/vr/ - Retro Games

Because they are not

Ebert has been dead for over a decade

>>10767730
Making art and making money are mutually exclusive. Some games transcend but typically the reason you make a game is to sell it, not to be self expressive.

Video games are video games.
Also "art" is a meaningless term, the media calls people like Bad Bunny and Nicki Minaj "artists", I'd fine if modern media doesn't consider video games art tbQh

Graphics: art
Music: art
Story: art
Drama: art
Combining all of these together: not art

>dude, what if the giants, aren't le bad...
Total midwit art.

>>10768142
>Also "art" is a meaningless term
There has been an intentional corruption of the term "art". It used to mean anything made by artisans, and it slowly shifted towards something made by "artists". At first that was called "high art", but then it came to denote all art.
Video games are definitely made by artisans, and it fits the older definition of art, as in a product of high skills with a sensibility for aesthetics.
Games don't necessarily meet the definition of "high art", since they don't always express the perspectives of an "artist".
Also I don't know why anyone would want to have games be considered as modern art by so called critics, since that is such an ugly and corrupt world that the video games industry looks angelic by comparison.

>>10767730
If you can go back and change the story, there's no meaning in it.

Why do you want games to be considered art so bad rather than just being games?

Because 99%of them are the equivalent of Marvelslop.
Tell me, who are the Rembrandts, the Michaelangelos, the Godards of gaming?

>>10768489
3D modellers?

>>10767730
Who cares?

>>10768489
Uh, Cave Story and Touhou?

>>10768219
Correct.

An art gallery is itself a work of art, but it's not art because it contains paintings. The reason WHY an art gallery is a work of art is because the building itself is a piece of architecture, and architecture is art. Video games are art, but the reason WHY they are art has nothing to do with the fact they contain other mediums.

>>10768219
Ever heard about "less than the sum of its parts"?

>>10767730
Boomers are not into gaming. They set the narrative for decades regarding what "art" is. They look at movies and acting as art but not computer generated games because it was just a toy for kids in the old arcade and NES days.

>>10767730
>Why do some critics don't recognize
Because you write sentences like this.

>>10768460
Because it's an excuse to push more movieslop and say it's "art."

Because it became associated with children and intellectuals look down on anything associated with children because they’re desperate to seem like mature, sophisticated adults. This in turn stems from the deep-seated imposter syndrome which runs rampant in academia and the intelligentsia as a whole. This in turn is the result of our culture’s tendency to almost deify intellectuals which makes them out to be something they know they can never live up to. This in turn was caused by centuries of intellectuals trying to paint themselves as all-knowing sages so that the public would more readily accept their ramblings as facts.

>>10768512
Boomers think the Beetles were peak culture. They need to be quiet about everything.
A fucking boy band who discovered weed, and sang some basic bitch ditties about love...

I have a better question. Why are gamers so desperate for their medium to be considered art that they completely destroyed, undermined and changed the very thing they say they love all in a vain attempt to appeal to the people who aren't going to accept it anyways. Do you think being "ART" will some how make your hobby more valid and thus you feel less shame in enjoying it? Trying to turn video games into art has only made them turn into mediocre, at best, movies which even fail as films. Instead of asking "Can video games be art?" ask "Why do they have to be?" Because art by itself only has the value we say it does.

>>10768524
It's not about desperation. I just fundamentally believe they are art.
My frustration is that people can't use words right. Like if day after day, you had to argue with people over whether or not a dog is an animal.
YES, it's an animal. You are retarded. End of.

>>10768529
Art itself is a nebulous concept that even among its own fields is constantly and being hotly debated. You just want the endless praise with none of the debate. You don't care about art. You want a pat on the head.

>>10768529
>Like if day after day, you had to argue with people over whether or not a dog is an animal.
>YES, it's an animal. You are retarded. End of.
Humans are also animals, yet I'm sure many people (maybe including you) wouldn't agree with that statement.

>>10768545
Art is a product of human creativity that either serves to amuse or communicate an emotion or idea.
It is not say a frying, which is a tool that serves a specific utilitarian purpose.
It is say a statue of a cat, because the statue of a cat isn't for anything, other than amusing me, and pleasing me emotionally in some way.

That's the only definition of art that actually works, and isn't pointlessly vague, so that's what art is.
Do you disagree?

>>10768565
Only stupid people don't agree with that statement, because humans are animals.

You have to literally not understand language to take issue with that as a statement. You're not a plant, you're not a rock, so you're an animal. That's how that definition works.

>>10767730
Because games like this one, which are commonly touted as the highest representations of video games as art, lift heavily from other art forms. Video games as a medium widely have no artistic identity of their own. If you're out to prove the artistic value of video games, you shouldn't choose one that focuses so heavily on cutscenes and visuals and narrative. Gameplay and interactivity need to be the primary focus.

>>10768578
Well if somebody calls you an animal would you be this Neil Degrass Tyson smug like " ackshually humans are animals" or would you call him a nigger.

>>10768460
I want to feel validated.

>>10768621
Depends on attitude.

>>10768489
Final Fantasy 6

>>10768489

>>10768643
The Witness was GARBAGE

>>10768642
>asks for a name
>gives a product
And you wonder why your gay little hobby isn't seen as art.

>>10768663
Final Fantasy VI (Final Fantasy III in the states)

>>10768640
Exactly

>>10768663
Maybe artists aren't valued because the form isn't respected as an art in the first place?
Who is out there giving awards to the best 3D modeller of the year? They should be, but they aren't. You have to scour through credits to know those people's names at all.

>>10768663
Hironobu Sakaguchi
Naoki Yoshida
Tetsuya Nomura

>>10768671
It's not even respected, it's about making these people known. At most the only person who gets any credit for anything is the producer. Maybe the composer because music is a bit more obvious to notice. But if you look at all the self proclaimed gaming experts and award shows they'll almost universally praise a single person for the entire game when games are made by entire teams. It's especially bad nowadays when production teams have exploded in size. But you're right, the awards are backwards and it's never done in a way that reflects actual game programming and development.

>>10768850
It's a problem in general. Movie directors get praised, but maybe not cinematographers, maybe not composers, definitely not visual effects artists (with the exception of a few names like Stan Winston).
But it's also understandable, because it's harder to remember a shopping list of names than it is to remember one name.
Even with bands, everyone knows the lead singer. Everyone knows Bono from U2. Less people know the drummer from U2.

>>10768663
We learned that it was Kazuko Shibuya who designed character sprites in FF games. People just praised Amano for the longest time.

>>10768892
Nobody who knows who he is thought that Yoshitaka Amano sat down and drew NES sprites, dude. He's praised because he's the concept artist for the series and the sprite artists very often used his designs.

Reminder: A 4chan post lamenting the nature of art and the direction it is going sold online for nearly $100k, the barrier for art creation is so low you can accidentally stumble into making art. Authoritative institutions are merely serving their constituency anyways, you can still enjoy things as "art" without it being officially denoted as such.

>>10768873
>definitely not visual effects artists
They don't really create anything. They just follow the directions of the design lead.

>>10767730
nintendo games = toys
most others = art
that's really just how it is

>>10767730
i somehow have never played this. i owned a ps2 in college (which was about 10 years late for the system) but somehow never got to this. what's the best way to play it in the year of our lord 2024? ps2 emulation? ps3 emulation? i don't own any sony consoles

>>10768497
LMAO

>>10768937
Don't play it. It's pseudo intellectual garbage.

>>10768903
For monsters sure. Thing is she also designed character designs or some of those changes are the reason we like them. Amano's chocobo design is quite generic. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say she designed chocobos.

>>10768873
Movies will at least vary up their categories to a more even split. The oscars have quite a few categories for things like costumes, VFX even make up gets an award.

>>10768489
Sonic Adventure 2

>>10768219
>my house is the best house because it has an in-door swimming pool and go-kart track, it has everything!
>just ignore the fact that it stinks of fucking chlorine and gas
yours is the most lame-brained thoughtless take on video game as art there could ever be

>>10768127
What a stupid thing to say. Do you think Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Mozart, Beethoven etc weren't paid?

>>10768127
Many games are released for free.

>>10768228
The point is more so that they are just animals living thier lives like any animal and you're killing them for a selfish wish that will fuck you over in the end.
It's not as pretentious as you think.

>>10769373
It's also stupid. People kill animals all the time for far less noble goals.

>>10769373
That also clearly wasn't Ueda's intention. He intended for the player to actually give a shit about the pre-killed girl who is actually irrelevant and expected people not to care about the colossi, which are literally intended to be more like inanimate statues that exist as seals for Dormin.

in this thread:

>>10767730
Every games is art, pathetic morons
>ART..the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination

>>10767730
"Why do some critics *not* recognize games as an art form?"

Because it takes a team to develop them amongst other reasons. Imo.

Ask >>>/v/

>>10768954
>I don't think it's an exaggeration to say she designed chocobos.
But that's false. We know who created and designed chocobos - his name is Koichi Ishii. He worked as a creative director and artist on the early FF games.

Talking about games as art is a lot like talking about anime as a more credible art form. Everyone will make some salient points and then one retard will jump talking about how OMG AMAZING BADASS EPIC NAURTO was.

Games are definitely art, but most people who advocate this position do a really, really bad job of it. They tend to focus on every part of a game other than the thing which makes games unique as a medium: interactivity. Silent Hill 2 is a great example of this. It has great visual direction, a stellar soundtrack, and oscar-bait level storytelling. Problem is, these aspects are wrapped up in some of the most monotonous, clunky, brain dead gameplay conceivable. It is, truly, a terrible game.

Games have never, and likely will never be able to compete with the literary and cinematic greats on their terms. Titles like SH2 and MGS being our mediums "masterworks" is more than a little embarrassing when they're compared to the films of, say, Bergman or Bresson. The conversation needs to be approached from a different angle. One which simultaneously acknowledges the medium's shortcomings in areas like storytelling and art direction, while highlighting that one aspect which is very unique to games.

I think gameplay needs to take center stage in this discussion for it to even begin to make sense. We need to elevate game design over aesthetic packaging, focusing on titles in genres like shmups and AFPSs, rather than the typical JRPGs and movie games. In terms of narrative, we need to focus on emotional responses which require audience agency like regret, achievement, and guilt. We need to talk about how to better wed interactivity with narrative and aesthetics (what the coolTubers call "ludonarrative harmony"). To do this, we need to invent and legitimize a new lexicon to describe gameplay in greater detail, as the current terms used to evaluate art more broadly fail to map onto interactive mediums (ludology is doing this already, laymen are just slow to adopt).

In short: focus on Battle Garegga and CPMA in these discussions, not EarthBound and Snake Eater.

(I don't think JRPGs and movie games are bad, by the way, just the wrong approach here).

>>10769989
>I don't think JRPGs and movie games are bad, by the way, just the wrong approach here
Not necessarily. They still present an interactive game with rules and end results. Just because the gameplay involves more planning and strategy and less mechanical execution shouldn't excuse it from the conversation.
That said, it's true that these games seldom reach the depth and intricacies of even checkers, let alone chess.

>>10770027
Fair point. Maybe a better way of putting it is something like: I don't think these are the best examples to center the conversation around. Certainly not as a starting point while the discourse is still in its infancy.

>>10770027
The problem is that so many modern RPGs try to overdose on being movies or like other mediums. It almost feels like games don't want to be games in some cases.

>>10767730
because they're faggots

>>10767735
they can seethe all they want they are

>>10768142
his name is gay

>>10767736
Ebert was a moron

>>10768520
Pseudo intellectuals are the biggest faggots on the planet

>>10768621
Neil Degrass Tyson is a faggot

>>10768663
nah the only thing thats gay is sports and pretentious faggots like yourself

>>10768921
no fuck how it is im going to tear it down

>>10768943
nah your post is faggot

>>10769001
the oscars are a joke

>>10769980
its still art

>>10769989
nah its a pretty good game you're just a miserable /v/fag who will never be happy

>>10769980
what a pretentious faggot

>>10770072
Keep seething.

>>10770113
nah thats what you're doing

>>10769672
Did he said so himself?
I dunno why the game would play a sad song upon killing the colossi otherwise.

>>10769661
A lot of times those people are also seen as bad as well.

>>10770124
I'd love to hear how. You're the one still angry about what a critic of an unrelated medium said about your chosen one. You're the one who's so desperate for outsiders to see your medium as some greater. You beg and cry for approval and when you don't get it you throw a tantrum.

>>10770136
he's not qualified to make such judgement he is factually straight up wrong i know its greater he's the one throwing a tantrum because he thinks something he does not understand is not art

>>10769367
Right, and they are more likely made with small dev teams or a single vision and the game is an expression. I know you're a retarded zoomie who has an equal reading comprehension to the population of Liberia, but I didn't say games couldn't be art.

>>10769357
I think patronage and the pieces from them are typically lower forms of art as they are made to appease a third party, not express the 1st party's thoughts or feelings. I understand your a shallow binary thinker, but to have an adult conversation on artistic merit you have to understand the is a differences between saying "here is money, produce what you want" and "here is money, do what I want". There is a different between a craft and a piece of art retardanon.

Games are only art the way museum curations are art: "gameplay," like "exhibition," is a second-order, synthetic, parasitic function of the amalgamation of individual art pieces in a commodified experience.

>>10769980
I've seen the same thing happen in discussions regarding cinema as an art form with some millennial goober referencing Jurassic Park

>>10769980
That's literally not an argument. "art" is not synonymous with being boring and gay. Art can be badass and epic, just fine. What do you think opera is?

>>10770538
it is art, fag ass critic can seethe all they want but it is

Games aren't seen to be art because they are designed to be as appealing and mass marketable as possible. That's what a lot of critics of the arts have against video games. Outside of an ultra small indie space on itch.io. There's no real out there pitches over the past three decades that were purposely designed to be as evocative and emotional as possible. Even stuff like Silent Hill is relatively "Safe" because it's following the Resident Evil template (Which followed the Clock Tower template which followed the Sweet Home template).

The thing with Ebert as well was that he was speaking from not just experience as a film critic. He was given a NES as a gift before and he absolutely loved that thing and took it with him on the road. He even mentions it in his review of the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie because he loved the game. But he still didn't consider them art because they were designed to be as appealing as possible. There were no games made to be deliberately appealing to a niche audience who might get angry and emotional at what a game was doing. Ebert even felt that gaming indies were "Safe" still stuck in the gaming rut of having to appeal to everybody. It is as mentioned, the Marvel problem. Except 99% of games are like Marvel and the very few designed to put players in a state of confusion and anger on events unfolding on the screen are immediately discounted by an incredibly immature gaming media who want Marfvel style "comfort" gaming. That's why the medium can never truly be considered artistic when it's trying to appeal to everyone and there's very few games being made for the sake of art compared to Cinema which finances art projects that might only break even all the time.

>>10770465
Well that's a dumb argument to make in an era where everyone thinks movies are art, when movies as a concept have always been tied to a highly capitalistic industry.
Yes, people do make movies for the sake of expression, as opposed to profit, and people do that with games too.

>>10770583
>Well that's a dumb argument to make in an era where everyone thinks movies are art
Well I guess if an opinion is popular I should just adopt it ... is this seriously how zoomies think?

>>10770574
Death Stranding would be the obvious thing. Kojima was given money to make what he wanted to make, and intentionally made something that a lot of people were going to hate.

Suda51 often makes games that are intentionally "anti-gamer". He'll go out of his way to bore you, or have you do things in the game that aren't fun, in order to further a point.

I would say the Rougelike genre is very rooted in the idea of not wanting the player to have instant gratification. They're exercises in masochism, in a lot of ways.

There are plenty of slightly pretentious "you're the bad guy" games out there, like Spec-Ops the line. Personally I find these artistically weak. Basically, it's babbies first twist. "whu-oh! what if the hero wasn't a hero. Didn't see that coming, did you??", but they're out there if you want to play them.

The horror genre in general is obviously designed to put you through uncomfortable situations.

I don't find this to be a very good argument.
The presumption that art is supposed to be challenging, as well, I find not to be an argument, because who decided that was a thing? Not any of the great historical artists, presumably, because most of what they made was uplifting, and affirming.

>>10770612
So we're saying movies aren't art now? Is music art?

>>10770620
No zoomer you just lack reading comprehension. At no point in any of these comments did I say that movies or games are definitionally not art. I said they are typically products not self expressive art pieces. A group of 3 devs making their passion project is more likely to be art than a focused group games made by 1000 compartmentalized pajeets with no singular vision. The same can be said with an indy film written and directed by one person versus the newest capeshit. One is an artistic expression, one is a product.
>I want to make a painting of a white man being beaten by a group of thugs to express my chud vision
>But I decide to make a painting of george Floyd under knee because I know that will sell better
>so I am sacrificing my vision and integrity for money, I am not creating art, I am creating a product.
Shouldn't you be in school because you really need more school.

>>10770634
"typically" all art is made to be sold. It's not an argument.
Also, do you know how many freeware games there are? Do you know how many mods exist?

Keep slam dunking yourself into the retard bin though. See if I care.

>>10770639
>All art is made to be sold
I weep for your generation
>Do you know how many freeware games there are
Yes they exist. How does bringing up their existence have anything to do with any point I made. Stop pivoting away from any point I made just because you have no actual arguement to counter with.
How about this, tell me exactly where I said that movies or games can't be art

>>10770639
NTA but define "art".

>>10770639
>Art is things that people sell
Wow, I got some windex today to add to my arr collection

>>10770617
Death Stranding's a good one because Kojima at the very least uses the form of a video game to challenge the player while also taking inspiration from cinema, but not being beholden to it like for example, The Last Of Us (Thank god Ebert died before he got to see that. He would have flatlined over that shitshow's discourse).

I suppose on the idea that it's "Not a good argument". Ebert's point was more that inherently games are made for mass appeal above all even in the indies and the industry was uncomfortable just making a game that deliberately targets a very specific niche and were happy to stick with it and always, constantly had to go for mass appeal. There was always room for the uplifting games but there was room for challenging stories and games that were "different" but the industry didn't want to pursue that and seemed to be obsessed with the Hollywood Blockbuster model and that was the barrier between "Art" and "Just a Commodity" (Though at that time of his life, he was a little doomerpilled over Hollywood's over use of CGI VFX, so he did feel like a grouch at times over technology though I don't blame him one iota considering he was literally dying of cancer at the time).

Like I feel games to be art but I think there's absolute merit to what Ebert said that could be debated. That the insistence of mass appeal, even on titles with artistic intentions behind them like Ico, Shadow Of The Colossus or Silent Hill does change the relationship between "art" and "commodity". It's interesting to think about at least.

>>10770639
>zoomie has only see art in the context of it being sold
>Well I guess people only make art to sell it

>>10770649
I didn't say "all art is made to be sold", I said "typically all art is made to be sold", which it is, because people have to eat.
I don't know what fantasy would you're living in.
>>10770652
>>10768572

>>10770653
Not what I said, is it?
Stop samefagging, by the way.

>>10770665
Zoomie those aren't from one person. I know you're assmad because you look very stupid, and are very stupid ... you should probably lurk a couple years before you speak publicly again.

>>10770676
You're continually insisting that "art isn't made for money", which is wrong. Traditionally art is something enjoyed by the rich, specifically because the rich can pay to have it produced.

If anything, a freeware game is much more a true expression of unfettered creativity than the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, which was commissioned by the Church.

By the way, calling someone a "zoomer" is a sign that you're perturbed and on the back foot, and you're desperately trying to assert seniority in order to save face.

>>10770682
Wow zoomie, cool shallow understanding of the underpinnings of art and art history.
>Typically art was enjoyed by the rich
Yes when our cavemen ancestors spent 10 millenia drawing in caves and hitting coconuts together that was only enjoyed by the rich. Good point, you are big smart.
>some indy game I won't specifically cite is higher art than specifically the Sistene chappel
Cool comp anon, the Sistene Chappel and the unnamed game your guaranteeing is high art. Also you get this reinforces a point about self expression versus crafted products I've been making since the first reply I made. I'm glad you conceded but you really should get back to school.

>>10770690
Cave paintings wouldn't be considered "high art".

"high art" is rich people amusements.

>>10770686
Calling you a zoomer means I am trying to bulky you because you have said something retarded on the internet that could only come from the unformed mind of the young. I want you to feel bad for being so confident but also so dumb that you improve in the future. If you cant handle the bants (which is obvious) may i suggest you go back?

>>10770690
>some indy game I won't specifically cite
I mean, any of them. Cave Story, Quake Team Fortress, literally any RPG maker game...

Do you think I'm making an argument that a work of art has to be really really good, or meaningful, or to my tastes specifically? I'm not.
It's just art. It's stuff people make to amuse each other.

>>10770697
>Says something stupid about his conception of art
>People respond calling his idea of art stupid
>Moves goalposts to "high art" as a giant zoomie brainlet cope
Cool anon, you really got me there

>>10770704
>he's bringing up Reddit now

>>10770697
>High Art
Well you just cut out 99%of video games, what was your point again?

>>10770707
You said "high art" first.

And if all we're talking about is handprints on a cave wall, obviously video games have reached that level of artistic expression. Are you stupid?

>>10770705
>RPG maker is higher art than the Sistine chappel

>>10770712
It's truer art. I didn't say it was high anything.

I think you're high.

>>10770710
>all we are talking about is hand prints on a wall
Jesus wept

>>10770715
>Yes when our cavemen ancestors spent 10 millenia drawing in caves and hitting coconuts together that was only enjoyed by the rich. Good point, you are big smart.

>>10770714
Now type that without crying

I have a few questions for the "video games are art" people.
What are you trying to accomplish with this crusade?
Why is it important that video games are considered art?
Would video games get some extra legal protection from being considered art?
Is what you want validation from the high art snobbery?
Do you REALLY want that shit near video games?
Video games aren't art, and I'm fucking glad they're not.

>>10770720
Tell me why I'm wrong. An RPG maker game is made for no profit, purely out of passion and artistic vision.
Most classic paintings or sculptures exist because someone paid for them, and gave the artist some instruction as to what they wanted.

The RPG Maker game is truer art. It's coming from a purer place of creativity.

It's not "better" art. It's not made with a greater level of skill, obviously.
But if skill is what defines art, then there's a lot of art in the games industry, and most of it is made for profit, so what are we arguing here?

>>10770725
Proper definition of words. I already said that yesterday.
>>10768529

I have tenth level autism, so this stuff specifically irks me. You wouldn't get it.

>>10770725
What are you trying to accomplish? A desperate failing struggle you'll wake up one day to realize the world left you behind.

>>10770725
It's one thing if it's from a dev, but for the most part it's just a bunch of spergs trying to justify the way they spend their time.

>>10770727
>RPG maker is a tool, equivalent to a hammer in that it's utility lies in what it can build, not what it is in isolation
There you go, any more brain busters?

>>10770738
Lol, I see get your reference but now we're both outed as boomers

>>10770738
I didn't say RPG Maker was art, I said games made in RPG Maker were art. What argument is this?
>well you say movies are art, but I say a camera is only a camera!
Yeah? You make the art with the camera.

>>10770729
>10th level autism
Despite what the shirt your mom gave said, autism is actually a disability not a superpower

Although there could be an argument as to software being art. It is crafted, by a skilled craftsman with some kind of vision.

>>10770756
>"Any rpg maker game"
Anon there are like 10 editions of RPG maker dating back to the 5th gen. You didn't say "any game made from rpg maker" and you didn't make a distinction in your Dunning Kruger rant

>>10770758
I have declared eternal war on normies and their stupid word games.
"Art" has to be something. It can't just be a mark of status that you slap on things you like, and withhold from things you don't like.
All sensible definitions would say video games classify as art.
All arguments as to why video games aren't art are clearly flimsy and born of emotion.

See, this isn't really about art or video games. It's about fucking hating neurotypicals, and their stupid social games, and wanting to break all of their toys and rub their faces in the dirt.

>>10770767
>Well there are multiple kinds of paint
Yeah?

Are you a fucking chatbot? What are you even saying?

>>10770774
Learn to read zoom zoom>>10770774

the bot broke.

>>10770778

>>10768127
>Making art and making money are mutually exclusive.
Proposition with no evidence. Prove it.

>>10767736
Looking at his incredibly shallow and vapid analysis of what he considered art, as well as the actual art he contributed to, I'm not sure why anyone would care what he thought of video games.

>>10767730
"Art" is entirely subjective. Who gives a shit about what someone else thinks, what to YOU think anon. And thats not an invitation for you to tell me, keep it to your fucking self.

>>10770873
It isn't. GOOD art is subjective.

>>10770725
>What are you trying to accomplish with this crusade?
>Why is it important that video games are considered art?
Video games are sorely lacking the criticism necessary for it to advance as a medium. Most video games critics are either for-hire hacks who typically function as advertisers, or are focused on DEI rather than, y'know, game design. If video games were taken more seriously as a medium, we would likely see stronger, more focused critique. Something which, to me, seems like it could only be a good thing.
>Would video games get some extra legal protection from being considered art?
Possibly, but this likely wouldn't matter unless someone decided to make a video game adaptation of Piss Christ.
>Is what you want validation from the high art snobbery?
>Do you REALLY want that shit near video games?
I think it would be a marginal improvement over the philosophically impoverished lines of thought that lead people to say shit like "X is OBJECTIVELY better than Y" or "Z is OBJECTIVELY a bad game". Nobody has more contempt for video games than gamers. It's really quite bizarre to me, and I'd enjoy talking about the medium more if these people were thoroughly excised from the hobby they barely seem to enjoy as is.

>>10770770
Unrepentant mental illness is one of my favorite traits a person can posses, and I mean that sincerely.

>>10770878
So is "bad art" or if something is "art" entirely. The entire topic is subjective in nature, which makes the topic of caring about if someone who has ZERO relation to yourself and their opinion so fucking stupid it's unreal.

>>10770885
Yes, "bad" art is highly subjective. Whether or not something is art isn't really subjective though. Art is anything that humans create to express themselves.
Now, whether something is fart huffing, fancy display of a toilet, "art" is a different story. And thankfully, video games usually aren't that. Though I'm sure you could find the equivalent on Steam if you looked.

>>10770914
>Art is anything that humans create to express themselves.
Don't be so ridiculous.
Some people would consider a PCB, a car, or a hammer as "art" anon. Others would not. Those who don't consider it art... its not in their reality. You're not the center of things anon, you're not the decider for others. Each person self determines on the subject. It is this way due to art not being a tangible thing but merely an adjective to describe one's relationship with said thing.

>>10770883
Video games are products. The only critic that matters are sales numbers. If you think “micro”transactions, gatcha, mobile, pay to win, etc. are bad, well you’re wrong. Video games are almost entirely produced with the main goal of turning a profit. That is the metric by which things succeed and fail. Your critiques don’t matter, and neither does anyone else’s, because you are criticizing things that are completely irrelevant to the main goal.
>but movies are the same way
Yes, and that’s why the vast majority of them aren’t considered fine art. A lot of the best films come from small studios, or from a time when the industry was smaller, or are those rare passion projects where money isn’t put above all else.

Video games are the same way, but in many ways much worse. It’s far easier to milk gamers than moviegoers and far more difficult for an indie dev to produce something half decent.

>people to say shit like "X is OBJECTIVELY better than Y"
There are things that are objectively better in some games, as with everything. My doodle is objectively worse than the doodle of a professional artist. It is not as technically well executed, it does not convey what I am trying to convey. It is objectively worse. If you enjoy my shitty doodle more, that’s subjective. But the execution is objective.

If you want to pretend that there’s no objectivity in anything, go ahead. But then there’s no reason to have critics, as all claims are just as unfounded as any other.

>>10770873
>>10770885
>STOP SHARING YOUR OPINIONS!!!!
This is a discussion board.

>>10770939
Anon you're summoning the failed art students and low IQ zoomies with your effort posting. Get ready for the retard who thinks RPGmaker is art but the Sistine chappel is not.

>>10770939
>The only critic that matters are sales numbers.
Even if this were true (it's not, and we both know it), better analysis would produce better products.

>Yes, and that’s why the vast majority of them aren’t considered fine art.
Very sneaky of you, sliding the word "fine" in there. Nobody is taking about putting Grand Theft Auto V or Infinity War next to a Lionel Maunz sculpture, you fucking clown.

>If you want to pretend that there’s no objectivity in anything, go ahead. But then there’s no reason to have critics, as all claims are just as unfounded as any other.
Critics appeal to a set of culturally contingent standards. Roger Ebert may have been valuable to contemporary American society, but his insight would fall on deaf ears in an Amish or fundamentalist Muslim community. That doesn't make what Ebert says "correct" in a Western context, just that it is congruent with, and likely influential on it's standards. The key word there being "influential": what's considered good and bad is subject to change with time and culture. It's not fixed. There is no "objective" beauty. It's all a product of a time and a place. Criticism done within the same temporal/social spheres I inhabit is likely relevant to me. Criticism from a Wahhabi, maybe not. Neither is more "objective" than the other, though.

>>10770878
/Thread
... but to add to this point, all definitions blur at the edges.

>>10770128
>I dunno why the game would play a sad song upon killing the colossi otherwise.
have you seen wanderer when he finished?

>>10768578
Fedora tipping midwit. Most people in the world don't consider people to be animals. Only atheists.

>>10770978
I wonder if you're the type if faggot who only plays highly rated games pre approved by critics, because you seem pretentious and whole unoriginal. That's a subjective opinion that could be objective reality

>>10770989
This is my post: >>10770989

Make of it what you will, but I think you're wrong. Also, not an argument :^)

>>10770725
> Video games aren't art, and I'm fucking glad they're not.
Says who?

>>10770991
Sorry, phoneposting. THIS is my post:
>>10769989

>>10770991
You're wondering if you're a faggot? I'm pretty sure you are.

>>10770989
>>10770995
Also, I called most critics for-hire hacks, or DEI enthusiasts in the post you responded to. You're floundering, buddy.

>>10771006
So I remember around a decade ago when I was talking similar shit with the gamergate shit breaking, and I was trying to explain to a buddy the split between "Gamergate is about sexism" and the "Gamergate is about ethics in journalism" and my buddy said "who the fuck cares about the integrity of video games journalism". That always stuck with me because though I like games, I do not think generally they are worth much deep thought or criticism beyond "this has good mechanics and is polished" versus "shovelware garbage". At the point you're debating the efficacy of children's toys I feel you've invested way too much of your identity in trash. I blame youtube essayists for giving a generation of zoomies the false hope that video games are respectable works of art versus participatory entertainment. It's even less respectable than a group of pseud shills debating the artistic merits of an Avengers movie or the technical beauty of the opening of revenge of the sith. That's fine if that's you, but most adults will look down on that behavior and I doubt they are wrong.

>>10771028
>It's even less respectable than a group of pseud shills debating the artistic merits of an Avengers movie or the technical beauty of the opening of revenge of the sith
Lol, picrel is all I could think of when reading that

>>10770991
Why are you replying to yourself. Just because the mootmeter is gone doesn't mean same fags aren't obvious same fags

>>10771028
>I do not think generally they are worth much deep thought or criticism beyond "this has good mechanics and is polished" versus "shovelware garbage".
You're right, they don't. Currently. I'm arguing that they should do a better job.

>I blame youtube essayists for giving a generation of zoomies the false hope that video games are respectable works of art versus participatory entertainment.
Where are you getting the idea that I'm arguing video games should be "respectable works of art"? I have stated, clearly, that they can't compete with with the literary and cinematic greats on their terms. Games are art, definitionally, but they'll probably always be relegated to the domain of something like television rather than film. All I'm asking for is that critics - both casual and professional - approach the medium a little more thoughtfully so that we can work out, precisely, what makes an appealing game appealing, and vice versa. What makes DDPDFK more appealing to the average player than DOJ or SDOJ, and how can we apply that knowledge when making and discussing games? That's the kind of question I'm interested in. I just want better, more thoughtfully designed games and better, more thoughtful discussion around games. I'm not looking for anyone's approval, or for the medium to be elevated to gallery art status. I don't know how much more clear about this I can be.

>>10771085
>Games are art, definitionally
Nope. They can be, but WWE champions is not a work of art phil

>>10770978
>Even if this were true (it's not, and we both know it), better analysis would produce better products.
>Very sneaky of you, sliding the word "fine" in there. Nobody is taking about putting Grand Theft Auto V or Infinity War next to a Lionel Maunz sculpture, you fucking clown.
I reply to you in good faith and you get assmad and instantly start throwing around insults. Typical.

>>10771085
>What makes DDPDFK more appealing to the average player than DOJ or SDOJ
They're all equally unappealing to the average player next to Call Of Duty because they're autistic games. They demands credit feed or autisticly memorizing every detail of every level, and the "reward" is frankly dull. We good?

>>10771114
It is, it's just bad art by most people's standards. Words have meaning, and "fat retard driving himself to financial ruin" doesn't disqualify something from being art.

>>10771120
Saying you're acting in good faith is, in of itself, acting in bad faith, you little fucking victim. Also, not an argument.

>>10771121
Are you actually incapable of generalizing a specific case? Here, I'll do it for you: "What makes (similar game X) more appealing to the average player than (similar game Y) and (similar game Z), and what lessons can we learn from that going forward?"

>>10771141
Phil I'm not your fat wife. Telling me champions is art doesn't work because I won't be homeless if I disagree.

>>10771141
Saying someone is acting in bad faith when they state they were acting in good faith is a bad faith action, definitionally

>>10771141
>Saying you're acting in good faith is, in of itself, acting in bad faith, you little fucking victim. Also, not an argument.
I'm sure more babyrage will get people to see your side of things. I type out a post in earnest and your immediate reaction is to get angry and hurl insults. That's not the kind of person that most people enjoy interacting with. Have fun bud.

>>10771189
Did she get fat and dye her hair, or did he get remarried, or am I just completely misremembering? I remember him getting with a vaguely attractive blonde woman after Panda.

Also, in case you're serious: you concede that some games are art, which is kind of a weird position to me. Do you think that spaghetti stops being food if you add peanut butter and kool-aid powder to it, or is it just really, really bad food? Because, imo, it's clearly the latter.

>>10771196
If you're resorting to faggy little optics games where you try to make yourself seem "good faith" and "charitable" and "just trying to have a discussion", you're acting in bad faith. Continue engaging or disengage, but don't try to start a meta-discussion about how much of a good boy you are and how mean I am.

>>10771205
I wasn't interested in hearing anything you had to say, anyways.

Videogames, when done right, are among the highest form of art. The ability to take the player into a world that they explore on their own has the ability to be extremely profound. The problem is videogames also have a bad wrap as being just fun time wasters, and that’s fair but we have to accept that’s the case with every medium of art. Most games are not art but some of them are. Boomers who say it can’t be art just haven’t interacted with the medium extensively enough to understand, they think gaming is just Mario collection coins.

>>10771228
>I wasn't interested in hearing anything you had to say, anyways.
No, obviously you aren't. If you were interested in having a discussion, you wouldn't get assblasted the second anyone replied to you for any reason.

>>10770732
>it's just a bunch of spergs trying to justify the way they spend their time.
Pretty much.
>you don't understand, my jrpg slop harem waifu simulator is ART

>>10771240
I've replied to a number of people pretty kindly. I'm just not interested in "sophomoric attempt at asserting objectivity in art #2483". Especially when you're doing blatant goal post shifting like saying "fine art" instead of "art". You knew exactly what kind of implication you were trying to draw with that, and it certainly wasn't a good faith one.

>>10771265
I spend time and effort making an arguement, you get butthurt and decide to insult me instead of replying to my post, then accuse me of acting in bad faith and not engaging when I point this out.

Do you act like this in real life? I mean seriously. What the hell kind of response is this? Why would anyone talk with you? Might as well skip the pleasantries and get straight to jakdueling.
Enjoy jerking yourself off.

>>10771228
>On DSP
So he got married, paraded her on stream, she got freaked out by the comments and disappeared for 3 years. Then DSP has several public meltdowns, a terrible interview and decides to consent to a documentary, thinking that even though his interview with Craig from leftovers went terribly surely a full length documentary would show him in a good light. So the guy making it comes to the house, interviews them and then suddenly the next day Khet appears on stream again. This was him getting ahead of the story because the various Sons of Kojima had been speculating that she got super fat, so he wanted to present fat khet under the auspices of "I'm not ashamed dood"

>>10771298
>you get butthurt and decide to insult me instead of replying to my post
Historical revisionism. I got butthurt AND provided a substantive response to your post at the same time. You just refused to engage with the arguments, presumably because you can't, and instead fixated on me calling you a "clown" lol.

>Do you act like this in real life?
Of course not.

>>10771301
That's really, really funny.

>>10771228
>On art
Sorry anon I had a good effort post to go along with the DSP explanation but autist typed over the limit and then the bant fight slid to some other anon. I'll try to effort post later aftet the kids are in bed if the thread survives but I think that if you have to compromise your expression to make something easier to sell its no longer art and now a product. Edge cases exist because definitions blur at the edges, but Earthbound feels like a singular vision pulled from someone's psyche and WWE champions feels like a focused group product that only exists to sell. I don't know if you're the anon going on about critique in games, but in art there is something called "Provenance" why you determine the story of the art piece. If you want to get an idea of if something is art or a product
>Play the game
>look at the development process
>Interview the devs
>research the director
I'll try to write a better explanation later, either way Picrel

>>10771325
https://www.youtube.com/live/yQw-IxvvE6c?si=vI-vLtXQ_T8xs9Kj
Sorry I said "left overs" not "side scrollers" because lolcow ecelebs have broken my brain. If you know any dsp lore thus is the funniest public destruction since he talked about panda Lee in the hospital and set a series of events in motion that led to khets re-reveal.

>>10770983
As, that's part of my argument in the previous post.

>>>10771298 #
>>you get butthurt and decide to insult me instead of replying to my post
>Historical revisionism. I got butthurt AND provided a substantive response to your post at the same time. You just refused to engage with the arguments, presumably because you can't, and instead fixated on me calling you a "clown" lol.

>>Do you act like this in real life?
>Of course not.

>>>10771301 #
>That's really, really funny.

>>10771371
*Yes

Hey retards, art can be technically lacking and conceptually skilled, that's why bad art is still art.

>>10770987
Those people have read an emotional message into the idea of humans being "just animals".
It's a categorical definition. No one is saying it's bad or lowly to be an animal. We aren't even necessarily saying there isn't a God, and he didn't make humans higher in some regard than other creations.
If you're getting upset, you're too dumb to be having this conversation.

>>10770975
I didn't say that. I said the RPG Maker game is a purer form of artistic expression, which it is.

If the fucking Vatican comes to you, and says "paint us some pictures of God". How in your mind, is that art unfettered from capitalism?

If these statements make you upset, and you can't articulate why, you're too unintelligent to be having this conversation.

>>10767730
Because they're not, even people here agree they're not by having specific requirements for what makes something a game. Art doesn't require a fail state, making the viewer/player happy, or a certain level of skill or intelligence to be appreciated
>>10770863
The same people who weren't smart enough to figure out television is a brain rotting propaganda device

>>10771491
Well that's a stupid argument. All video games are art. Not all art is video games, obviously. Not all art is music either.

>>10771326
>I don't know if you're the anon going on about critique in games
That's me.

>I'll try to effort post later aftet the kids are in bed
I'll give you a preemptive (You) based on what you've already shared.

>I think that if you have to compromise your expression to make something easier to sell its no longer art and now a product.
I pretty strongly disagree that the two are mutually exclusive. Artists who aren't fully independent are pretty much universally, as far as I'm aware, forced to alter their works by the companies who fund their projects. I don't think it's accurate or fair to suggest that corporate meddling disqualifies a work from being considered art. It's just a limitation that the artist has to work within, like any other. Also, I think that the influence of capital is inescapable, even in not-for-profit projects. Capital exerts far too much structuring power over far too many crucial aspects of our lives for it to ever truly be absent. This in turn influences what we choose to express, and how we express it. I see little difference between consciously tailoring one's work to the whims of capital, and the influence which it passively exerts. If you view capital's influence as being much more discrete - fair enough, this probably isn't the venue to argue that point.

>Earthbound feels like a singular vision pulled from someone's psyche and WWE champions feels like a focused group product that only exists to sell.
Auteurship certainly has value. But so does collaboration. That, combined with my conviction that no art escapes the influence of capital, leads me to the conclusion that it's more accurate to frame this as "good art vs. bad art" (subjective, of course), rather than "art vs. product".

I hope I didn't come off too mean this time :^)

>>10771491
>Films can't be art, because there are certain requirements for something to be considered a film.
The absolute state of this board.

>you accept a shitload of money to paint Napoleon's portrait
Not art, clearly.

>>10771424
You're a midwit who has never seriously studied philosophy or history. The idea that humans are animals is a modern invention of atheism.

>>10771523
>Animal, mineral, or vegetable (or human)

>>10771529
The classification systems you believe in were created as part of the modern atheist religion and don't have any basis in reality. Humans are not anything like animals and have a level of sentience far above them.

>>10771529
your religions views are based on some stupid shit they invented less than 300 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy

>>10771576
You have an axe to grind against Atheism, and I don't give a shit either way.
>and have a level of sentience far above them.
Yeah, we're the best animal...

>>10771518
Less art

>>10771591
Than RPG Maker games, definitely.

>>10771494
> All video games are art
They're clearly not, though, some video games can make you feel something, change your perception of something, and so on, but people here are the first to dismiss them. They're "not real video games" or some variation of that
>>10771510
>Films can't be art, because there are certain requirements for something to be considered a film
The mediums are so wildly different to one another to even make that comparison is idiotic. There's no barrier to entry for a film, you plop your ass down on a seat and watch

>>10771608
>There's no barrier to entry for a film
Have you ever heard of a condition called 'blindness'? All art has a barrier to entry, and all art excludes somebody. Just because some barriers are lower than others doesn't mean they're not there.

>>10771608
They're all art. I don't have some highfalutin notion of what art has to achieve to be art. It just has to exist.
No one is ever like "no, that statue isn't art enough". Only games get treated this way, and it's because games are still seen as a medium that have to prove they can be art at all.
Well, they always were. It's that simple.

Everything is art, which means nothing is.

>>10771518
The artist was hired to paint their interpretation of Napoleon using their own artistic style and skill. That's different than a 3d modeler following design sketches that they're paid to recreate in blender.

>>10771909
The only difference between one and the other is your flippant attitude towards modeling and your faux reverence for classical art. They're both just bland representations of something which already existed.

>>10769989
You can't have an emotional connection from gameplay, only a good story and characters can do that.

>>10771934
The difference isn't between 3d modelling and classical painting. The difference is between creating something and being paid to recreate something 1:1. If you'd posted a life-like portrait of Napoleon that has no stylistic influence I don't think I'd consider that art either.

>>10770514
>gameplay," like "exhibition," is a second-order, synthetic, parasitic function of the amalgamation of individual art pieces in a commodified experience.

What the fuck are you even talking about dude?! Just enjoy the damn games!

>>10771951
I don't care how little an artist was paid, or how stylized their representational work is. If it's not playing with concepts, it's just aesthetics. All style, no substance. Bland.

>>10771953
He's a cunt, but if you genuinely don't understand what he's saying, try reading a book sometime.

>>10771909
Design sketches made by artists.

>>10771953
I do like games, just as much as I like going to the museum. But outside of art circles nobody really fights for museum curation as an art form because when it's well done you just manifestly enjoy it, unlike art as such which sometimes hurts, confuses, bothers, or depresses you. If you're in a museum and see a depressing piece of art you can enjoy that phenomenon and maybe feel some of that emotion yourself; if you already are depressed you can enjoy feeling less alone; but if the curation as such depresses you someone hasn't done their job well.

I guess it's the difference between a technical and artistic field?

>>10770725
>Video games aren't art

Video games are the cultural expression of a nation, you pretentious faggot.

>>10771998
I'm going to assume you're the guy I called a cunt, and not someone riffing off his ideas.

I think in order to understand the role of gameplay in video games, you need to invert the model you laid out for the gallery. Gameplay should (and I want to acknowledge my own idealism here) be the primary function of a video game, which is accented by narrative, concepts, and aesthetics. Subordinating gameplay to it's window dressing is as misguided as elevating the gallery above, or to the status of the art which it's meant to display. A game is an amalgamation of individual art pieces no more than a film is a vehicle for you to enjoy a story and a score. Mediums need to be understood in terms of their primary function - a film's cinematography, a songs composition, a game's gameplay - otherwise, everything really is just a text. While there is certainly an aesthetic sensibility to curation which constitutes some form of art (something akin to collage - playing with contexts and breaking points to create something tangibly new), it's a far cry from the generative works of other mediums, including video games.

>but if the curation as such depresses you someone hasn't done their job well.
Good game design is often not enjoyable. There has to be tension. Character action, STG, AFPS, Run & Guns - these are some of the few genres which routinely privilege game design over it's packaging. They can make you feel a whole host of emotions, and not just positive ones. That's a sign of good game design. A constant, numbing pleasure is the last thing I would want art to be.

Sorry for calling you a cunt. Even though I disagree with you, you did make me think.

>>10771981
Sketches aren't video games
>>10771970
Are photographs art?

>>10771909
>Get hired to paint conqueror and warlord
>Thinks he's allowed any freedom of individual expression

>>10772074
>Are photographs art?
Yes. Photography is, typically, a form of representational art, although there are some photographers who deal in concepts. No different than a painting of Napoleon on a horse. It's still art, it's just meaningless beyond it's aesthetic value - something which gets quite old quite quick. Like a ceramic turtle which sits on your windowsill. It doesn't mean anything, it's just kind of pretty.

>>10767730
I don't think they're a form of art. I think some can be considered art but it's just a medium. In my eyes they're a sketch pad, you can create art on a sketch pad, you can also write your grocery list on it, or use it as a coaster.

>>10772000
Genuinely curious what you mean by this.

>>10772096
I guess that's just where we disagree then. Out of curiosity, you think AI can create art?

>>10772441
>you think AI can create art?
I think that's a disingenuous extreme to leap to.

>>10772441
I don't think AI itself can create art, but I think that AI can be seen as a potential artistic medium for humans to express themselves with. I'm not wedded to this position, since it's emerging technology which I'm still learning about. I've only dabbled with AUTOMATIC1111 and whatever it's text generation equivalent is called (I forget the name, it's something extremely generic).

>>10771491
>Art doesn't require a certain level of skill or intelligence to be appreciated

You are wrong, the more you know the context of its creation the more you appreciate the art itself.

>>10772631
Ah, but you said it just yourself. You can still look at the statue and admire it as a statue. Context only adds and additional layer. If you didn't know the story behind it you could still look at that and think, "nice wang"

>>10767730

Let's ignore for a second that it's not worth considering the opinions of video game critics, let alone the opinions of critics of other media
It's a moot point, the fact that this is even a regular discussion proves that games are art.
No one sane argues that wiping your arse is art, or even that something as important as raising a child is art. That's challenging and worth doing well, but it's not art.
Ultimately art is about expression.
Does it matter if games are considered art? Only if you want to secure some government funding or maybe if you want to attend an award show with a room full of cunts.

>>10772767
Video games are seldom a product of creative expression

>>10772070
>Subordinating gameplay to it's window dressing is as misguided as elevating the gallery above, or to the status of the art which it's meant to display.
I think you're spot on here, I grasped an analogy between the fields but had the polarity wrong. I think you're right that the gameplay subordinates the other elements to the point of reducing their artistic value to technical accomplishment: this level is a haunted mansion, did the music feel haunting enough to convey that? But I think gameplay reduces itself the same way. At the end of the day even the most punishing game has to be net-postive for the technically defined value of play-ability. Good artworks challenge the sovereignty of the subject consuming them; the requirement to provide gameplay means a game can never do anything like that. You wield the controller, no matter what.

>>10772767
It matters to me that words are used correctly, because I'm a precise man who doesn't like sloppiness.
It's logical that games should be considered an art form, so they're an art form. That's all.

>uhhhh, but what if I don't feel that motorbikes should be considered vehicles?
Then you're wrong.
>uuuhhhhh, but why do you care anyway?
Because you're wrong.

The way your brain works at all is strange and alien to me. Why do I need to be trying to get something? It's about correctness.

>>10773037
Gay used to mean happy. Queer used to mean strange. But if you go into a room and scream I'M A GAY QUEER MAN people aren't going to think strange happy man. Languages are social constructs.

>>10773063
Those are colloquialisms. Homosexual still means homosexual.

>>10773068
No, they're words. Tomorrow aliens could be landing on Earth and homosexual now means attracted to fellow humans, with homo being same species.

>>10773119
Fine, then an egg is a table, and nothing I'm saying actually means what you think it means. This is a recipe for soup in a branch of the English language that hasn't been invented yet, it just looks like I'm talking about. I'm not. That's a mistake of your perception.

And all this just to say video games aren't art, when they actually are.

>>10773156
Your problem is that you're the only one calling a table an egg, and a lot more people exclude video games from the word art. That's what social construct means: you're only speaking to yourself with that definition.

>>10773193
If art doesn't mean anything, then I don't see why they would fight so hard to deny video games being art.

>>10773119
No they're colloquialisms because they still retain their former meaning and have additional alternate meanings aka "slang".

Who fucking cares

>>10773487
I do, video games need to be taken more seriously by people.

>>10767736
It's annoying that anyone ever gave his opinions any consideration. Even more annoying that people still remember him. Ironic that such a famous critic was such a stereotypical philistine.

>>10767730
Because that's what critics do

>>10774243
It's annoying we still have to listen to you whine about it.

>>10771938
There's something wrong with your brain