The Great Debate

video games are definitely a collection of separate art assets like music, visuals, narrative etc. the only way for video game to be art is to turn its interactive part into art. ie game's like mgs2.

if film or books are art, then yes,

>jrpg
>compile heart reused assets and uninspired 'dungeons'
>art

When talking about books, do you only think of them in terms of paper with ink written on top? No you don't. So fuck off with this shit.

>the only way for video game to be art is to turn its interactive part into art. ie game's like mgs2.
I guess the only games I can think of that fit that description are Pathologic and Flower Sun and Rain. Any other examples?

>When talking about books
we aren't talking about books, funny you bring them up since you don't know how to fucking read

Games are better than art

the Void also fits the bill

Interactive art.

video games aren't art. stories in video games are.

I think video games shouldn't be considered Art until the gaming community has managed to let go of its insecurities and let go of games who's best fit are such things as aesthetics rather than game design. However, akin to what said, I am of the opinion that what makes video games unique, that game design, is more of a craft then an Art. It relies on more tangible & known sources in order to engineer something that can make the player feel a certain way.

They are not art.
They are toys for children.
How else can we justify the near constant censorship?

Attached: 1551915046662.jpg (1600x900, 324K)

The modern art clique is a scheme to lure rich businessmen wracked by insecurities into paying outrageously inflated prices for whatever junk is on offer so the rich cunt can boast about it to his work "friends" and show off to anyone who grace their home.

Videogames being an accessible medium easily marketable and available to everyone and outside the clique's influence is anathema to their operation, so they'll bitch and moan and badmouth vidya every chance they'll get. They have to put food on the table after all.

children play with sticks as makeshift toys.

Sticks have been exhibited as art.

Ergo: toys are art.

All video games, even Mario and Call of Duty, are art.

there are only a few games worthy of being called art.

Attached: SOTC.jpg (220x311, 20K)

mario is art.
video games are made up off visual artists, musicians, writers, voice actors, etc. all forms of art.
the only reason niggers argue its not art is because of shit like indie games, and because of the pretentiousness some people have about it.
it just has a negative connotation to some people and they have a kneejerk reaction because of that, if you look past pretentious artsy indie games you will see that all games are art.
even level design can be art imo, look at shit like how mario levels are made up, so much thought is put into guiding the players experience.

I know it's a
>VN
But 999 does a somewhat decent job with that.

Sticks are not designed with children in mind, they are designed with leaves in mind.
Video games might start as art but at some point somebody says "Wait this is a toy for kids, we can't put X in it!" and X gets censored.

I personally don't think there's anything sacred about the concept of 'art' that should stop games in general from being considered them. Whether or not any game can be considered to be 'good art' is another story entirely, but I think they share, by and large, the same hallmarks in terms of the creative process as other mediums that are considered such.

>western bad
>chink gamu good!
Dumb weaboo faggot, killyourself.

So Silent Hill is art?

no, they are shart

I don't see how Mario would be any less art than everything else

Way to completely miss the point retard.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Silent hill was never designed for children. It is intended only for adults. Therefore by your criteria it is art. I guess hentai games are art as well.

I don’t know, ask almost any game developer if they consider themselves an artist.

Games which are only intended for adults get censored for the benefit of children. Look at games like Senran Kagura, rated for adults but censored.
Silent Hill might have slipped some mature content through the cracks but that doesn't change the underlying principle, there's content you cannot put in video games because it would be upsetting to children or parents.

Art undergoes censorship drama too, particularly when some guy starts photographing naked kids for an exhibit. I guess art is not art.

False equivalence there friend. It's perfectly reasonable for art to be censored when it literally breaks the law. There's no such precedent in video games, content is censored purely for being mature or adult in nature even if rated as such. Look at what happened when Ubisoft accidentally included a simple adult vagina in Watch Dogs 2.
You can't compare that to abusing literal children in real life.

Art gets outlawed in many countries because of political climate then.

Nothing you say will convince me. Videogames are art. If a pile of trash is art, videogames are art. Art is just a statement.

You aren't really following this. Yes countries have laws and art is subject to laws like anything else. Video games are subject to a particular censorship that goes beyond what is permissible by law. Anime tiddies are not illegal. Head patting is not illegal. Yet these are removed from video games for the sake of children who might play them.
It's not a problem with the law and you don't erase this problem by saying "Well I can't blow up the white house and call it art!"

>head patting is not illegal
Holy smokes you're a fucking HEAD PATTER!? I'm calling the police.

Attached: 1542338233848.png (435x353, 151K)

>music is art
>writing is art
>world design is art
>3d modelling is art
>put them all together
>not art

Attached: 1552359397220.png (620x640, 260K)

Senran Kagura is rated PEGI 16

Not him but surely you can at least accept that not every game made actually has had to make such compromises and that there are at least a few with their original vision in-tact? Even if we accept that the statement applies to most games, I don't think that compromising in order to make the end-product accessible to children is enough to rule it out as an artistic medium. As it stands compromise and change is already part of the artistic process for things we do consider art already, such as film or literature.

Of course it's a fucking art. Whether or not it's a good or bad art is up to you.

Artists fought for over a century to muddy the term to refer to literally ANY creative piece, and then got cold feet when a new medium appeared and started shuffling around mumbling complaints under their breath.

But when those compromises are made they are always done with the only reason being "We think this is best for public morality" - the job of a parent to their children. Art doesn't treat it's consumers like children.

I don't agree that is always the case, for starters, it may be done for practical concerns such as getting it past a ratings board, for example - which in turn may or may not have those rules in place for the reason you listed, but if what matters is intent as you seem to have put it, then external ratings boards meddling with a product shouldn't necessarily invalidate a product from being considered art. I'd point to film again in particular to back that up.
It may also be done simply because the content put forward doesn't match the tone or vision of the team behind any given game has in mind for it. Mother 3 notoriously was meant to have far darker moments in it, for example, but they got toned down for release because Itoi's views had softened by the time it finally got released and so he changed the message he wanted the game to leave the player with accordingly (whether this was a good decision or not is neither here nor there).
Also, you don't address my point about games which don't have their creative vision at all stifled by these apparent standards, such as any of the games by the Katamari lead. Finally, I'd like to point out that independent games often do push the boundaries of what's acceptable and often don't worry about public morality as small team/one man projects.

>it may be done for practical concerns such as getting it past a ratings board
To bring up the Ubisoft example again, they profusely apologized when players found the vagina and promised to remove it from the game, which they did, they said the vagina was a mistake.
The ESRB commented on the matter saying "There's no issue regarding rating on our end, the game is already rated 18+ and contains a full nudity descriptor, this content is in-line with our regulations"
The offending vagina was removed.
It has nothing to do with ratings boards. It's all based on the fact that these games are sold primarily as toys to children and companies need to act with a degree of responsibility in regards to that. The ratings ultimately don't matter.

Attached: 1463364093183.jpg (2596x2136, 1.41M)

That's merely one example, that alone is not enough to back up your argument for why games shouldn't be considered art. Even one example to the contrary (of which I have offered several) would invalidate such an argument. Even if all you're arguing for is that games that do in fact remove such content for the sake of public morality I'm not sure I can agree, if only because I don't think there's anything that precludes art from speaking down to its audience or removing content because they don't believe their audience is mature enough for it since I think it would be wrong to exclude all works intended to be read and enjoyed by all ages from being considered art.

I'm not suggesting that all-ages material cannot be art but when there's an orchestrated effort to make all content all-ages then obviously there's a motivating factor behind that. All the major gatekeepers of video games such as Sony and Nintendo believe that their audience is either a child or too immature to handle certain content with the main factor being that video games are still seen as toys for children or adult man-children.
There is a dedicated effort to make sure that video games DO NOT push any boundaries. Edge is bad.
I do not see this in novels or TV.

I can't even think of a significant game with a morally objectionable protagonist like Walter White. Game heroes generally need to range from "Paragon of virtue" to "Bland and maybe a little sarcastic from time to time"

barney

No. Video games are a product, not artwork. In the same sense that most mainstream pop is also not artwork.

Marie poster has a point which is weird considering children do not make video games.

Video games are art.

Compare Shadow of the Colossus to Pyre to Pathologic.

Medium is still pretty young, though.

I certainly don't disagree with you that there is still gatekeeping going on from big companies like Nintendo and Sony, but even then there are exceptions to that rule, again take the Mother series where Itoi was basically given free reign to make the games as he envisioned them narrative-wise. Either way I don't agree with you that such meddling necessarily invalidates a game from being considered art, I don't think there's anything inherent to art that stops works that are made with such a condescending mindset being included within it.
As for your comment about not being able to think of a 'significant game' with a morally objectionable protagonist, I can think of a few. Wander from SotC, most of the cast of the Drakengaard games, and of course perhaps the most common example of this sort of thing in games is Martin Walker from Spec Ops: The Line. Whether or not any of those is particularly well done is a different story, however.

Is shitposting considered art?

lmao no.
Video games are a smorgasbord of third rate hacks from differing fields trying to cobble together something grand, and failing more often than not.
Even Planetscape Torment's prose reads like an English major dropout wrote it.
Read a fucking book; video games are toys for children.

Attached: 1552759891622.png (453x508, 110K)

>Are video games art?
1) Yes. If 3D animation movies are art, then video games are art.

2) Who gives a fuck. Video games are what they are.

>Are video games art?
No, but they can have art in them.

>if the quality if bad, it's not art
That's not how it works.

it's not art, dumbass.

Attached: 7215bd108ef977171a8c0d1271e45294.jpg (400x397, 24K)

It can be. I've seen some masterful pieces.

This.
Why wouldn't they be? But why should you care? The garbage that passes as "art" these days makes that title worth very little.

Yes, anyone that thinks they ain't are too hung up on social stigma to think clearly.

Sorry, but it is. Get over it.

You can't protect your precious title of praise when that's not what it means. I can make terrible art and you can't stop it from being art.