When did you realise that gamers are what hold back the medium as an art form?

When did you realise that gamers are what hold back the medium as an art form?

Every single attempt to push the boundaries of the medium is met with vile derision. Take the pejorative "walking simulators". A game like 'What Remains of Edith Finch' challenges our conception of what a video game is by eschewing with traditional video game elements (combat, enemies). Instead, the developer allows the player to interact with the medium by guiding us through a series of vignettes, most notably Lewis', a mentally-troubled teenage cannery worker. The game puts us in the control and perspective of Lewis as we grab fish from a conveyor belt, hold them under an automated guillotine, and toss them away, ad nauseum. Against this mundane backdrop, a daydream begins to develop. We control Lewis' avatar in the humble beginnings of his imaginary world with one hand, while the other hand runs rote through the routine humdrum of his work. To this point, each first-person vignette has led to the disquieting death of the player-controlled character, and the harsh scythe of the guillotine rings ominously with each decapitated fish. The game has built our expectation that Lewis will die in this sequence, and we predict that Lewis, lost in his daydream, will sever his arm on the guillotine. Despite our attempts to manage this danger, and keep some level of attention on the task at hand, Lewis' daydream develops in complexity, adding bright vivid color, uplifting music, NPCs; it begins to dominate our attention, and accordingly spans more of the screen. We even make trivial decisions w/r/t the names of characters/locations in the avatar's quest. The cumulative effect of this that the player experiences how easily Lewis would get lost in a fantasy world in his position.

(1/3)

Before the imagination can reach it's climax, we're harshly wrenched out, and placed in a grey, bleak industrial workplace. The player feels denied something, it was so much more interesting, uplifting and pleasant to let that charming little world unfurl, and we want to be out of this grey atmosphere as soon as we can.

I won't spoil what happens next, but the impact of Lewis' choice is so much greater for our interaction with the medium. We have empathy that couldn't be conjured through a film, because we experienced the pull of that fantastical world, and saw how dull and banal "reality" was in contrast.

The unfortunate thing is that games like 'What Remains of Edith Finch' are viewed as pretentious, and not even games at all, because there's no 'action'.

What's more disappointing is the Gamer's fixation with a "rewarding ending", where vexing questions are answered, characters are rolled out on a conveyer belt to tell you that their problems have been solved and things end as they "should". When the Gamer is confronted by an ending that challenges them to interpret the art piece, The Gamer reacts with anger. Take 'Firewatch' for instance. A common source of discontent with the title is that you never meet Delilah, that the game just "ends". What the Gamer overlooks is that if you ever met Delilah, the game's statement on running from your problems would be lost. The Gamer has been conditioned by the Skinner Box of modern games, where an action like killing an enemy rewards with you a cutscene that advances the plot, or that completing a quest grants you a reward, or most perniciously, that completing the main narrative rewards with a denouement that neatly wraps everything up in a digestible manner for the player to passively lap up.

In the modern state of video games, the mainstream gaming community won't accept endings that challenge the Gamer to dig further into what was presented.

(2/3)

tl;dr

I'm not even going to get what a total non-starter it would be for a game to tackle contemporary political or social issues, like every other form of artwork. Instead, a developer is met with "keep politics out of muh games!". This isn't just a rejection of games making a comment on contemporary society (from which politics and social issues are very difficult to disentangle), but it reinforces that the gaming community's appetite is purely entertainment only.

tl;dr Gamers are the reason that dozens of films, books and paintings come out each year that challenge the audience, yet only 2-3 games a year even attempt to.

(3/3)

Why the fuck would I want games to be art when it leads to then being in fun garbage ?

*Unfun*

But toys for kids are not supposed to be art.

Holy fuck you fucking fecal fume huffer how far up your own ass did you shove your head to write something so pretentious and inflammatory.

No other medium allows the audience to interact with the art piece.

Video games have exciting potential, but ambitious developers are so far and between.

Many films can be considered "high art", but Marvel and Star Wars can still exist and be widely popular. The difference is that the cinephile community isn't shouting down directors with artistic intent.

The notion that something has to be deep and insightful to be art is pretentious. Creating games with fun engaging mechanics that set out goals for the player, with mechanical depth that require skill to master, that is art.

I'm not reading through all that garbage, but the problem with indie shit is that there's little to no interactivity.
People have enjoyed point & click adventure games for years. Gamers don't hate walking simulators. They hate the vapid art gallery tours indie devs try to pass off as a game.

current artsy game devs are lazy, pretentious and incompetent retards who strip away all interactivity from their software and pretend they've created the best thing since sliced bread, then act all prissy and entitled when their garbage is left alone by the masses

they are, for the most part, bad designers and bad storytellers

Spoilers faggot

your argument falls flat, it's like only watching pornography and claiming that movies are only made to fap to and will never become "fine" art like literature or music

video games are not art

you're a retard, fuck off

are you implying this isn't art and it's not challenging the audience as much as edith finch?

I think you are sorely mistaken

Video games are art but not in the traditional way. They should have good gameplay above all else.

I hope you get through your problems, friend.

What?

Art was a mistake

you cherry pick your examples and come to the conclusion you want

I'm at work and this picture is challenging me in one particular way, let me tell you

>Every single attempt to push the boundaries of the medium
Any time anyone says this, it always means that the piece is trying to ape film or literature. How about you stick to those instead faggot.

No, games hold themselves back.
There's no way a medium based on inventory management, loot boxes, fetch quests, cover based shooting, "press x so the guy on the screen does something" and "walk for 20mins to press a button", will ever be art.

how that english lit degree treating you?

All I'm looking for are 'numbers' to go up and things to shoot or slay connected to those numbers. Story and narrative detract from that experience and actually I avoid it. There are only certain aspects of the art/craft included in games that I actually pay attention to or look for (often avoid). I get what you're saying about the interconnectivity of everything. But literally, I couldn't give less of a fuck about most of it.

Shut the fuck up, Kotaku. This might surprise you, but the artistic part of video games shouldn't be the story. It's should be the gameplay and the mechanics. If I want story I can watch a movie or read a book. Video games uniqueness comes from the interaction you fucking pleb.

What's a counter-example?

this

...

Nobody can agree on what art is.
Video games are not art regardless because games are not art - they are games.

Some narratives are enriched by interactivity, and can in fact, only be told via video games.

Nier: Automata is case in point.

>watches Godard once

There are some great films out there, glad to see you're taking your first steps into the medium.

I think games are an art form but you fucking alienating faggots are ruining it for everybody. Why do you have to distance yourself from people to make points? Is that all you've learned in school, to "know better" so you can shove it in other's faces? Art is about sharing, not your secret club.
Stop posting any time.

Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.

So literally anything

I'm playing Nier A for the first time right now and I've already encountered a few points where I'm going from point A to B like the game wants me to and while doing so people are talking and all I can think to myself is "ok ok ok ok ok ok ok yes ok ok yes ok shut up shut up shut up shut up let me do something shut the fuck up". The narrative suffers from the interaction behind it.

...

>Did you hear us say that machines don't have emotions? How recently? Twenty seconds ago? We better repeat it again then.

>Gameplay is to games what melody is to music, what lyrics is to poetry and what moving pictures is to movies
>the hipster's idea of "art games" is to remove as much gameplay as possible
How little confidence do you have on the medium that you have to remove its most defining feature in order to call it art? It's like someone who's not confident on movies being art like literature and making a feature film consisting solely of text.

Games isn't art, faggot

Why do people care so much if games are art or not and what would video games gain if they were considered art

I don't know what point you are trying to make

Let me repeat it again then: The narrative suffers from the interaction behind it.

All those analogies are wrong, anyway.
Gameplay is to games what sheet music is to music, what the structure of iambic pentameter is to poetry, and what the dimensions and capabilities of a 35mm camera is to movies.
Gameplay is a set of rules. That's it. Rules aren't art.

Can someone explain to me what is art anyway?
I thought art is just an expression of a person, if so, every games can be considered as art as long as the person playing it got some impression from it.

Some things are just meant for fun and enjoyment like theme parks. Do you want a political discussion next time you get on roller coater or micky mouse talking about seizing the means of production when you go to disnyland.

tl;dr Fun things are fun

Then neither is anything else.

>b-bing bing wahoo iz urt

I agree that playthrough A can be a bit on the nose, but keep going.

I don't want to spoil the game for you, but play through ending E and agree to Pod 042's proposal. The game is a discussion on existentialism and nihilism that could only be told through a game.

>Gameplay is a set of rules. That's it. Rules aren't art
so your point is that games aren't art. Ok

could it be that the repetition of the game is there for a reason?
To perhaps serve in parallel to the story element of repeating endless cycles?

>Gameplay is a set of rules. That's it. Rules aren't art.
Video games are more than their rules.

Well looking more closely at the thread I guess you weren't arguing that video games are just rules.

why can't rules be art? what IS art?

>Not appreciating the beauty of coins collecting.

>responding to a brainlet poster at all

Things like paintings, music, architecture, graphic design, movies and literature are considered art. Then why are video games not art when they combine all of those? That's the issue.

nice english

by your own definition videogames are art

I didn't say they aren't.

>Then why are video games not art when they combine all of those? That's the issue.

And? I didn't say they aren't art.

It's rhetorical you knucklehead. He's asking why the naysayers say it isn't art when every component is.

What he meant is probably that the majority of people and "art critics" consider them to be not art.

Okay, I didn't read any of that but can we all discuss how Anna Karina was a qt in her prime?

Videogames cannot be art because the people who make them don't have the necessary means to make something compelling

videogames do not compel, they entertain

enjoy your eternal non-art, manchildren

They compel me to tell you that you're a massive dork.

>manchildren
Opinion discarded.

>fucking videogame nerd calling me a dork

sorry i triggered you poindexter

Agreed, entertainment can never be art because it lacks sophiscation

Brainlet(I guess) here

What is the point of "high art"? I seriously don't get it, what worth does it have? To me it's like the ramblings of an insane man in media form that is for some reason praised by self proclaimed "intellectuals"

It's like
>hurr durr I'm intentionally being bizarre and incoherent don't u get it???? genius

I'm on Sup Forums, I don't play video games you dweebasaurus.

>Child suffering from ADD
Why do you even bother discussing this?
It's obvious you will never have with it takes to truly enjoy a game

Don't you understand? To "push the medium" you need to make it into movies!

>what would video games gain if they were considered art
nothing, but it would make people who don't like games feel better about having a career in the same field and playing them.

I don't want games to be some college freshman's sad attempt at trying to be deep or meaningful, i want them to be fun. I don't care about whatever story they want to try telling because it'll almost always be shit

So, film can't be art too.

You're a pseudo-intellectual jerkdick.

Film can be art because it is not solely for entertainment. Inherent in the definition of a "game" is that it must entertain, above all else.

>the action of providing or being provided with amusement or enjoyment.
"everyone just sits in front of the TV for entertainment"

Not all art will bring you joy, but it will compel you and that is one of the few elements that is true in all good art - it must be compelling.

Videogames just have to make you feel good for x amount of time. Enjoy your non-art.

Everyone votes for what they like with their dollar. If people don't like or aren't interested in what you may consider is a masterpiece then perhaps it isn't. Perhaps there wasn't enough marketing but it's silly to say it's the consumer's fault for not liking X enough.

We're talking about an industry that people make a living off of. Everyone is free to make whatever game they want (and lots do), it's just don't expect a virtual rollercoaster ride through wonders of the world to put food on the table. And for the most part, everyone has to work to put food on the table and hardly have the time to develop a 'game' that nets no profit because they aren't fucking rich fucks with no cares in life possibly like yourself to have such a faggy view that we're the problem.

Your concept of rewarding ending is bullshit. No one cares how something works out in the end if 1: they didn't have fun while playing or 2: they didn't have any emotional attachment to anything to feel good for. I suppose both feed into each other.

Honestly you're just some avent-garde dipshit who thinks you know what's better for others.
5/10 bait, made me perturbed.

words words words words 8^U

Entertainment and art are not mutually exclusive things.

And I didn't say that, you illiterate troglodyte

>When did you realise that gamers are what hold back the medium as an art form?
When i first discovered Sup Forums

>When did you realise that gamers are what hold back the medium as an art form?


The play aspect of the game is the art, not the fucking presentation.

The more we focus on trying to make everything ULTRA 4K HI-DEF REALISTIC, and the more we make these games 200+ EPIC TALES OF MORALITY QUESTIONING AND PHILOSIPHYING, the more the actual PLAY aspect of it is removed/ignored/trampled on.

It should always be "play first, extras later". And those that focus on the extras, but complain that "ugh you gotta PLAY to get to the extras", are fundamentally fucking doing it ass-fucking-backwards.

Then what did you say, you illiterate troglodyte?

The free market is absolutely not at all concerned with art, and most definitely not good art - though the OP is a total dumbfuck, your post is incensing. The consumer votes with their dollar on the absolute lowest common denominator because the average consumer is not sophisticated enough to appreciate high art.

And this isn't some fucking snob comment - something as simple yet sophisticated as Mozart is appreciated by the masses as well. But that's because Mozart was a genius and he indulged in balance - but you won't know that unless you have the education necessary to do so. However his melodies were good and people can still sing them to this day, something that I cannot say for pop or #1 hits from literally any fucking time during the last century (i.e. what your so called "dollar votes" made into a supposed "genius")

However, you nailed it on the head - games are entertainment and thus they are not subject to the standards of art which is why they can never be art. Videogames, being a product of the free market, must entertain, and they can never compel because of this necessity.

You certainly seemed to be implying it when it comes to video games though.

Wrong. What I explicitly said (and which can actually be inferred, not your garbage assumption) is that due to video games having the necessity of being entertainment, they are subject to a standard that art does not posses because it would invalidate it from being art - i.e. creative necessities for entertainment make it impossible to be art because the artist cannot express themselves with merit due to their art being subordinate to the need to entertain.

What a load of horseshit. I bet you majored in women's studies or some shit.

So in other words, video games have to entertain because you say they all have to entertain first and foremost. In addition to this you say that because they have to entertain first and foremost that they are unable to have the creator's artistic expression established and compel the player.
So as inferred before, yes, you are saying that entertainement and art are mutually exclusive when it comes to video games.

Except Drakengard exists and does not entertain in the slightest.

>push the boundaries of the medium
You mean... more cucked games? Because the west industry is doing exactly that.

>cucked games

>still mad that andromeda bombed

He's not wrong though. Just look at VR. You've taken the action oriented aspect of "here's a control make your character jump across all of these platforms, shoot the bad guys, and ohshitlookoutforthatboulder", and replaced it with "strap this to your head, stand there, and, iunno, be scared or something".

While the immersion is pushed, actual play suffers greatly. How much play must be removed until we can no longer call it a game?

No, by virtue of the fact that some art can entertain - but this is not the explicit intent of the artist nor the necessity of the medium.

For fucks sake, it's not that difficult.

Good joke though.

Keep crying.

The problem with most artsy games is that they strip away as much interactivity as possible.

Good. Video games are games, dictated by their rulesets that make one another different mechanically.

>Keep crying.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha. Holy shit.

Well this was a funny thread.

Then why can architecture be considered art when its whole purpose is to provide space?