Will video games ever receive mainstream recognition as a legitimate art medium?

>implying the plane scene isn't the 21st century's Mona Lisa
ok hothead

No but you can have a game that actually has a unique world with effort put into and not that meme crap.

Attached: 1455191964015.jpg (3989x2529, 3.94M)

There is art within videogames (musical score, art direction, writing, etc) but the videogame itself, as a whole, is not art, for art has no win-lose state, you cannot ''fail' and artpiece.

Based.

boards.fireden.net/_/search/filename/Wtf 2 webm/
Yikes

I liked xenoblade X and had like 100 hours in it but I never actually finished the main storyline. I'm thinking about getting the port when it comes out

Video games aren't art, but they're better than art

Is THIS art?

Attached: CIA the game.webm (640x480, 1018K)

Yeah, but only surface level “deep” shit like TLOU and the new GOW will get recognition for trying to be like a movie. Video games are art by definition because they’re a technical application of human expression and creativity, but most games fall more under the category of “entertainment.” This isn’t really a bad thing, but it means that only games like I previously mentioned will get artistic recognition.

I don't need vidya to have mainstream recognition, I need them to go back to being toys without the shackles of microtransactions, lootboxes, and other cancer dragging them down. I don't need other peoples approval to enjoy something.

Getting this butthurt isn't shitposting, it's reverse-shitposting. This comment sounds like it was written by a Nintendo fan trying to make Sony look bad. Like it's practicaly begging for a million NEVER EVER posts and golden faces.

I hate this place.

No.
And that’s a good thing!

>trying to make Sony look bad.
Sony retards already do this themselves when they make 20 Bloodshit threads a day a decade after it was released because you literally have nothing else.

Imagine that, some random, half-assed, overrated, unpolished Souls rehash is your holy grail.

Attached: 1438693063647.jpg (764x573, 117K)

Unironically this.
Art history is filled with examples of new art being shunned by the art world until the tastemakers of that era died and critics who replaced them allowed the new art in.
Impressionism, photography, jazz, etc...
Hell during Michaelangelo's time painting was seen more as a trade than art. Poetry was the art of that time and so Michaelangelo wrote poetry too.

Very simple games have fail states that are devoid of any meaning. A game that might be considered art takes advantage of all aspects of the experience, including the "fail" state, and has it add meaning to the overall experience. "Failing" in a video game could be compared to the feeling of discomfort certain pieces evoke in the person experiencing the art.

Pretty much this.
Everyone born after the 80s is at some point going to have some sentimental value for a video game, or least know someone close who does. This behavior will spread and become more accepted over time, boosting the integrity and merit of the medium. When your average elder has a mental affiliation with video games, the culture behind that medium becomes deeply rooted. You can even see glimpses of this acceptance today, talking about video games was nowhere near as common place as 10-20 years ago. You had boomers and evangelicals wanting to ban video games because of violent and satanic imagery for the longest time until an entire generation of kids born into video games grew up and most of them turned out relatively fine.

Attached: 1467067546051.jpg (300x300, 31K)

You make a good point about fails states, which can be easily argued for or against, but i will go with your proposition for now.

So, considering the previous statement, i ask you: Are all video games universally art or only some of them?
Since all music, sculpting, film and painting is considered art by the merit of its medium as a whole, shouldn't video games also be art as a whole? Is Super Mario Bros art? Is Counter Strike art? If FIFA can be art, are sports art? What separates the live game from the virtual?

Or perhaps, are all of these really within the same category of being ''video games''?

Sorry for killing your smash thread, you beastly idiot

Attached: bloodborne-mensis-cage.jpg (1280x720, 48K)

>4 pictures are just silhouettes against a giant moon
youre not making a very good case for videogames, or even bb for that matter
how about a shot of moonlight lake? or cathedral ward? or anything?
also baneposting is illegal now.
drake is indeed shit and i dont even recognize the bottom right, is it a loss edit or something?

It’s what painting (read: money laundering) looks like today.

>how about a shot of moonlight lake?
But, user, that also has the moon.

Attached: Blood Moon.webm (750x390, 1.33M)

Can typical art mediums spawn the same level of social bonding, community, culture, competitiveness, temple gatherings, passion, and tragedy the same way video games can?

Attached: 30a1712b[1].png (550x506, 257K)

>also baneposting is illegal now.
For you

But he already has projects that have

This is where things stop being objective and opinions differ from person to person.

There are people who would argue that not all film, music, photos, etc are art. There is a big difference between something that was produced only to make money and a passion project that's using the medium to it's fullest potential to try and evoke certain emotions in the observer.

It's not hard to find critics who dismiss big budget hollywood productions or corporate pop. In fact I would say most people don't think of these as art.

I do, however. And the same applies to video games.

A big part of the modern interpretation of what art is has to do with the observer. The artist doesn't hold all the power when crafting the experience, at least half of that lies with the observer.

If I were to ironically create a "modern" work of art that secretly mocks the current state of modern art, but it turns out to be a massive hit that critics and regular people end up loving, then what's the true nature of this piece? Is it art? I, the artist, don't think so; but the rest of the world says it is.

If FIFA or Call of Duty evoke certain powerful emotions in a person, who am I to tell them that they're not experiencing art?

Every video game, or thing for that matter, has the potential to be art so long as the person experiencing it believes it to be so. That's the great thing about art, it's subjective. Normal objective rules don't apply.