/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15625688]

Why are video games not considered an art form on par with music and literature

[Anonymous No.15625693]

because they are purely commodities to be consumed and profited from, not a single persons artistic endeavor.

[Anonymous No.15625710]

>>15625693
what's stopping "game designer" to be considered to be essentially the same thing as the director of a film? films are also an incredibly collaborative art form, and nobody says Andrei Rublev isn't art because Michael Bay's Transformers exists

[Anonymous No.15625811]

>>15625688
Because they are essentially incomplete and meaningless without intentional input by the audience, their willful modification of the material. In that regard, they belong among other games, such as tabletop games, sports, etc.

>>15625693
>a single persons artistic endeavor.
That's not a part of any definition of art.

[Anonymous No.15625816]

>>15625688
Because it's mindless kiddie shit that has no merit or point. Might as well be on par with pulp novels or tic tac toe.

[Anonymous No.15625825]

music and literature predate creation for the purpose of profit

video games were created to sell as childrens toys

the medium could be used to create art, some video games are definitely art, but because of its origin and how most video games are made the public will not consider them art

[Anonymous No.15625833]

Video games are the tic tac toe of the vulgar and potheaded.

[Anonymous No.15625837]

>>15625688
I don't play video games but I asked a friend of mine about this one time and his general answer was that there just isn't a culture of 'art games' yet. He showed me a handful of indie games that were considered sort of of like art games but it's clear that nobody is spending much effort on that, video games are dominated by commercial concerns.

It would also be a weird form of art, seeing as it's interactive. There are interactive art pieces of course, but they are not the norm.

[Anonymous No.15625841]

>>15625816
>>15625811
>>15625811
>>15625693
How could a videogame become art?
What would it take?
Can it be elevated through gameplay instead of storytlelling?

[Anonymous No.15625845]

>>15625688
Good art != art

[Anonymous No.15625847]

>>15625688
Well, before I answer, do you mind telling me why you want them to be considered as such?

[Anonymous No.15625849]

>>15625825
This
I consider pic related art

[Anonymous No.15625851]

>>15625688
There are videogames that are artistic in some ways, like the atmosphere in gen 2 pokemon games, but they are not art because they are more commodities than art; they were created under other teleology. Art can be, and most of it is and was, a commodity too, but it is more art than commodity; it is food for the intelect, not for the instinct; also, that is the distinction between art and design (including architecture, pop music, videogames, propaganda and publicity amongst others.)

[Anonymous No.15625862]

>>15625825
>because of its origin and how most video games are made the public will not consider them art
Films are considered art despite their young genesis and primarily commercial appeal. Shit argument.

>>15625841
>How could a videogame become art?
How could a mammal become a bird? It can't. I said that games are games, and not art, and that's not meant to be an insult to games, just a classification.

[Anonymous No.15625877]

>>15625688
>>15625811
>>15625816
>>15625837
Video games are art. You are just a bunch of pseuds who think all art should deal with complex characterization, maturity, or other nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15625886]

>>15625862
Video games are a medium of art. I don't see how they possibly could not be.

[Anonymous No.15625899]

>>15625811
film is an evolution of theatre. my argument still stands

[Anonymous No.15625900]

>>15625877
You literally did not refute my point (second post you quote) at all. The complexity of characterisation (a nonsensical metric) and such stuff is completely irrelevant here.

[Anonymous No.15625903]

>>15625877
Video games are what your son would play if your impotent scrotum could even produce a child.

[Anonymous No.15625923]

>>15625903
I don't want a child. At this point, he would just wind up being killed by a nigger, his organs harvested by Jews, and then the nigger would get a slap on the wrist while I get lectured about white privilege by the cops.
>>15625900
Not all video games are not purely driven by commercial concerns, and the atmosphere or lore, art direction, and story are more important than gameplay. Normally there is a head to these teams, and they do work for a single vision, at least in many older Western (think Black Isle) or Japanese companies. Normally games turn out good when there is a robust hierarchy.

[Anonymous No.15625925]

>>15625886
I literally explained in my post. They require active interaction and extertion of the audience's will upon the material, which is fundamentally different from how every other art form works, and exactly how board games and sports work. If this is still too complex to grasp, maybe you should get checked for being a retard.

>>15625899
>film is an evolution of theatre
Wrong. That's something somebody who knows neither film nor theater would say. Look at Melies and other early film, it was literal circus attraction and not even remotely interested in continuing what theater does.

[Anonymous No.15625929]

>>15625925
>They require active interaction and extertion of the audience's will upon the material
Same with reading. The way imagination and mind works while reading is active, not passive. I don't know what you mean here.
>If this is still too complex to grasp, maybe you should get checked for being a retard.
All grasping, even in regards to interpretation, is active.

[Anonymous No.15625939]

>>15625923
>Not all video games are not purely driven by commercial concerns
>Normally there is a head to these teams, and they do work for a single vision, at least in many older Western (think Black Isle) or Japanese companies.
I never mentioned these things as arguments, you're babbling and talking with somebody else. Again, people trying to prove that video games are art don't seem to be capable even of reading.
>and the atmosphere or lore, art direction, and story are more important than gameplay.
If they were, they wouldn't be games in the first place, they would be films or something else. Gameplay remains the essential mechanism through which you experience these "artistic" elements of the game.

[Anonymous No.15625958]

>>15625939
I assumed you were another person who argued that.
>Gameplay remains the essential mechanism through which you experience these "artistic" elements of the game.
I see this is the crux of your argument. However, my argument is that gameplay, reading, and even watching film are forms of active interaction. You argued video games are more like tabletop games, sports, etc. due to active interaction, but I'm saying this is a moot point since everything we've mention up to this point involves active engagement.
I think what sets games apart from tabletop games, sports, etc. is it can have an involving atmosphere, story, lore, etc. Video games are an art, but you can argue they are lesser to film or literature, which is more convincing.

[Anonymous No.15625973]

Why aren't backgammon, chess and soccer considered art?

[Anonymous No.15625982]

>>15625973
Because they lack evolving stories, atmosphere, symbolism, or etc. to convey an immersive narrative. They have no narrative.

[Anonymous No.15625989]

>>15625982
So by that metric all works of music and literature that lack narratives are not art? All purely instrumental music can not be considered art?

[Anonymous No.15625994]

>>15625982
Sports teams do have narratives(their history)

[Anonymous No.15626006]

>>15625688
there are no good reasons. this thread should be proof

[Anonymous No.15626008]

>>15625989
The nature of meaning and narratives are closely correlated, hence why we reach fuzzy spots when discussing the nature of what constitutes or does not constitute art.
>>15625994
You can write literature or create films about sport teams, but the actual act of playing or watching sports does not constitute art.

[Anonymous No.15626012]

The problem lies with the word art itself. Art is a useless descriptor that means fuck all in objective or even subjective terms. It's a stand in word for opinion with a coat of paint of pretentiousness. Why care about a meaningless binary categorization? Why are you categorizing human creative output at all?

[Anonymous No.15626013]

>>15626008
>discussing the nature of what constitutes or does not constitute art.
discussing what constitutes art*

[Anonymous No.15626022]

>>15625929
>Same with reading
Not once do you decide during reading "now this character will move over there", you witness that happening and analyse it, but not cause it on your own. You don't decide whether Raskolnikov will kill the old woman, but you can decide whether you'll kill somebody in a game. You have the freedom, of course, to skip a paragraph while reading or read pages randomly, of course, or decide that Dumbledore in "Harry Potter" is gay because you want so, but that breaks every natural principle of reading and communication, the fact that the order of the communicative material is fixed and its consuming is a standard linguistic process of decoding the signs of the given language system (and not modifying them as you will).

>>15625958
See above
>what sets games apart from tabletop games, sports, etc. is it can have an involving atmosphere, story, lore, etc
None of those three things are relevant aspects of art. "Horror train" rides have atmosphere, newspaper reports have stories, lore is pure unartistic data (Lord of the Rings is art, a wikia listing all the characters from the LotR cosmos is not). On the other hand, board games regularly have stories and artistic (visual) design, and some probably have lore as well (Dungeons and Dragons, I believe).
>you can argue they are lesser to film or literature, which is more convincing.
On the contrary, it isn't convincing, because I'm not interested in the category of art as a category of value with different strata within it, I'm interested in the question of essential qualities of art and whether some cultural object belongs to it or doesn't, regardless of its axiological value.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15626030]

>>15625688
>Why isn’t sudoko considered a art?
>why isn’t tic tac toe considered a art?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g4HjUpYfCI
When will novel writing become an Olympic sport?
When will songwriting become a competitive sport?

[Anonymous No.15626033]

>>15625693
>not a single persons artistic endeavor
We can dismiss Cinematography then.

[Anonymous No.15626035]

>>15626022
>you can decide whether you'll kill somebody in a game.
Depends on the nature of the game. Most games have a preset narrative or multiple paths. The narratives are pretty much preset.
>but that breaks every natural principle of reading and communication,
Same with games. I can't decide who is or isn't an antagonist depending on what path I am locked into. Most games also seem to have linear storytelling.
>and not modifying them as you will
Well, you can't modify the narrative of most games. At most you can just change the path you're on.

[Anonymous No.15626058]

>>15625688
>art is a form of creation that implies a reason, the knowledge of a technique (ars, techne)
>art is the object that results from the exercise of that technique
>the physical object can be sold, the art cannot, because art is praxis, so the object of art is technique itself
>the "beauty" of a physical object is another problem; the "beauty" of art cannot be described in logical terms, because it is pure physis; not logos as an image of physis
>videogames are not art because they are not made to learn, to excercise, the grow, to create, to be; they are commodities to be consumed
>there are artist implied in videogame making, but there is no art in videogames as a product, as objects, as food for your weak and illiterate human being
>art are not objects of contemplation; art is praxis, to make, to fight, to create; thats the reason most incels, like schopenhauer, cannot understand the world as being and have to cope through false ideas of "moderate consumption of..." like ascetism and contemplation
>art is hybris, not stasis

[Anonymous No.15626095]

>>15626035
>Depends on the nature of the game. Most games have a preset narrative or multiple paths. The narratives are pretty much preset.
No matter how strongly preset, you'll always have the possibility of losing the game and being forced to restart, or skipping some possibility, etc. (Skipping a part of a novel, on the other hand, is obviously "cheating".) Not to mention the vast freedom that strategy and open-world games such as Minecraft offer.
>I can't decide who is or isn't an antagonist depending on what path I am locked into.
As I said above, even if the more basic aspect is decided, such as who your antagonist is, you'll choose the method of defeating him, how to spend the experience points and gold you've received from the victory, etc. If you couldn't decide shit, it wouldn't be a game.

[Anonymous No.15626098]

>>15625688
Because it's a 2nd person medium.

[Anonymous No.15626103]

>>15625811

What is your definition of art? I don't see why 'willful modification of the material' has anything to do with art.

Art should be a means of emotional communication. Somehow, all great art communicates the otherwise incommunicable. If video games were less complex, i.e. didn't require a huge organization driven by profit motive to produce, a video game could easily become art. Development tools are simply not highly enough evolved to allow this to happen yet.

[Anonymous No.15626112]

>>15626095
But why does any of that stop it from being art? Let's say someone played the game and uploaded a video series with all cutscenes for it. Then it's like watching a movie.
How is adding some user-interaction stop it from being art?

[Anonymous No.15626198]

>>15626103
>What is your definition of art?
A secondary form of communication (see Lotman)
>Art should be a means of emotional communication
Communication communicates data, calling communication emotional means nothing (art communicates plenty of things beside emotions).
>If video games were less complex, i.e. didn't require a huge organization driven by profit motive to produce, a video game could easily become art. Development tools are simply not highly enough evolved to allow this to happen yet.
Again, you're talking about contextual matters and some future potential, I'm talking about the immanent mechanics of the form where essentially all potential is realised and ready for our analysis and classification. You seem to be stuck on the problem of art being some confirmation of value, hopefully achieved by some really good game in the future - it isn't, I'm talking about video games as an ideal concept, in the platonic sense if you will.

>>15626112
>How is adding some user-interaction stop it from being art?
Interaction modifies the content and meaning of the artwork. Thus it cannot be communication from the artist to the audience, because the audience has to actively change what the message is to realise it. You can't
>Let's say someone played the game and uploaded a video series with all cutscenes for it. Then it's like watching a movie.
Not entirely, since you'll be watching it as a document (a document is not art) of a playthrough and not as an artistic film (in the same way a recording of a play is only a document of the play and not an artistic film in itself). If you have no context for it, you might see it as an artistic film indeed - just a nearly worthless one.

[Anonymous No.15626206]

>>15626198
>You can't
disregard this incomplete sentence btw

[Anonymous No.15626234]

>>15625811
there is an element the player doesnt change, the game world (including the laws of interaction). could this be used as art?

[Anonymous No.15626235]

>>15625825
>some video games are definitely art

I hate this thinking. If even one videogame is art, it's all art. Same goes for movies, literature, painting, drawing, et al.

Art isn't "If I like it, it's art. If I dislike it, it's not-art." Art is art is art is art. Good art is art; bad art is art; mediocre art is art. People need to seriously do away with art needing to appease them -- aesthetically, with meaning, with emotion, etc. -- for it to fit. Bad pizza is still food; a broken car is still a vehicle.

Now, whether videogames are even art to begin with is another matter.

[Anonymous No.15626239]

>>15626198

You're probably right. Calling the data 'emotional' is not particularly helpful. But neither is calling it 'secondary'. Help me out with an online reference of Lotman's definition, if you know of one. This discussion, if you want to have it, hinges on the definition.

[Anonymous No.15626249]

>>15626198
>Interaction modifies the content and meaning of the artwork.
This is impossible because the cutscenes, progression of story events, dialogue, and so forth are all set in stone. If anything, video games give the illusion of agency because you can't truly modify the content or meaning of the artwork to the point there is no cohesive story.
>Thus it cannot be communication from the artist to the audience
Many video games have actual writers work on them such as Sheldon Pacotti and the original Deus Ex. He does have a message to communicate to the audience.
>the audience has to actively change what the message is to realise it
This large depends on the game, but on average, the message is pretty clear and not possible to undermine.
I'm not arguing for the value or lack thereof of video games. I just don't see how one cannot define it as a medium of art. You can consider it a poor medium, sure, but it's still a medium of art.

[Anonymous No.15626255]

>>15626235
>If I like it, it's art. If I dislike it, it's not-art.
I agree this is very wrong.

I think the purpose defines whether something is art or not. Making a new fifa each year to make a profit is not making art. Just as a jingle made for a commercial is not art.

[Anonymous No.15626273]

>>15626255
nah the medium defines it. jingles are shit art, but art nonetheless. even "real" artists work for money or in the past were commissioned by the wealthy/ruling class. is the sistine chapel not art? is beethoven's seventh not art?

[Anonymous No.15626285]

>>15625837
>It would also be a weird form of art, seeing as it's interactive. There are interactive art pieces of course, but they are not the norm.

All art is interactive. even simple observation and analysis is an engagement with the work.

[Anonymous No.15626287]

>>15626249
>large
largely*
>not possible to undermine
not possible to break via in-game actions*

[Anonymous No.15626316]

>>15625811
>Because they are essentially incomplete and meaningless without intentional input by the audience

As if art weren't essentially incomplete and meaningless without intentional imput from the audience...are you ....retarted?

[Anonymous No.15626318]

There isn't much to discuss here. You interact with all art, and the meaning of a work doesn't have to be determined by imminent analysis of a text. In a video game, the means of interaction is different than in other forms, fine. But video games represent the very edge of subculture and technology. Art is always generated at that edge, and it's no different in the case of video games.

[Anonymous No.15626328]

Thinking about it, i can't really find any good arguments against video games as a possible art form, except for the role of the audience, in it's relationship towards it. But can this active form of interaction between the medium and the spectator really be considered a sort of barrier for mediums of art? structurally speaking, there is no real basis on this claim, since the definition of art never had to tackle this question until recently.

[Anonymous No.15626330]

>>15626234
The laws of interaction with the game are fixed, as in board games and sports. The thing is, they themselves become a sort of language (in a player versus player game this is especially evident, because the only interaction you can have with them is thorugh the mechanics, disregarding the option of chatting). A language by itself is not something that carries some particular meaning, it is only a potential vehicle for meaning. If the game rules are language, we are "speaking" my making moves in the game, throwing the ball, etc.
I am aware of the desire to make the player conscious of the mechanics of the game and receive them not only as a mechanic but also as an aesthetic object, such as what is done in Braid, but their function nontheless remains also purely "linguistic", i.e. providing us with a framework for behaviour.

>>15626239
>But neither is calling it 'secondary'. Help me out with an online reference of Lotman's definition, if you know of one. This discussion, if you want to have it, hinges on the definition.
Lotman discusses the term most directly in the first two chapters of "Structure of the Artistic Text". Somewhere later in the book he also discusses games (not video games, since the book is from 1972 IIRC), and I'm echoing his conclusions. I don't know of a dictionary definition, where I'd find it, the term was common in the semiotic school of literary theory.

>>15626249
>This is impossible because the cutscenes, progression of story events, dialogue, and so forth are all set in stone. If anything, video games give the illusion of agency because you can't truly modify the content or meaning of the artwork to the point there is no cohesive story.
That is entirely wrong considering the examples I mentioned - strategy and open-world games. The level of the player's agency is massive in these cases. And even in a more strictly defined narrative game, you have the vast material between the cutscenes where it is the player's will that manifests as freely as possible. Some games even give you completely different endings depending on the actions you've taken over the playthrough. The meaning of an artwork is found in the relationship between the individual details and the whole, and to disregard a bunch of the details (i.e. what the player does freely) to focus just on the "actual message" (that which the designer/writer controls) shows precisely how games function significantly differently form other art forms.
>Many video games have actual writers work on them such as Sheldon Pacotti. He does have a message to communicate to the audience.
Yet, he had to adapt greatly to the freedom that the game offers to the players, and he did not write and design the game mechanics and every situation that you may come across.
>You can consider it a poor medium, sure, but it's still a medium of art
And again, the same nonsense. Do you think some species of birds are poor birds?

>>15626285
>>15626316
see >>15626022

[Anonymous No.15626336]

Because pseuds don't play video games

[Anonymous No.15626365]

>>15626330

>A language by itself is not something that carries some particular meaning, it is only a potential vehicle for meaning.

It seems like you're saying that most video games are simply languages/mechanics that a player use, but they don't communicate any artistic meaning to the audience. I think in most cases I agree with that. Your example of a player versus player game is quite good, as you point out.

But I'm really quite confused why this is necessarily the case for games. Maybe I'll look in "Structure of the Artistic Text" sometime, because I guess Lotman must give some kind of argument for this, but you seem to be saying that video games are a potential vehicle for meaning, but nonetheless can only be considered to be an empty vehicle. Somehow, the artistic meaning/content is gone. I don't see why - they are potential vehicles, and if one is creative enough, they will fulfill that potential.

One can construct a video game such that the process of interaction with the game necessarily involves a transmission of artistic content FROM the game, INTO the player.

[Anonymous No.15626405]

>>15625825
>there are still retards who think "muh profit" is a valid argument
Dostoevsky wrote "Crime and Punishment" so that he could get money to pay off his debts, you imbecile. Joseph Heller wrote a sequel to Catch-22. Does this mean literature isn't art?

[Anonymous No.15626468]

>>15626365
They're not entirely empty as they necessarily need the player's contribution, co-construction of the "text", or "speaking the language", to have completed meaning. Victory or defeat carry some meaning, but there's also the constant possibility of the alternative being done (winning instead of losing, going right instead of going left), alternative that depends entirely on the player's deeds and wishes. And a player is aware of that, that they haven't seen the totality of the experience that the game can show to you.
So, the difference is that already the most literal level of meaning is not conducted from the author to the player, but is constructed by both. And only once you have a literal meaning of a text can you try to delve into its "deeper" meanings, to find the "message" that you may apply to other areas of life. People have had surprising experiences in, say, Dwarf Fortress, whose messages might have affected them as strongly as reading a philosophical novel, but the difference is that the very material for the message of the playthroughs was created on the spot, completely outside of what the author ever thought could be possible in the game, and in that particular constellation only once and never again - I cannot replay the game of "Boatmurdered" myself, ever, to see how I'd experience it on my own skin.
>One can construct a video game such that the process of interaction with the game necessarily involves a transmission of artistic content FROM the game, INTO the player.
I do not see how that would bypass the necessary creative role of the player. Unless it wouldn't be a game altogether, but a film.

[Anonymous No.15626524]

>>15626468

>I do not see how that would bypass the necessary creative role of the player.

I can't see it clearly, either. I think you've come close to flipping my opinion on this.

I hold out some hope that it can be done, though. It will be interesting to see if anyone makes an effort to make a game along these lines, perhaps using a narrow set of creative input from the player and using that input to help construct an experience that the artist would want the player to have. Again, not sure.

[Anonymous No.15626710]

>>15625688
There are so few that have a decent story to tell. Most are just point and shoot or meaningless fetch quest simulators.

[Anonymous No.15627432]

>>15625688
Because retards on /v/ and reddit seethe at the slightest hint of real political or social commentary in a game. Art has meaning and capital "G" Gamers shit themselves if a game is anything more than just "fun."

[Anonymous No.15627609]

>>15625688
>>>/vg/

[Anonymous No.15627816]

>>15625710
Video games are not that coherent.
The only direction the game "directors" have is in terms of profit, delivering project faster.

Everyone is free for all, lots of hacks, lots of incoherent pieces.

You're better of with books, lots of people write lots of books, the production is cheap and usually they are written by one guy... the wider his knowledge base the better... you can because of this huge volume cherry pick the best.


Video games are consumerist trash overall.
Definitely not art.

[Anonymous No.15627828]

>>15625688
For the same reason choose your own adventure books aren’t

[Anonymous No.15627868]

>>15625688
They could be, I saw a work of art at the MoMA that was a open word sandbox game that played itself and evolved over time. It was actually quite an interesting piece, made me think for a long time after it. I thought about it more on the way home than some of the most famous paintings of all time. Of course it played itself so you didn’t manipulate it and the aesthetics of it were very abstract. I guess you could also look at it like chess, you could say a combination of moves is artistic but not the game board and pieces itself.

[Anonymous No.15627873]

>>15625688
Because the vast majority of the medium is shallow consumerist garbage. Whatever works do have artistic merit are largely buried by the dreadful mass of popular works.
There are some video games with artistic merit such as Ico and Yume Nikki.
There's even some anime with artistic merit, like Revolutionary Girl Utena and The Tatami Galaxy.
But for the most part, you're better off just reading literature if you want works of art that are more consistently worth experiencing.

[Anonymous No.15627912]

>>15627873
Cool

[Anonymous No.15627917]

>>15625862
Books are books, not art.

[Anonymous No.15628126]

>>15625688
The metrics typically used to measure the (artistic) worth of a video game, by its assets, are all derivative so video games are not seen to stand on their own. The solution obviously is to understand the programming of a game, i.e. its theory, which has been the value of art since the Renaissance.
>>15625693
Renaissance workshops operated in the same way and it didn't stop them from producing art.
>>15625811
Intentional input doesn't matter in video games. The programming is already there, complete, and precedes the input of the player.

[Anonymous No.15628133]

>>15625939
The experience of art doesn't have anything to do really with the status of something as art.

[Anonymous No.15628142]

>>15626058
Pretty arbitrary distinction

[Anonymous No.15628147]

>>15626198
Farts are a secondary form of communication. Useless fucking definition

[Anonymous No.15628156]

>>15626330
This talk of will, intention, and empty language smells like metaphysics to me

[Anonymous No.15628200]

>art form
>literature
Literature is a commodity to be consumed, i.e. not art. You seriously think Harry Potter is art?

[Anonymous No.15628214]

>>15625688
Video games contain music and visual art, so technically it can be art.

But video games are mediocre overall for the same reason blockbuster family movies are mediocre: they need to cater to a mediocre audience of mostly children.
They also cost a lot to produce, so a small indie dev team (with no regard for the mass market) can't make a technically engaging product.

[Anonymous No.15628238]

>>15628214
Whereas scenes of religious narratives are fantastic art because they cater to illiterate peasants.

[Anonymous No.15628245]

>>15626285
oh ffs you know what I meant

[Anonymous No.15628294]

>>15628214
Even then overwhelming majority of indie projects rank in the garbage distribution of video games overall, according to large user voting and critic voting as well.

So make what you want out of it.

Better stick with books, as you pointed, cheap production, this speak volumes.

[Anonymous No.15628317]

>>15625816
>>15625833
>>15625847
The thread should've ended here.
OP, I get that you want to be respected for pouring your heart and soul into the wasteland that is videogames, but I think you'd be better off giving up and doing something genuinely productive with your time.

[Anonymous No.15628338]

>>15625688
Besides arguing that they are toys designed by committee and so on I think it's important that video games are a very immature and new medium
Video games aren't guaranteed to work right, and when you criticize one you have to take that into account
A piece of literature always works as intended, a video game might just turn itself off by accident like a bad microwave

The only people who want to argue that video games are art either sell them or want to make something they wasted all their time with seem more profound than it is - video games suck

[Anonymous No.15628345]

>>15628317
Productive aka profitable? Aka min-maxing profit for your boss?

[Anonymous No.15628355]

>>15628294
>Even then overwhelming majority of indie projects rank in the garbage distribution of video games overall, according to large user voting and critic voting as well.
Indeed, I've yet to see a good indie game.
It seems most indie devs have self-cucked and relegated themselves to making shitty retro 2D platformers and such. Most of them are also soifags, so they don't dare doing anything edgy.

A video game that isn't audio-visually engaging is pretty much worthless. Video games can't compete with movies in terms of story, let alone with books. So they HAVE TO look good and sound good and have polished gameplay.
There are a few games that succeeded in that, for example Far Cry 3. It had polished audio and visuals, professional voice actors, solid gameplay and a coherent story. The story was only as good as a decent movie, but overall it was an immersive game.
Portal (the first one) was also a good game. But games like this are an exception.
The market for video games is pretty much the blockbuster movie market, so endless capeshit, remakes... that's the easiest way to make money so that's how these huge gaming corporations do business.

[Anonymous No.15628391]

>>15628345
Don't play games with me, young man. You know exactly what I meant.
Now turn off the telly and go your homework.

[Anonymous No.15628472]

>>15625688
They're not inherently so. Just extremely commercialized atm. I think as the production cost continues to fall, which its already done a lot, we'll see a lot more indie games, where a singular mind can tell their own story etc.

I think videogames as a medium, have a lot of promise. Interactivity draws you into the story in a way other mediums dont. There is a difference between observing a difficult choice, and making a difficult choice. If anyones played the game "what remains of edith finch", you'll maybe know what I'm talking about. I don't know if I would call it an amazing story, although I like it very much. But its only like 3-4 hours long, and it gives of a much much different impression than the game would have, had it been released as a 70page short-story in stead.

[Anonymous No.15628475]

>>15625693
every piece of art every created was "to be consumed and profited from"

[Anonymous No.15628560]

What's really holding back video games as art forms is the insistence of people to value them, and designers to conform their practices to this valuation, based on elements from other mediums rather than their own. Notice how games that overtly attempt to claim their status as "art" often emulate cinema in some ways while others are pretty much visual novels with varying levels of interactivity. This isn't to discount the tremendous effort and the great examples of art design, music, visuals... that are present in games but to argue for qualities that distinguish games from other mediums as an art form.
Here are some factors unique to the game format are often ignored when discussing their capacity to be considered art:
>Story telling:
Many role playing games' approach to story telling is done through clues left throughout the game world offering space for extensive in-game world building. World design is crucial as the game world ideally reflects the context set by the developers along with direct information given to the player disguised as audio recordings, notes, books, newspapers...
Also players' ability to make choices that impact the game world and the story outcomes are very important factors. Not just arbitrary direct story progression choices but returning to RPG example the way you scale up your character affects the decisions you can make later on as well as the approaches you can take to achieve in-game objectives.
>Player immersion and Problem Solving
The best example I can give is horror games and their ability to completely engage players and elicit fight/flight responses. Aside from straightforward puzzle games in which there's a single solution to be discovered, recently games have been able to offer open ended experiences in which players achieve objectives in any way they see fit offering for vast different possibilities. The most common example is in games that offer the ability to approach missions either stealthily or through direct assault but it's much more intricate than that.
>Conveying messages
Similar to the immersion factor, the way games require direct player input allows a wider range of opportunities to speak on issues and the beliefs of creators. For example Metal Gear Solid 2 directly addressed the player-game relation, commented on the information age and access to media and its effects and commented greatly on the game medium itself.
This is far from comprehensive and it doesn't even mention the great innovations made by some more experimental or influential entries in the format and there's much to be said about games as art but my point is that they can be art but only if valued for the right elements which distinguish them rather than those by which they emulate other art forms.

[Anonymous No.15628678]

>>15628317
Most genuinely productive things involve learning and interacting with systems

[Anonymous No.15628681]

>>15628338
>omg it might turn off!!!!

Every time I read a criticism like this it makes me think video games may just be art after all.

[Anonymous No.15628687]

>>15628355
We're talking about art not 'good games'

[Anonymous No.15628689]

>>15625710
>implying Vulgar Auterism isn’t aesthetically relevant
dont make analogies you cant defend

[Anonymous No.15628695]

>>15628472
>inherently

Found one.

[Anonymous No.15628703]

>>15628560
>Story telling
>Player immersion and Problem Solving
>Conveying messages

Everyone talks about these things when valuing video games, but oddly enough they never talk about programming which is literally what makes video games what they are. Also none of those things have anything to do with art.

[Anonymous No.15628707]

Only time I ever felt that videogames could be an artform was by playing GTA (the early ones), Final Fantasy and Half life. (And maybe Super Mario World)

[Anonymous No.15628711]

>he thinks juggling is Art
Non.

[Anonymous No.15628756]

>>15628695
Found a what?

[Anonymous No.15628763]

>>15625688
They are specifically targeted toward retards, like postmodern art

[Anonymous No.15629386]

>>15625688
Because you, the average video game fan, are posting a Wojak on the literature board.

[Anonymous No.15629397]

>>15625849
Oh shit I remember that game.

It was mediocre and I'm confident the fanbase consists entirely of hipsters.

[Anonymous No.15629455]

>>15628707
That's because you were 13 years old, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.15629469]

>>15628678
>Video Games make me productive Mom!!! I read it's good for hand-eye coordination!!!

[Anonymous No.15629533]

>>15628355
>There are a few games that succeeded in that, for example Far Cry 3.
Stopped reading there lol.

[Anonymous No.15629540]

Probably the only game I've played that I would consider to be art.

[Anonymous No.15629734]

>>15625688
Define what "art" means to you, and make your case as to why games fit that description, OP.

[Anonymous No.15629760]

>>15625688
Can't wait to hear two stupid basement dwellers argue about how they are more grown up than the other. (*-*)