Video games are not art, but I'm not gonna tell you why I truly believe that...

>nu/v/ believes in vidya being art
grow up

But aren't games crafted with a defined controlled experience in mind? There is surely a defined beginning and end. You could even argue that the control of the player is the same as one watching a movie with a remote that can pause, rewind, and fast forward through time. If the player refuses to continue in the story to see the ending, is that not the same as one pausing a film?

How can a human be this fucking ugly

I give it two thumbs up lolll

LOOK AT THIS DOOOD

His jaw is fake

you lot really attacking a guy for having cancer because he insulted computer games?

Why would you seriously care if video games are considered "art" or not?

Attached: 1546516823074.jpg (225x225, 8K)

It's still just a set of challenges for the player to overcome. The story itself is art, but putting in a bunch hurdles to experience it is not, it is a game.

Back to r*ddit normalfag

The closer games have gotten to the art he was accustomed to, the further they've gotten from their core value as a creative medium.

Jesus christ I feel sorry for what this guy had to go through with the whole jaw thing. Cancer's a fucking bitch, and the sooner we rid her from this planet, the better.

Reminder this guy gave thumbs down to Goodfellas

Couldn't the media's story itself be a challenging hurdle if the viewer didn't speak the same language? Luckily there are subtitles, but that itself is a shortcut around the hurdles of knowledge of the original speech.
Forgive me, had some to drink and playing the devil's avocado.

The origin of the "Hating popular things does not make you interesting" meme

It was an off handed statement from a man who literally believed all video games were like pong and pac man. Obsessing over it is like obsessing over Spielberg thinking computer graphics could never advance past Super Mario Brothers.

>overrates black movies to appease his black wife

Yeah I'm thinking he isn't based

This is from the definition of art: "producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."
I feel like in 99% of cases this does not apply to video games. Video games are created to be entertainment first and foremost. Challenges for a player to complete. It is not about being appreciated for beauty or emotional power. That's not to say those elements can't be found in games, but it's not their primary purpose.
Same reason why I wouldn't consider a lot of movies art. Sculptures and paintings are usually the easiest to apply this definition to.

Attached: Cute girl (boy).jpg (3024x4032, 1.9M)

he looks like he fucks black guys

>Video games are art, but they better not have any kind of message, especially one that I don't agree with
>t. vidyafags

>Most movies and video games are shit

Stop the presses

You're wrong. Those faggots shit up the music and movie industry with awful practices too and have a huge impact on their respective industries as well.

IIRC it was clear his argument was about video games lacking authorial intent, due to the player's interaction.

Because he was a fat fuck.

He probably got cancer from eating too much White Castle and Steak n' Shake.

I'm sorry, isn't this a definition made with the exclusion of video games at its core? Why is lack of interaction with an experience, rather than the experience itself, central to the definition of art? You could argue that a statue fails to be art under this definition, since it allows (perhaps even requires) the experiencer to shift their perspective in order to experience the statue in its fullest.
Why can challenge not be part of the "experience" of a piece of art? Challenging the experiencer is a great way of evoking feelings of strife, and an even better way of evoking a sense of elation and accomplishment by overcoming said challenge. How would this be different from a poem that is written in a deliberately obscure way, to challenge the reader and force them to interact with the poem by analysis and interpretation? And what about walking simulators, which do not have fail states; would these not meet the conditions of the proposed definition?

99% might be a bit of an exaggeration, though you're probably right that most games are made to be fun and entertaining. But the question is whether games can fundamentally be art, so when you look at (typically indie) games that are made to be emotional experiences, like gris or journey, or even games that do have a large focus on gameplay but you can still see a lot of emphasis put on the experience, like brothers or nier, could these be called art?

I think something like Journey could be maybe considered art, but there is such a minimal amount of gameplay that it's barely a video game. Same case for something like Her Story.
Putting emphasis on the experience isn't good enough imo if the gameplay comes first.

>Challenge
This is a human trait, so it at least should be able to be called art in that regards.

It means that he doesn't think that they are art, but doesn't care enough about them to come up with an in depth and coherent argument.

Games are not art. they are more like packages that contain numerous types of arts. Art, in the context of painting for example, exists within clear boundaries (the canvas). Video games do not have a clearly defined canvas to make any such judgments. You could say that the art of painting excels because of its clear boundaries, whereas most people can't even agree on what boundaries exist, if any, in vidya. If a game has excellent music but everything else is shit, is it a good game? Is it art? Does it matter? The prejudice of games is so unlike traditional forms of art it is almost irrelevant to think about them in the same way. IMO, vidya is like a multidimensional canvas where all art coalesces, transcending art in much the same way a canvas transcends the image painted onto it.

you cant censor art you can censor video games

>people have censored art
they are considered retarded

I think videogames are a medium for art, like a blank canvas can be for painting or photoshop. Now it all depends on what people consider is art. If you throw paint at a wall is it art as long as there's paint? Or does there need to be artists intent? I've seen the argument that art is art cause its made by a singular vision so does that mean cave story is art?

Attached: 1541222955212.jpg (917x942, 121K)

>Dying people cant be criticized
I know its probably bait, but I really, REALLY hope you dont think people who have suffered a lot are exempt of hate/criticism.

They are, that's why Hitler and Stalin are remembered more fondly than they should be.

What constitutes a video game, then? If it's supposed to be an interactive medium where progression is based on player input, where fail states exist and where some amount of skill (whether it's based on reflexes or problem-solving or whatever) is needed, Journey has all of those. Its mechanics might not be as involved as many other games, but it still strikes me as a video game, for all intents and purposes, unless there's a better definition for a video game (if a rigid definition can even be given for any manmade medium, let alone one with as many variables as a video game).
As for gameplay invalidating a game as art, I'm not sure why that would be. A game can have gameplay that not only doesn't get in the way of the emotional experience, but strengthens it. When parts of Journey make it much harder or much easier for your character to move around, it feeds into the experience of trying to reach the top of the mountain. Had the harsh weather in the final parts been purely visual, rather than slowing you down to a crawl and eventually making you collapse, the emotional experience would not have been nearly as powerful; same for the feeling of liberation you get immediately after that part. Seeing that sort of struggle in a movie amounts to a less vivid experience than controlling the character yourself.

Vidta game would gain nothing from being classified as art.

Attached: 1530148569572.jpg (4500x2989, 3.15M)

The top chess players using a set made out of God's balls wouldn't count as art yet you don't see chessfags crying abiut that

>Actual boomers
>Art
Their definition of art is probably the worst one in all human history and also one of the most corrupted when you know they do art expositions and other events in a way to evade taxes by doing nothing.

Chess has a singular rule set that does not change depending on the visual design of the board and pieces. Chess wouldn't be art because it's a very particular kind of game, and a game of chess played with pieces made out of God's balls doesn't differ from a game of chess played with pieces made out of a donkey's balls. Same with football, or basketball, or video games like rocket league or dota (maybe due to not having a story or any directed, structured experience). You're talking about something else when a game is structured to create an emotional experience or tell an interesting story.
Also, I'm pretty sure that some chess players (and some chess set makers) would get pretty upset over not calling the chess set itself art, if it's well-crafted and pretty enough.