.

For example: The act of painting is an art. The actual painting is a work *of* art. A product of art.

Also, art isn't uniquely human.

Wrong
Great literature isn't boring. Reading Shakespeare is fun. The man had a sense of humor.

Don't speak as if what you say is fact when it's only semantics to begin with.

Videogames can't be art. Art is something that isn't something else.

Art means different things to different people. Some people think art is the same across all mediums, thereby disqualifying certain mediums entirely. Some people think that art depends on the medium. Some people think that art can only be what's exclusive to that medium.

I think that the way gameplay makes you feel is art. I love the story Miyamoto told about all the incremental work that went into making Mario enjoyable to control in Super Mario 64. "Fun" is difficult to quantify, it's something that needs to be felt rather than conveyed verbally. When something feels right to not just the creator, but a wide audience, I think that's when a gameplay aspect succeeds. While Super Mario 64's narrative will never win awards, it pushed video games forward into an era of innovation where people reconsidered the conventions of video games and the medium evolved rapidly.

Everyone will feel differently about this. When they see a SM64 GIF of Mario tiptoeing, running in circles, having momentum, making use of depth, etc., many will just look at it and think nothing of it. But context is everything. This was in 1996, and it was a first for Mario games. So much work went into getting this new dimension of movement just right. It standardized so much.

To me, any game that pushes the envelope of the medium is art. Even amazing games that only improve through iteration. While I don't think stories, music, great graphics, and so on should be ignored, I do think that people should focus on making an enjoyable interactive experience before deciding anything else.

People put the word ART on a pedestal, But really if its Creative, Thought provoking, Invokes a Emotional response its basically the same thing as art.

Art doesn't even have to be good art, Take a look at a museum and half the things on the walls you don't even appreciate.

If only it were only semantics, then there wouldn't be an issue. But it stops being semantics, when someone tries to attribute a value based on a word. When you try to say that products are "art", because they're an expression of human skill, then you're trying to give the product an intangible value.

This intangible value, is what people try to use to give greater importance to their products. And that's how you get modern art bullshit.

I only read the last sentence and I started to vomit in my mouth. People like this should be round up and shot somewhere

Yeah. Her ass isn't quite that big normally.

Yes, most art is created to be sold. What are you, a fucking idiot?