/vr/ - Retro Games

>>1616607
if you read a novel or watch a film or listen to an album, you're experiencing the creator's carefully crafted output. output they've intended to be experienced in a specific way, to conjure thought and provoke emotion and to express a point. with gaming, the terminal objective is to entertain the player by getting them to try to win. that's no more art than the seahawks playing the steelers with the intent to win a game of football... and it's the concept video games are built around.

video games are designed to be played, to entertain one by attempting to win. that is not an objective of art--the concept of winning has no artistic merit.

you're right that everyone experiences everything differently, but the difference ebert is talking about here is specifically between the way we experience a novel or a movie as opposed to how we experience a game. when playing video games, everyone chooses their actions differently, and may or may not see the same elements of the story, experience the same feeling of loss, care as much about one character as another because of their individual experience.

how does that make video games any less of an artistic experience? maybe it doesn't. but it makes a case for video games as a whole to be classified solely as gaming entertainment.

much of the reason we don't experience games the same way has nothing to do with plot or story. the reason they're experienced differently is because one guy wanted to grind for three hours before this boss and the other just wanted to try his luck with an inexperienced character. these aren't artistic qualities, and they detract from any provocative value the game might have.