Games are art

I know, you posted it while I was writing mine. Nice that we thought of the same composer tho.

And how is being in awe of something not fun? To put it bluntly having a positive reaction to something means you are enjoying yourself, in other words you are having fun.

Yes, games should first aim for the fun, but I still consider the whole thing an art form. Character designs, background music, 3D modeling. If you think none of these can be considered art, you are a pretentious motherfucker.

Queen is fun. GWAR is fun. Parliament is definitely fun. Things can be art and fun.

Games are NEVER art you bunch of buzzfeed faggots.

I don't think those are the same feelings at all. For example I find SOAD's music fun (inb4 bad taste). When I listen to it, I like to dance, jump, headbang, I feel a rush of energy. I'm having fun. But it's artistically terrible. When I listen to Mozart or look at a beautiful painting, I contemplate the beauty and the mastery of it. It's two different things.
Let's get back to games, shall we? Mario games are fun, but they are not artistic. Yea Forums often complains about games trying to be artsy and always says games are not supposed to be artsy, they should be fun, as if there was a distinction (and rightfully so,because there is one).

What an uncultured retard.

You know Mozart also composed Vaudeville? Music literally made and performed to be fun.

Art form=/=art. When a child draws a crude depiction of a human and a dog, they are using an art form, but what they created is not a piece of art, it's just a poor drawing. You might appreciate it because children's drawings are kinda cute, like, you know they tried and they're proud if it, and you like it despite the fact that those drawings are ugly.

youtube.com/watch?v=GT3ecv01xDE

>mutually exclusive
thats your mistake right there. why the fuck would they be mutually exclusive lmao

films are fun, books are fun and none of those are even interactive. im sure just looking at paintings or such is fun for some people

Why wouldn't you consider the drawing an art piece? Art can be of bad quality. In fact, art has varying degrees of quality that depends on the individual's tastes. Sure a kid's drawing is not "good art", but I can't see why it wouldn't be considered art for their mother, for instance.

Why does OP think games need to be art?

I think this kind of thinking is limiting to games as art and detrimental to the medium in general. For example, tank controls and fixed camera angles are the definition of anti-fun, yet some games are good at what they are trying to accomplish exactly because they have them (like RE4). Kingdom Come Deliverance has many unfun mechanics, but it is those mechanics that make the appeal of the game. Pathologic isn't fun by any means, yet if it had its mechanics refined to be fun, the game would be worse.

I don't. I think games can be both, but you need to know what you want to accomplish with your game and choose between one of the two,because the more something is fun, the smaller is its artistic potential. Just Cause 3 is fun with its movent mechanics, but it' s not artistically impressive.

Fun is quick, art is slow.
When you look at a great piece of art, like a sculpture or a painting, you observe the details, the intricacies, you need time to take that in. When you listen to Mozart's best pieces, even the ones with a quick tempo, you tend to relax and sit back to take it in.
Fun is a quick rush of emotions. A comic book with a witty joke in it is fun, because you take a quick look, have a chuckle and move on.
Same with games. For example In horror games, the more artistic ones are those with creepy atmosphere where not much happens for a long time but you can feel the tension. Meanwhile jumpscares give you a horror kind of fun - they come and go quickly.

Your understanding of both art and videogames is retarded beyond my comprehension. Look at this stupid OP talking as if he was an authority on vidya and art.

The player can be the artist when he finds ways to express himself and be creative through the game engine, be it speedruns, fighting games, strats for world records, strats to optimize strategy games, etc.

There is always a huge creative and artistic effort put into making almost every game. The composers are artists, the writers are artists, the concept designers and drawfags are artists, so in that sense, we could say that the videogame is their collective piece of art.

But VIDEOGAMES are not art in themselves and this is why everytime we talk about this, the discussion never progress because the argument focus on whether the MEDIUM is art or not and focus very little on player expression and creator expression. Exactly like hipster ass rich "art critiques" who launder money through buying and selling art, you argue like faggots over what is and isn't art, but you don't CARE about artistic expression, yoy just want to jerk off your ego. Videogames CAN be a medium THROUGH WHICH artistic minds can express themselves, but you hipsters will never fucking get it.

Your understanding of both art and videogames is retarded beyond my comprehension. Look at this stupid poster talking as if he was an authority on vidya and art.

What are you babbling about, you fat fuck?

>So, which side are you on? Games as art, or games that are fun?
It helps no one to be reductive.

Attached: 1552622312131.png (571x2715, 204K)

The first third of pic is fucking retarded

What's stumping you, user?

good games dont always have to be fun. Silent Hill is not ''fun'' neither is most of the survival and survival horror genres. Constantly loosing to other players in competitive games is not fun. I think the word that best aplies to this game experiences is ''engaging'' not fun.

Attached: 1559607618473.png (405x405, 153K)

It's retarded for him to suggest that he knows what usage of language is proper and what is improper, as well as to operate on an argument that there are many dictionary definitions of a given word (which is natural because words' forms and meanings change over centuries, however nobody who points that out ever acknowledges that they don't do that simultaneously and in the same way in any two cultures or languages) without even trying the consider cultural context in which the word "art" is used. A person who does that is either intellectually dishonest or has never met people in their lives.
To put that more simply, if you ask "can games be art" there will always be a retard who will act as if they are oblivious to the cultural context and dig up a dictionary definition of the word (one that says that anything created with an intent of conveying emotions is art and other such bullshit) and say "well duh retard", completely ignoring the fact that nobody who has ever met people is confused about the meaning of the word in popular use (it's not what he has dug up).

Who cares? Just judge things by their own merits, don't try and fit everything into such tiny boxes.

The difference between your post and mine is that I offered reasoning behind my original point. You didn't.
Discarded.

You seem to be using "cultural context" as a roundabout way of meaning "definition". What is the cultural context of the word 'art'? What does it mean?

modern art is just the elite's money laundering legal loophole scheme

when you see a black square on a blank canvas hung up in a modern art museum, you should wonder not what it means but instead how much money it was appraised for and how much tax evasion it granted

>what are movies
based retard

cringe

based

Attached: 1553015503497.png (1326x954, 112K)

Code is not litterature. Every frame from a video game can be art but the executable file containing the video game is not art.

Exactly my point. Art critiques and purchasers hide their ignorance behind walls of fancy words, but they never take any appreciation for the expression of the artist which is often unexpressable in mere words.

Just as I said earlier. The art is the world record high score. The art is the synnergy between the soundtrack and the visuals, the mechanics and the challenge. Tge art is the expression of individual tourneyfags and the ways they innovate on the meta. The art is the collaboration between artists to create such products, not necessarily the product in itself or the narrative alone.
Being a boring art hipster is to wonder if The last of us is art or not or to argue that SMB is not art because it lacks a poignant narrative or provocative visuals. These are the kind of faggots who "lead the debate" and who would happily drive the medium into an all-around boring and meaningless direction just so they can circlejerk about how touched they were by (x) game's elaborated narrative.

In popular use "art" is usually used kind of comparatively. In other words when saying "art" or "piece of art" (but not "form of art" which is a different thing entirely) they mean a piece that is an exceptionally beautiful and masterfully created example of use of a given form of art, and it is used comparatively precisely because any attempt (even the one I am posting now) at defining it would be lacking. This is because there are no objective qualities of, for example, a painting that would make it art, so it's not possible to judge a given piece's artistic merit without comparing it to other pieces at some level.

>games
>art
Nah. Maybe little amount of them. In games you can't even show mature themes. You can't show rape without outrage. You can even do offensive jokes at all. Everything is censored and pandered to audience becasue "my feelings hurt". AAA western games has zero artistic freedom. Indie unironically can be art.
>I don't like this! This is OFFENSIVE to woman/children/trans/LGBT
>Sorry we will delete this!
>BOOBS ARE OFFENSIVE

Attached: 13215437568.jpg (1575x1050, 202K)

Your definition of the word art contains the word art. You should try rewording it. For clarity.

Every sentence in a novel can be art but the paper it was printed on is not art. You can do this for anything.

>I contemplate the beauty and the mastery of it.
This is fun, you're quite literally being autistic right now

Just switch "form of art" to "a conscious use of image, sound or an object to convey information or a feeling".

Oh and forgot "language" too

Then if we assume all games are "a conscious use of image or sound to convey information or a feeling", where "feeling" could be something as simple as the joy of victory, then for a game to be art it must be "exceptionally beautiful and masterfully created".

But both of those word couples are subjective and similarly undefined and about as meaningful as the word "really good". So for a game to be art, it must be really good. hmm

That's why I pointed to a comparative use

"Really good" is comparative too.

Yeah

Not really. Those things aren’t anti-fun, they’re just non-intuitive aspects of a game
Fun can be defined as the “the use of critical thinking and decision-making skills to solve problems or overcome challenges”
That effect can be made with tank controls or fixed camera angles. But the player still needs to be actively engaging with the mechanics to some goal for it to be “fun”

So then you have no qualms with this article and our journey has come to an end.

>good games need to be fun
That is subjective. What you mean to say is fun games need to be fun.

I really can't see why people care so much; there are loads of games that are enjoyable by other metrics than fun, but good games are more often than not fun, so making games fun can be a good target anyway.
For the art angle it's just as pointless since pretty much all more traditional sources are filled to the brim with absolute shit, so it caries absolutely no meaning if games qualifies or not.

Artistically valuable pieces are usually old.
They're old because they've been recognized a significant to the craft in ages past and that recognition has stuck.
They aren't "fun" to a layman because their value is to those who care about the creative process and it's tools and forms.
In their own time those significant works were fun and were enjoyed by laymen.
There are exceptions, where an author is recognized much later for his or her genius, but generally popular things end up being classics when they're not just fun, when they're fun and advance the craft.
Making a game that's fun in the same way games of past were fun is not art, it's mass production, it's boring and it's only fun for those ignorant of history.

i don't think people mean "games need to be fun" in the way you think of it. when people say "games need to be fun" they're saying that games need to be enjoyable.

Good games ARE fun

I find Bach in particular to be quite fun.

test

Fun is not quick. You would know this if you ever played outside until the streetlights came on.

>Mozart's music isn't fun.
*AHEM*

Lick my arse nicely,
lick it nice and clean,
nice and clean, lick my arse.
That's a greasy desire,
nicely buttered,
like the licking of roast meat, my daily activity.
Three will lick more than two,
come on, just try it,
and lick, lick, lick.
Everybody lick their arse for themselves.

Attached: Wolfgang-amadeus-mozart_1.jpg (2079x3056, 665K)

I have qualms with his suggestion that it is somehow improper to ask the question whether games can be art and with pretending to not know what people mean when they ask it.

fake news, that's by Trnka

> The music of this canon was once thought to be by Mozart but was shown in 1988 by Wolfgang Plath to be by Wenzel Trnka, originally to the Italian words "Tu sei gelosa, è vero".[40] As the editors of the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe note, the work almost certainly should be considered a work of Mozart's, but as the author of the lyrics rather than as the composer.
Also he wrote another piece with similar lyrics and still wrote letters to his sister with poop jokes,

filthy. thank god he is dead.

games are the art of fun idiots

Attached: 1559830748637.jpg (1400x1900, 448K)

We should discuss the criteria on how we determine whether a game is art.
For example, is Thief's sound design art? The sounds are not beautiful themselves, but the way they are implemented and how they work surely can be considered an exceptional achievement in sound design.
Or is dynamic lighting art by itself, or are only a few examples of its exceptionally good use art?
How about the general world design? Morrowind's world is amazing and creative.
How about Gothic? Its open world design is praised for its great design.
Is the interconnectivity of Deus Ex's or System Shock's art?

>implying the people that make and experience those things aren’t having fun doing so
Those two things are not mutually exclusive, tiny brain retard.

good games are both fun and art

Attached: 2346465.jpg (900x560, 126K)

A game being art is simply the game’s ability to convey the experience the creators want to share. This includes all of what you mentioned and more. Specific parts can be singled out and judged by their own merits within but the true artistic value of games is to allow the player to experience the game firsthand. It’s why VR is so tantalizing, yet so hard to pull off correctly.

Imagine thinking vidya can't be art.
Imagine being that soulless of an NPC.

Attached: Arthur morgan point.jpg (200x355, 13K)

>painting, music, film, literature, sculpture or whatever, not a single one of them is fun

imagine being this retarded

No, games aren't art. Games are games, which is something far far better than art. Art is an object or work of no value or purpose that you want people to pay for anyway.
I wish I could delete the meme of art from the human collective consciousness.

Video games are toys, not art.

>games aren't always art
Agreed
But fuck everything else you just typed.

>music isnt fun
T. Brainlet that isnt musically inclined

Attached: 1553425314162.png (645x512, 597K)

>not a single one of them is fun
What? I guess it depends upon how you define fun, but as far as I know, all of the best artistic works are pretty enjoyable.
I've read a few classics, and I enjoyed them. Even some I might not enjoy I realize that others might.

How the fuck is music, film and literature not fun? I've derived literally thousands of hours of enjoyment listening to music, watching movies and reading novels... The fuck are you on about?

Kuso thread.

This.

games are neither nor fun, and neither is desirable.

Subjective and also gay and also bait and also games are art and just like any other medium of art games have well-executed and poorly executed creations, high-brow and low-brow creations, and everything inbetween. They also have creations which were produced without any thought of art involved at all.

>SOAD is artistically terrible but dude loud noises, energetic music dude lol (inb4 bad taste)

The only reason people think you have bad taste is because you're such a brainless faggot who can't interpret anything he consumes, just simply listening to the lyrics would give you an insight. SOAD isn't artistically terrible and they're often praised as being one of the best modern political bands to have existed. It's actually depressing knowing people like you exist.

>dude fuck army lmao
Haha you're such a shitter

>Dude fuck faith and ignorance lol magic flute lol Mozart was such a master so beautiful
Haha you're such a shitter

the word you're looking for is "entertaining." something like getting into a shootout irl is engaging, but i doubt many people would derive entertainment value from it. a horror gaym on the other hand could be both.

Attached: AUTISM.gif (256x256, 342K)

>he thinks SOAD lyrics are insightful

Attached: 1559638560026.jpg (900x900, 68K)

It's not about "fun", that's junk food thinking. It's about discovering your own sensibilities.

Attached: alchemist.png (600x400, 372K)

>Fun and artistic value are mutually exclusive
Wrong, son.

I don't think it's incredibly insightful, that doesn't stop it from being art which can be analysed like the retard I was replying to implied.

>pretentious underaged retard starts talking about art
>inevitably gets shit on by Yea Forums

Attached: 1559838492786.jpg (1024x576, 51K)

Go back to your mari o's faggot. Men are talking.

I'm one of the men talking, and we're talking about your opinion being worthless considering your age and education. Come again whenever you feel like getting shit on.

Attached: 1559839277121.jpg (1920x800, 244K)

I'm a man too you know. I go pee pee standing up.

Have sex

Try again later bud.

Attached: 1559583848261.jpg (640x718, 54K)

>not being able to read