Why don't video games have the same prestige as film?

>muh movies
they're easily accessible and widely available, not to mention they've been around much longer. Way more people of all ages watch movies than play games.

It's a young as fuck medium. They weren't even a thing when 60 year old boomers where shitting diapers.

I'd like rich pretentious fucks to have as little interest in video games as possible thanks very much.

Film industry sucks right now tho

May as well take advantage of this shitpost thread.
What are some movies to watch to help elevate me out of my pleb status?

better call saul

Director's cut of me fucking your mother

The warriors.

Also, disregard this faggot and replace it with the shield

Generation divide.

>the shield

Attached: e75.jpg (251x251, 5K)

I love video games, but there is 2 reasons to why.

Number 1, mobile games damages the perception as it is something that everyone has and is most likely what they only see personally, due to the crap shovelware on there, it gives games a bad name.
Number 2, Lootboxes... enough said.

gamers loudly complain when games try to be art and don't also contain killing

Or games that are art, gamers call it utter crap garbage because "muh popularity = BAD quota."

The more people involved, the more diluted the art.

That's why painting, writing, poetry, music, etc. will always retain more artistic merit than modern garbage.

>300 y/o fag posting on a chinese anime site
Living the dream, gaylord.

Attached: 1558965435403.gif (500x341, 557K)

This

Pretty much this.
People don't even pay attention to animated films and just vote for whatever shit Disney pumps out for awards for the same reason.

Remind me which games you're talking about so I can contextualize your stupidity.

>gamers

Attached: 1449130979850.jpg (300x300, 47K)

I want video games to be seen as trash because whenever people start talking about "games as art" it invariably leads to SJWs wanting to take over and turn them into propaganda.

Attached: 369356060.jpg (580x435, 38K)

Because video games
>tend to exist as product to be sold to make money (see Pokemon, where the games literally just exist to sell merchandise, "we want the CoD audience", the entire "games as a service" model, and so on)
>tend to just copy tropes, stories, and themes from movies anyways without coming up with anything original
>have a fanbase that is extremely adverse to being exposed to politics or any themes with real-life connotations or implications (video games are primarily treated, both by fans and detractors, as mindless escapism and virtual toys)

Its funny because modern American Hollywood movies are absolute fucking garbage and probably even worse than video games.

>MGS3
>Gravity Rush 2
Highly doubt that

this, "art" can fuck itself
the only things treated as art are the ones that fall in line with these petty, insecure, incestuous circles of critics and established artists who bring down everyone who does something better

Yes because video games were never propagandist before, right?

Attached: images.jpg (300x168, 9K)

Time traveler from 300 years in the future here. He's actually correct. All of those are mandatory high school gaming requirements.

This image has never been more appropriate.

Attached: this is you.gif (450x253, 3.59M)

>The examples that may or may not pass the test of time are really low.
I think it'd be pretty easy to come up with a list of at least 100 truly classic games.
Whether they pass the test of time also doesn't just have to do with the quality, but exposure.
Shit like The Last of Us even though it's 6 years old is still certainly more relevant now than games like MGS1, 2, 3, 90s JRPGs, and other classics, even if all of those are vastly more profound than the stuff that is understood as "true art" in modern gaming.

>All of those are mandatory high school gaming requirements.
Can confirm, also capitalism got so bad since gen z that people pay for air nowadays after stopped getting ownerships of the places they live in.

Attached: 1560223853729.png (382x474, 306K)

Gee why aren’t video games, which universally have scripts written by monkeys, given the same esteem as film? Probably because there is not a single video game that can compare to Kurosawa’s morning shits. There are 100+ films better than the best video game you can name. Video games are fun, that’s it

because

1. video games were originally marketed as childrens toys, even if there's more mature games today

2. video games as a medium were born on the brink of rampant corporate meddling, it didn't get 50+ years to mature before being raped for pure profit chasing

>a game that'll never get an official English release because of SJWs

>older medium very smart
>newer medium DUMBDUMB
we've seen it all before

Because right now, some retarded and immature developers craving for validation from movie makers are convinced that they have to mimic movies to be taken seriously but it just weakens the medium by making it redundant with another.

Do you think movies would've been taken seriously if the only thing movie makers were doing was to film someone reading a book or just film a sculpture for hours because they wanted validation from writers and sculptors?

Movies were deemed art in a time when art was still good. Artfags and indie dev faggots today argue videogames are art in a time where literally rubbing your own feces on canvas is "art", so video game enthusiasts aren't ecstatic about being associated with that.

RDR2 and Zelda Breath of the Wild.
And judging by your tone, you are the problem.

Entry-level:
Rashomon
Seventh Seal
8 1/2
Rear Window
Seven Samurai
L’Avventura
Chungking Express
The Night of the Hunter
All That Jazz
2001
Metropolis
The Great Dictator
Cabinet of Dr Caligari
All About Eve
Streetcar Named Desire
Sunset Boulevard
Fitzcarraldo
Eraserhead
The Woman in the Dunes
A Woman Under the Influence
Lawrence of Arabia
The 400 Blows
Suspiria
Frankenstein
The Good the Bad and The Ugly
Evil Dead II
Vertigo
Ugetsu
Brazil
Stalker

Just some mostly accessible ones off the top of my head that are must-sees, and that give you a nice jumping off point into film. If you tell me what you like I can help you more than just a random list of classic films

Any Batman game. Particularly Arkham Knight... oh? You had a shitty experience because you played it on PC!? Oh no! How would I-... Oh wait. I played it on an Xbox and PS4 just like everyone else

Not a bad list, could you throw in Dracula or even Son of Dracula?

>a time where literally rubbing your own feces on canvas is "art"
When was that sort of thing ever considered art by anyone? It's artistic expression sure, like anything is. No one has ever claimed that that sort of thing is "art" like Picasso is art.
Why do people believe this?

You can throw in whatever you want, I just wanted to throw some out there as a starting point.

>ANY game from any point up until 2019
>relevant in 2319
lmao

>Metropolis
>Seventh Seal
>Tarkovsky in general
>accessible
Jeez, how optimistic!
Needs Solaris too!

Look up "mattress girl" and such and there's your answer. Considering the people calling that art aren't beaten to a pulp by their peers, but are instead encouraged, we can agree that the art world thinks that is art.

should throw Invasion of the body snatchers in there too, mainly the 1978 one

that's how you know a movie isn't art but just 2 hours long commercial

It all started with Marcel Duchamp’s water fountain (urinal). Actually that’s a simplification but, essentially, sure. Then it became somehow profound to say things like “oh my god, yeah, I see it now. Objects are just objects, and sometimes we view them in terms of their function or purpose, not their actual aesthetic qualities. Oh my god... anything can be art...” and then naming a random object something and putting it in a gallery became chic, as did blank canvases and a bunch of retarded meta shit equivalent to “if I made you think about art, I’m an artist.”

Now here we are. Art installations in which people scream in a corner and scribble on the ground with crayons blindfolded.

>movie games
Of course.

It's a pretty ridiculous timeframe. Is it even gonna be true for film and literature?

Literature more than 3000 years old are not only relevant, they are downright foundational texts of western civilization.
Can a single video game claim that?

lol commie

I get your point but from what I can tell that's a very isolated and politically-charged case. Making statements about the "art world" is difficult, does it even exist? Would European art critics approve too? Or even art critics from another state? Probably not, but I don't know.

I know about all that but I disagree with the implication that it can't be profound. It's not meant to be art, it's supposed to be a philosophical statement. You can and should question established all established norm, otherwise you stagnate and never evolve.
What is art? Just paintings of landscapes, fruits in a basket, plants in a vase, portraits of people? It's better to allow people to push boundaries than it is to limit creativity even if it means seeing or hearing things you don't personally like or can take anything away from.

Based Marcel DuCHAMPION

have you heard the term "performance art"?
fucking a chubby 50-year-old woman on a theater stage is art
shoving ester eggs up your vagina and pushing them out on a canvas is art
putting green lasers in your ass is art

video games are just fine without the label "art"

hey, you forgot Dog Soldiers

>Why don't video games have the same prestige as film
films
>can show nudity
>bare tits don't even make it an 18+ only thing
>foreign movies are no longer altered, edited or censored before being broadcast in the west unless it's an adaptation or an already existing property
>people who make subtitles and dubs for movies don't consider themselves to be "writers" and don't try to alter the work they're bringing
games
>not allowed to ever show a nipple most of the time
>If there's ever a nipple, it's instantly 18+ rating
>foreign games are altered, edited and censored due to "cultural sensibilities"
>"localizers" consider themselves writers, and despise the original work
Gee I wonder, OP

this too
>critics
lament that vido games aren't artistic or thought provoking enough, but when someone produces a game that isn't milquetoast diversity committee-approved shit, they go rabid

Sure there are plenty of videogames that are relevant now, have been for decades and probably will remain so for a long time.
But they're all decades-old still, so they're not in the collective memory anymore. They weren't given the credence for people to look at what they said critically in any serious capacity. Now that people actually do care and analyse what vidya tries to say, they've long been turned into interactive Hollywood movies. Too bad.

>2001
>Metropolis
>Eraserhead
>Lawrence of Arabia
>Frankenstein
>The Good the Bad and The Ugly
>Evil Dead II
>Stalker
How come these movies are both classic stuff, AND not boring?
All the other movies in the list are super boring for plebs like me, but these are somehow good for both plebs and pretentious film connoisseurs, why?

fpbp

this honestly

Because video games are like 40 years old. How many people were shit talking movies when movies were 40 years old? Most of them. How many do you remember? Almost none of them. You fucking people are just living through the world, and the very idea of prestige is entirely man made and often a product of extreme and inflammatory resistance. I am so sick of reality and all of the fucking cliches that exist. Can we fucking transcend already?

The same deal they have for animations: Its deemed for children/childish and therefore not artsy enough
>"But what about this amazing animated short about *deep subject*"
Thats great, its going to be nominated for an Oscar that Disney/Pixar is going to win for 50th and that's going to be the end of it, those animators wasted their time

Attached: 1453311988713.jpg (243x240, 20K)

How man films from the past 2 years would you consider art? Maybe The House That Jack Built. But what else? There isn't much.

*50th time

>stalker
>not boring
Nigger did we watch the same movie?

>"But what about this one movie i don't like?"
You know what he's talking about, don't be such an ass

>prestige as film
nobody has respected the movie medium in like 20 years. Even the French festivals are just sponsored advertising paid by the same 3 billionaires to get their products showered in price they give to each others.

not that user
i liked stalker, but it's just a bunch of dudes walking around in the bushes for hours
Tarkovski originally wanted it to be a more action-filled movie with actual special effects and shit, but the film was developed wrong in the labs so he had to record it again on a shoestring budget

They don't contribute any insight into the human condition like Lord of the Flies or Mickey's Christmas Carol do.

Attached: wraith knight.jpg (625x475, 45K)

Realistically you haven’t seen the movies on his list or you’ve seen a few of them and didn’t like them.

Video games aren't toys or movies, they're video games
They aren't "art" like films are

Okay now hit me with some inaccessible shit

>nobody has respected the movie medium in like 20 years.
Nobody has respected any art medium in 20 years, music is literally writen by 2 guys and performed by robots and a girls used tampons can be considereded as art, its all shit

>Teens 100, 200, and 300 years from now are going to be told to play MGS3, Trails in the Sky, Gravity Rush 2, Super Mario World
you're too retarded to live

that's why movies are shit now

Because gamers are cum guzzling retards

This is unironically the reason.

how is this anything but a random list of movies

prove the opposite, kid

Imagine thinking video games are about scripts

Films have no prestige anymore, it's all capeshit.

Inaccessible doesn’t really mean a lot but here are some less accessible ‘classic’ films, without getting too up my own ass:

Un chien andalou
Fanny and Alexander
Satantango
Marketa Lazarova
Inland Empire
Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles
Werckmeister Harmonies
Kwaidan
The Celebration
The Naked Island
Battleship Potemkin
Vampyr
PlayTime
Branded to Kill
Le Weekend
Aguirre, The Wrath of God
La Jetée
Ah Hasard Balthazar
Buffalo 66
Ballet Mécanique
Tetsuo: The Iron Man
A Brighter Summer Day
Ivan’s Childhood

I guess you could these more inaccessible only because some of them are really lengthy, slower-paced, or experimental. Film is pretty accessible in general though, it isn’t an exclusive club. If you want to learn about it, it’s a lot of fun imo

>If you tell me what you like I can help you more than just a random list of classic films
It’s a random selection within a ‘list’ of widely-heralded, classic films. To name them all would be retarded, so that’s a few ‘random’ ones from across the board, in terms of countries, genres, and time periods

To be fair, teens are pretty much 100% guaranteed to know and talk about Batman and Superman 100 years after they came out. Not in school though lol.

>Vampyr
Mother fucker that's a video game from last year. You can't fool me.

Anything good from the last 3-5 years in English?

Nigga, vidya doesn't get the same respect because you aren't looking at places where video games are discussed intelligently, you mention in your post the general public
And who composes the general public? Unintelligent drones that would call a philosophical game childish, but would call that same story a masterpiece and a work of art if it was in a more socially acceptable medium, these people are scared out of their minds of the public opinion and "fitting in", why should you or I care what these people think?.
Now the reason why movies are more socially acceptable is because they were basically introduced as plays, which are an "adult" and "artistic'' medium, whereas video games were introduced as "children's toys", and it will forever have that stigma.
If you look at say rdr2's metacritic (a game I dont even like that much), you'll find people praising with the same praise they'd give to movies.
Overall, retards that haven't played video games criticize video games for ''cool points'', I guarantee you that most of these people would love certain vidya but are just too scared of public opinion (or at least what they think is public opinion) to try it.

Attached: chad profile.jpg (474x658, 53K)

I don’t watch a ton of recent movies because my backlog is ridiculous, but of the ones I have seen, I really enjoyed:
Good Time
Killing of a Sacred Deer
American Honey
Right Now Wrong Then (korean)
Florida Project, except I didn’t like the ending
VVitch
I also have a love-hate attitude towards Neon Demon, because the writing is so absolutely dogshit but the color palette and set-design reminds me of old giallos, so idk. I’m probably not the right guy to ask, Ive probably missed a ton of good, recent stuff. I’d actually love some recommendations in this department

>M-MUH NAUGHTY DOOOOOOG
>VIDEO GAMES CAN ONLY BECOME ART THROUGH BECOMING MOVIES WITH BUTTON PRESSES
This is why video games will not be taken seriously for at least next five decades.

The problem with vidya is that as an art is way more complex than film, imagine what a director needs to know to be good: music, camera, composition: storytelling.. etc. now add to that that in a videogame is more complex due to, gameplay and the need of the player to be in control, affecting everything else, it comes to a point where gameplay gets on the way of the others, for example; you go with good traumating music, in a film you can see the protagonist struggle, in a videogame you give them the control back to the player and he goes into easily looseing or not strugglin at all, that breaks all the set up, so to do good story telling you go and take the control from the player, but that makes a bad game!! at the end it comes to a director who looses the advantage of books where the reader fills the gaps with imagination and looses the advantage of filmaking where you take the direction of the emotion of the viewer, and simply put, to date there's no way of making a game good enough to take the player into the point of delight of a film without taking all the control from them, in videogames if the game is too easy it might as well be a movie if the game is too hard only few can apretiate them, if the game is in the middle is mediocre. Now put yourself in the place of a critic in a film you only need to watch and comprend, not that difficult right? but in a videogame you need to be good a t it, otherwise it doen't show you its true potential, that's also why game journalism is trash if you are not good enought you can't really apreciate a game, if a game is not complex is closer to a toy, and now imagine if you are good at videogames, other people maight not be and they won't enjoy the game as much as you do, so what's the solution and the common denomiator of a good game? the game being fun, and at the end toys are more fun.

I remember a time when it was accepted that Diablo 3 couldn't be made because there was no where else to take the story. Video games peaked in its prestige in the late 90s to early 2000's.

Realistically never

>trails
>gravity rush
in your fucking dreams kusoweeb

This
We’re alright keep your faggots we don’t need them

videogames are a different beast altogether. comparing them to other art forms is pointless in my opinion. their strenght is interactivity, and that is something no other art form has. when gameplay will be critiqued like directing is, as the basic foundation of a game, then it will shine as its own thing. you can and should analyze a game for all its qualities (music, story, grafics, presentation, characters, etc) but the focus should be on gameplay first and foremost. videogames should be engaging and draw the player into their world, and that immersion should be engaging to play. that's my worthless opinion though, and I think the medium is doomed to be considered inferior just like animation

>their strenght is interactivity, and that is something no other art form has
I'll take martial arts for 500 Alex.

>The problem with vidya
it's not a problem at all. It's a feature of this particular media. If you find this problematic, you need to fuck off.

>video games as a medium were born on the brink of rampant corporate meddling, it didn't get 50+ years to mature before being raped for pure profit chasing
This feels like a good point that a lot of people are glossing over.

Games that have a heavy emphasis on their presentation and have subpar gameplay are just seen as all style and no substance, or pretentious. Games will stellar gameplay and not much else aren't seen as art because they're toys. There's not really much middle ground. But it doesn't really matter what labels you stick onto things, if people get passionate about games then it's all good. Some games ARE featured in actual museums.
>Teens 100, 200, and 300 years from now are going to be told to play my favourite games

Attached: scooby ponders.png (318x284, 204K)

>their strenght is interactivity, and that is something no other art form has.
Interactive art installations have existed for a very long time. Also animation is not considered inferior, some actual 5/5 films are animated: Bambi, Perfect Blue, Akira, Triplets of Belleville, Fantastic Planet, Spirited Away.

Because hacks like Kojima, Levine, and Druckmann cant compete with the likes of Kubrick, Scorsese, or Spielberg

>t. unironically thinks Kojima is a genius

rent free

You forgot The Jungle Book bro

Just responding to the topic real quick
>Newer form of entertainment media so it gets more flak
>Initial marketing in the west was mainly towards kids (same as animation)
>Are often a bigger time and effort investment for the consumer than books, music and film
>Bigger barrier for entry leads to disinterest leads to dismissal leads to downplaying value in said medium
>We're only just beginning to see games study as academically acceptable (film/book/music academic level studies are a-ok)
>General public currently can only view games through popular well marketed titles, these are mainly more like products made to sell than someone's passion project trying to say something
>Games are consumed so vastly differently that most analysts/critics of the media fail to even judge what they play past the surface like story, graphics, music -> It's still fairly recent that people are evaluating how a game can make you feel or what it's trying to say just through the controls and play (even though games have evoked stronger feelings than other mediums have through game mechanics since their conception)

>even though games have evoked stronger feelings than other mediums have through game mechanics since their conception
I’m honestly confused by this

That's a bit of a hot take so I'll elaborate and I'll probably roll back on what I said. Essentially music and games are the fastest forms of entertainment to make you feel big emotions. With books and movies you can evoke these emotions too but with how they're structured and with how humans are wired you have to introduce characters, build atmosphere, have intrique, etc. that will eventually build up to a catharsis in which the consumer will feel those big emotions, good or bad.

With games you can have the consumer of that piece of media feel joy, sadness, excitement or anger just from playing 1-1 in Mario for the first time for example since it's on them to make Mario get to 1-2. If you're an active part of the experience you'll emote more easily. You win or have an epic gamer moment, you'll probably be happy. You die and you'll probably be surprised or frustrated.

Movies and books need to build up to these emotions more but they are better at a wider range of more subtle emotions that games can do aswell but it gets a bit tricky for the game dev. Like making you feel forlorn for something or happy for someone else is what books and movies do well through their strengths.

You may feel ‘joy’ or ‘sadness’ more quickly while playing Mario 1-1, but these emotions (which are really more like fleeting blips) are not nearly as intense as those generated by books or film.
More quickly? Sure. Comparable intensity? No

I somewhat agree. The "quickness" also applies to how good or bad the game/music piece is. You can tell instantly how good or bad these two mediums are compared to film/literature which may only become apparent after time spent.

YOU DO NOT WANT VIDEO GAMES TO BE RESPECTED AS AN ART FORM.

ART CRITICS HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THE MEDIUMS THEY PARASITIZE. THEY DO NOT CONSIDER THINGS WHOLISTICALLY, THEY WILL NOT COUNT FUNCTION AS PART OF THE ARTFORM. YOU WILL GET VASTLY WORSE VIDEO GAMES. VIDEO GAMES WILL LOSE THINGS THAT ARE PRECIOUS AND ESSENTIAL TO THEM.

DO NOT LET VIDEOGAMES EVER BE CONSIDERED AN ARTFORM. KEEPING THEM SEEN AS TOYS IS THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE BEING ART.

>The "quickness" also applies to how good or bad the game/music piece is.
Completely false for music, you must have been spoiled and have had your tastes dilited by pop. There's plenty of music, especially classical, that change their theme or mood partway through and may even feel like a different song is playing at times. Some of them rely on build up that cannot be achieved if you throw the "hook" at the listener off the bat like what so much music is doing now to try to grab your attention as quickly as possible. Take something like The Lark Ascending for example, no way in hell would you get the feel and experience that the piece conveys through listening to just the first 30 seconds, let alone instantly.

>Because moviefags are extremely pretenious.
One part this.

Next part is that many devs have cast aside the actual core essence of game design, mechanics and interaction, in an attempt to be like movies. This has been happening since the 5th generation of consoles, and has only gotten worse and more prevalent with time.

The part after that is the absurd focus on graphics. Games have to look pretty at the expense of everything else. Mechanical innovation has stagnated, AI has stagnated, The ability to interact with the environment has stagnated despite Minecraft existing, it's ridiculous. What is worse is that people are 100% okay with this, and will throw a fit if the graphics on a game are not exceptional at least. They accept literal mountains of horrible practices, bland mechanics, and stale games because they look pretty enough.

For the third: Gambling mechanics are very easy to implement and are very lucrative. If user has ever said "Yes I play this Gacha game, but I never HAD to pay anything for my Bridal wear Wikipe-tan!", you're exactly where these developers want you. They want people to have a sense that it's possible to get whatever skin/weapon/character they want from the game from a random pull, even when it's equally as possible that they will never get it. People pay thousands of dollars for pictures and single assets, and somehow this is okay? What's more there's no regulation, so these kind of systems can be placed in games directly aimed at 12 year olds, it's insane.

Attached: Bustgunner.gif (380x300, 673K)

We aren’t all that pretentious

you're right. I was talking about modern music; I think the best classical music falls under the category of sublime art like the best film/literature.

What happened to live-action film and tv. There are so many animated works, games, books and games I'm excited for. But in terms of live-action I can maybe think of 2-3 titles.

Oh yeah, what are they. Might be some more you don't know about I can tell you of that match those tastes.

>no problem child 2

In order of media that are suitable for presenting complex ideas in detail:
Literature > Theatre > Film > Art > Comic books > Japanese Comic Books > Videogames

When you play a game, most of your brainpower is spent on the game and not about the message or the ideas that the creator wants you to think about. This is why it's inherently not a good medium for anything that requires deep thought. Even a game like Getting Over It with Bennett Foddy is just some guy talking over a difficult game, for there's nothing actually linking the game-play to the narrative. You could just as well listen to a five minute audio book and then play the game and you'd get the same message.

I really don't think video games have stagnated. It's like you said, game devs are sacrificing what makes games so great in exchange for making them more "cinematic". If devs changed their priorities then I'm sure video games would see a new resurgence in mechanical and AI depth.

This is such an absurd statement. You're setting an arbitrary standard for why video games can't present complex ideas.

Video gamers are retarded and you have to make things for the audience

It's just age. Movies were considered trash for long time. Even novels were.

>Video gamers are retarded and you have to make things for the audience

This is probably the most vacuous and Yea Forums-like statement I've ever heard in my life. You're literally saying that it doesn't matter if games present complex ideas, because that pesky "gameplay" just gets in the way. You realize you are no different than those game journalists that say "fun" isn't important, right? You're just taking the opposite end of the hyperbolic approach.

well you dont see it that way as a consumer, but unfortunatly most of their creators see it this way. it was a process but it´s true. today even 18+ plus games are for babbies and guess why?
games which require some brainpower will simply drown in the sea of simple games but visually impressive ones. there are as always few exceptions but the general consensus is:
games have to be playable for everybody, and if you dont follow this credo, you wont ship as much as your competitor. it´s sad. try to compare tomb rider riddles back then and now.
adventure games almost died out and have some handholding mechanic.

>games which require some brainpower will simply drown in the sea of simple games but visually impressive ones. there are as always few exceptions but the general consensus is:

You realize that this is the case for books and movies, right? You realize that FUCKING AVENGERS is one of the most financially successful movies of all time, right? You can't decide the artistic merits of something solely because of the trash it produces. That's like me saying painting is worthless because modern art sucks.

Challenging mechanical skill is just as valid and honestly more interesting than boring ass puzzles. Before you @ me I read regularly.

What do you read :)

It’s certainly true that both novels and film were initially produced as entertainment teather than individual self-expression. Eventually both ended up becoming more personalized and nuanced (auteur theory in film’s case). It’ll be interesting to see if video games ever get over this hump, though they certainly have an obstacle in that they’re more interactive and, thereby, their creation hinges upon the user’s desires, too. This is true for any medium, but more so for video games, where the consumer essentially demands that the product be catered to be as ‘fun’ for him as possible

A lot of genre fiction, but I have a degree in English and teach it, I've read a ton of classics. I just don't read them a ton anymore.

No I think it's pretty much just age honestly. Film is 99% trash but it just stuck around long enough to get credit.

>Film is 99% trash

Why does Yea Forums consistently talk out of its ass when it comes to art?

Attached: 1563926023300.jpg (380x369, 25K)

99% of all media is trash dude. I took film elective and have filmmaker friends. I feel qualified.

yeah i know that it applies to the media in general for a few years. we get more shit and it´s harder to find the diamonds. that´s why i consume media backwards, i love old shit because it had more love put into and most of the time i really enjoy it.
i agree with you there, never was big into adventure games, but i got the feeling it´s all there left, challenging mechanical gameplay. "challeging intellectual" gameplay is non existent because there´s always some help. i dont care if you read. reading does not equate eloquence, intelligence or superority, we´re the same trash shit :]

nowadays media is brainless, degenerate, mass control. thanks for reading, have a good one

First of all, no you didn't.

Second of all, imagine unironically thinking that you're so smart that you're above all forms of media and entertainment. Imagine unironically thinking that you're smarter than the vast majority of people on the planet.

You realize that you sound exactly like those "I HATE MY GENERATION :(((" kids, right?

You’re incredibly unqualified

I’m talking about something inherent in the medium.

Yes I did.
More than most of you literally teenagers though.

Dilate trannies

Lol I like how you didn't even deny that you think you're smarter than everyone. Get fucked.

Cope

I didn't say that. 99% of what's produced is pretty shit. Maybe 95. If you're not too good for big bang theory that's sad dude.

The highest achievements in narrative for video games according to popularity are Kojima's Metal Gear Solid series, The Last of Us and Rockstar's latest narrative tripe.
You can see why video games are considered low brow. They're a cesspool for people who wouldn't make it in a morning TV show writing department, so these failed writers latch on to a medium where you can shit out 7 Dragon Ball games in the same console generation and nobody would bat an eye.
It's also the fact that the medium is infested with children, manchildren, the people who fund the latest superhero shlock plaguing theaters, and degenerates who watch anime like Fate or Naruto and only want more of that, when there is a myriad of legitimately great Japanese games that manage to do something only possible within the medium of video games.

DILATE!

Less Jews in it

Watch everything on here if you want to be considered above pleb status but still looked down upon.

Attached: file.png (1487x1400, 1.2M)

Why do you dipshits keep appealing to popularity when it comes to the merits of a video game's narrative? Again, this is like me pointing to Avengers Endgame and saying that all movies are shit.

Planescape Torment, New Vegas, Dark Souls, Hollow Knight, I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream. These are all games with either fantastic narratives or extremely unique ways they present their narratives. I know you're all just going to do the typical Yea Forums thing where you handwave all of these games and just vacuously say they're all shit, but you're just objectively wrong. Video games are just as valid as movies and books.

The conversation surrounding "art" is so poisoned with preconceived notions that it's no wonder people think video games aren't art or shouldn't be art.

Some people hear "art" and automatically think "good" or "skilled" or "meaningful."
But art isn't inherently good, or skilled, or meaningful.

Art is the unique act and capacity for humans to express themselves, to create things.

Your 5th grader's crayon drawing a cat is art.
White Chicks is art.
A football jersey is art.
Video games are art.

Video games won't be accepted as an artistic medium until we all stop being fucking retarded and engage honestly with what art ACTUALLY is, instead of what we WANT it to be.

Faggots constantly being like "games aren't art, look at Call of Duty!"
Call of Duty is art.
Faggots constantly being like "games are art! Look at the Last of Us!"
Games didn't suddenly become art just because you finally found one you liked.

Games have been art since Tennis for Two, they will always be art, and it's high time we figured that the fuck out because it isn't that hard.

you sound like a happy sheep

The argument here isn't if video games ARE art, but if they hold the same artistic merits as movies and books. Video games don't have anything to say. They're jut toys.

>Video games are just as valid as movies and books.
Nah

BTT: vidya can be art, but mostly it´s not even trying to be that

Movies don't have to say anything either. It's not about whether they all do, but whether the medium has the capacity to say something.

>if they hold the same artistic merits as movies and books
Of course they do. Nothing about the medium precludes it from any of the things literature, film, or music are capable of.

But video games don't HAVE to offer the same things as literature, film or music.
Video games aren't those mediums. Would you judge The Beatles on how well they replicate the artistic merits of the Mona Lisa?

>They're just toys.
And toys are also art.

>Why do you dipshits keep appealing to popularity when it comes to the merits of a video game's narrative?
Because there has been no truly great video game that stands on its own and manages to garner immense popularity. Video games have no Kubrick, Citizen Kane (remember when they tried to say TLoU was the Kane of video games?), Hitchcock, immensely popular figures and pieces of art that show just what the medium can do. Rather, it is filled with hacks and all the actually good shit is pushed into the niches. The last truly great Western game I can think of didn't even pull in a million sales, that being inFamous 2, which was the only video game to use the Good/Bad karma system properly and had it befit the narrative without going comically good or evil at any point.
>I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream
Amazing adventure game, however it required writing from an accomplished author, Harlan Ellison. It is also incredibly disrespected by the modern day game critics, or at least that's what I gather from Joseph Anderson's stream of the game.
>These are all games with either fantastic narratives or extremely unique ways they present their narratives.
The only other two I played were New Vegas and Dark Souls, and I found them subpar.
>I know you're all just going to do the typical Yea Forums thing where you handwave all of these games and just vacuously say they're all shit, but you're just objectively wrong.
There are some games I consider good pieces of art.
There is the original 4 Silent Hill titles, an obvious set to include. Yoko Taro's works also do well enough to take advantage of the way they're presented, Gravity Rush, the Danganronpa trilogy really shines in its themes and characters (shame about the fanbase surrounding it), Dragon Quest V, and many others.
>Video games are just as valid as movies and books.
Tell me when video games get their own The Shining or Grail.

Just the ones that wandered in from Reddit.

>The only other two I played were New Vegas and Dark Souls, and I found them subpar.

Of course you did. Because you don't like video games. I think this might be the most pretentious post in all of Yea Forums. I'm being serious. This is almost as bad as "fun is a buzzword". Again, I've listed plenty of games that have just as much merit as movies and books, and you just handwaved them and said they're subpar. You're just a fucking idiot.

The thing people seem to forget is that classic cinema and literature had their fair-share of over-praised works that are actually kind of tripe when you read them these days. Outside of historical classics that were paving the way for storytelling, there's really very little difference between books like Fahrenheit 451 or movies like Taxi Driver/Kubrick's work/etc. (Hitchcock was on an entirely different level, but even then he made movies like The Birds)

While a lot of people hate the game and it's fanbase, the narrative of Mother 3 and how it handles themes relating to technological dystopias and "common man" struggles is incredibly similar (in process, not theme) to how writers like Golding deconstructed people in "Lord of the Flies".

Silent Hill 2 and SOMA (even though I love Silent Hill 1 and 3 more), while aping from established films, offer stories that are as effective in getting across psychological horror as Lynch's "Eraserhead".

What more games are failing to do, and the main issue, is marrying their mechanics with their storytelling. Starbreeze's indie game Brothers is the kind of game that should be taught in game design. While the game's mechanics are horrendously shallow for most hardcore players, it uses it's mechanic to convey an incredibly poignant emotion through the gameplay.

The issue is people haven't figured out to have games as complex as Deus Ex and bring all of a game's various systems together so they all meaningfully impact both the player's experience in a way beyond "that was a challenge". When an incredibly simple indie game from a movie director winds up understanding the medium better than even it's own designers, it goes to show how much room for improvement still exists in the art form.

Normalfags flooded in and we didn't establish a hierarchy of arse-sniffing elitists before they did to let everyone know what's "good".

>Video games have no Kubrick, Citizen Kane (remember when they tried to say TLoU was the Kane of video games?), Hitchcock, immensely popular figures and pieces of art that show just what the medium can do.
Yes they do, of fucking course they do.

>Tell me when video games get their own The Shining or Grail.
What do you mean by this?
What parameters are looking to have filled?

And why does video games have to emulate film for you to consider it art?

>Video games don't have anything to say.
ok

The thing you have to realize is that people like Kubrick really weren't appreciated during their time. Hell, there was even a point where Kubrick films were considered "niche" and even somewhat "obscure". I really do think the people of the future will look back on games like Brothers and appreciate how they manage to present their narrative, meanwhile tripe like TLOU will be forgotten.

>Of course you did. Because you don't like video games.
No, I like video games. There's a reason I have a section of my shelf dedicated to the Resident Evil franchise and I own every Metal Gear title despite shitting on the series earlier.
>I think this might be the most pretentious post in all of Yea Forums
You clearly don't leave Yea Forums much.
>Again, I've listed plenty of games that have just as much merit as movies and books, and you just handwaved them and said they're subpar.
Because they are. Read more books that aren't YA trash and watch more films that aren't summer blockbusters.
>Yes they do, of fucking course they do.
What game won "Game of the Year" last year? A sequel to a game series that finished telling its story a decade ago? A sequel that told nothing new and tried to retool its main character, a sequel which ignored the fact that the original was trying to emulate a Greek Tragedy?
>What do you mean by this?
When will there be a popular video game that actually says something and doesn't just dribble its way to the end credits, using film tropes and trying to be a movie.
>And why does video games have to emulate film for you to consider it art?
I never once said that. I bet you didn't even know one of the things I listed is a novella, you absolute simpleton.

>Yes they do, of fucking course they do
Who is the kubrick of video games, I would love to play their game

Part of this was meant for

They don't. Video games have the most childish and simplistic themes ever.

Spec Ops: The Line boils down to "war is bad".
Dark Souls boils down to "muh cycle of life and death"
Bioshock boils down to "unchecked capitalism is bad"

Video games really are just a waste of fucking time, and I wouldn't shed a tear if the government banned them.

>they don't say anything
>here's 3 examples where they say something
ok

Based

Oh okay, my bad. Video games DO say stuff. They're just childish and simplistic, much like the people that play them.

>What game won "Game of the Year" last year?
So we're judging artistic merit by award shows, now?
Black Panther says hello.

>a popular video game that actually says something
What do you mean by "say something?"
Every game says something.
>I never once said that
It's heavily implied by your preoccupation with film as a comparison.

Tell me what you mean by "the Kubrick of video games"

>if I boil down X to its most basic properties, that means it's simple and therefore bad
0IQ argument, I'm honestly embarrassed for you

>unironically

>literally

I want this generation to read more. Then I want it to die.

ok

>2048x1151
>80 KB
how the fuck

Attached: corgi3.png (273x220, 139K)

>>if I boil down X to its most basic properties, that means it's simple and therefore bad

user, what else does Bioshock have to offer besides its shallow themes of "capitalism bad"?

you really don't know, or are you just pretending?

Ironically why Japan puts out games of higher quality than the West on average. Driven by one person with a vision versus a committee of businessmen.

Play the game and find out.

Yes
I said play
Because video games are an interactive medium, and much to your pretentious chagrin that interactivity IS part of what it offers as a work of art.

>So we're judging artistic merit by award shows, now?
It's by what is popular. I said this before, nothing commonly known in video games is deep in any way.
>Black Panther says hello.
Terrible movie, yes. 2018 was a terrible year for film.
>What do you mean by "say something?"
I figured I didn't need to add "of value" to the end of that. Most people would figure it out on their own.
>It's heavily implied by your preoccupation with film as a comparison.
It wasn't. You're just a lesser person who can't read.

I've played Bioshock before. What, are you gonna pretend the "would you kindly" twist is anything but a semi-decent twist?

If you're willing to judge the artistic merits of a story by its "twist" then you're an idiot.

>Tell me what you mean by "the Kubrick of video games”
Interpret this however you’d like

I made a typo. I'm also probably older than you. And yes most of you are literally teenagers on this board. There is no greater sin than being a teenager.

who said anything about that? what were some other themes in Bioshock user?

The guy who did Deadly Premonition for sure.

>nothing commonly known in video games is deep in any way
Do you mean in the general populace or among enthusiasts?
Because of course the masses aren't cognizant of """important""" or """deep""" or """meaningful""" works because those things don't appeal to the lowest common denominator that is the majority of people.

>I figured I didn't need to add "of value"
What is of value? At which point does a work of art's message become valuable, and who decides that?

Video games are more than their narrative.

To me Kubrick is a director who controlled almost the entirety of his films to deliver a specific creative vision. In other words, an auteur.

This happens all the time in video games. David Cage and Hideo Kojima are two big names that come to mind.
Others might be Yoko Taro or Peter Molyneux.

it's because game developers use video games as a simple vehicle to tell a story instead of using the gameplay itself as a storytelling method. it's as if they made a movie using only flat angles, its all so soulless and bland. but every now and then there are video games that do an interesting spin on the delivery using gameplay, games like silent hill 4.

Honestly I kind of agree because you see youtubers digging up really old games and doing entire videos praising their design sometimes.
In addition, most people ask "What is the Citizen Kane of video games" which is one of the most confusing statements, not because it's hard to see what games were conisdered ahead of their time... but because Citizen Kane (Welles in general) itself wasn't even that big of a success when it was first released either. So when you say Mario 64 (or to be very technical Jumping Flash or maybe that one PC platformer game i can't remember the name of)... people get what you mean, but the entire argument is based on a misconception of the work they're trying to compare it too.

It’s because art comes from academia, and academics have to be old and pretentious, so they haven’t yet grown up with video games. Another barrier is that playing video games requires some kind of coordination and reflexes, which old pretentious people aren’t going to have. Much easier to read a book or stare at a screen than get to the end of a video game.

...Nothing? There were other themes?
>Video games are more than their narrative?
Really? What else is there? Because if the only thing video games can offer is "fun" then you've already lost. I can skip stones across a lake and find that fun, that doesn't mean it has some resounding emotional impact like a good book or a movie. Nobody is going to change their perspective on life because of a video game like a good book does. Video games aren't going to change our outlook on society like a good book does.

Silent Hill 2, 3 and 4 were all ahead of their time. Silent Hill 3 was exploring female perspectives and stuff like modern indie games are praised for, and that was back in the early 2000's.

Even Silent Hill 1's not as refined narratively but it's basically a "good" version of a Steven King story (since most of his horror isn't as good as people think based on how popular he is). And it's world design was likewise very advanced.

>Really? What else is there?
You did not just ask me
On Yea Forums - Video Games

You did NOT just ask me what video games can offer besides their narrative

I swear to fucking God

Attached: 1550585671357.jpg (617x816, 172K)

>Because of course the masses aren't cognizant of """important""" or """deep""" or """meaningful""" works because those things don't appeal to the lowest common denominator that is the majority of people.
Full Metal Jacket.
>What is of value? At which point does a work of art's message become valuable, and who decides that?
If you honestly believe something like The Last of Us has artistic value, that's on you.
The message becomes valuable when people can relate to it and embed it into their lives. Before you say people can do that with The Last of Us, the reason its message is inherently invaluable, is because it's one that has been told a thousand time. The reason a game like Danganronpa V3, despite everything, has a valuable message is because it's one that can only be given through the circumstances of its time and place.

I like how you blatantly didn't read the rest of my post.

>and stories of different kinds started flourishing.

All I see is capeshit, ripoffs of classics and the usual 90IQ love comedies with jokes that seem they were written by middleschoolers.

I only consider stuff like Getting Over It and Papers, Please to be art because they actually use game design to deliver their themes.

Not all games have to be fun, that's the point being made. Some games can say "fuck narrative" and use their design to create an engaging experience that will be a shining example of those aspects of the art form. But other games can use those mechanics to convey something that's more profound or worldly than fun and enjoyment.

There's nothing wrong or lesser about games that shun narrative, but they won't be recognized in academia until people that "don't play games" can consume them like a book or movie and get something personal out of it.

The funny part is we're kind of at that point, tons of people cry over modern indie games and other shit, but there's just nobody pushing to justify that into academia. To be fair who gives a shit. Care more that creators just keep making what they want to make, any sort of review can come later.

No, MY point being made is that video games aren't important. They will never hold any cultural influence like 1984.

While i agree with what you're saying, it's ridiculous to ignore games with more traditional forms of storytelling and design. They just operate on two different levels. It's like saying A Space Odyssey is the only artistic movie because it has absolutely no story and only exists as moving pictures that serve to convey the theme of the film.

Spoiler alert: "fun" is not the answer

Also, I really shouldn't have to point out to you how disgustingly pretentious it is to require art to "change [your] perspective" or "change our outlook on society"

Like Jesus fucking Christ, get over yourself you prick

>If you honestly believe something like The Last of Us has artistic value, that's on you.
I believe all video games have artistic value.
>The message becomes valuable when people can relate to it and embed it into their lives.
In other words, it's completely subjective and you have absolutely no grounds upon which to deem any single work of art "valuable" because to anyone else it might not hold any value whatsoever.
>it's one that has been told a thousand times
So a message inherently loses value with repetition.

Why not?

Rain World was pure art and got overlooked because part of its message was conveyed in how difficult it was.
From this, we can conclude that casuals are holding the medium back. You have to achieve a certain level of sophistication to actually engage with film or literature critically, but even video game critics balk at the idea of investing that kind of effort into video games.

Pac-Man was quite influential in the 80s.

>Also, I really shouldn't have to point out to you how disgustingly pretentious it is to require art to "change [your] perspective" or "change our outlook on society"
Cool, so I'm glad that you just admitted that Avengers is on the same level as 2001 A Space Odyssey. Glad to know that you're a literal cave-dweller.
>Why not?
Because at the end of the day, video games are toys. They're marketed as toys, they're designed to be toys, and they're consumed as toys. Toys don't change society.

>I believe all video games have artistic value.
All video games can be art. Not all of them have value.
>So a message inherently loses value with repetition.
A message loses value when it has been done before and better.

1984's cultural influence is a pack of barely cognisant retards who can only express themselves in terms of how "Orwellian" something is. If that's cultural influence then I'm glad vidya doesn't have any

That's just your cynicism talking. Anybody that gives a fuck won't just bend over and accept that line of thinking.
Also newsflash: people would ignore the cultural significance of 1984 depending on how their society has developed. People are equating the Trump administration to 1984 in fucking college because of their efforts to "censor the truth". I don't give a fuck what political stance you take, even if you agree, that goes to show how society and royally distort whatever form of art it wants to serve it's needs. Go ahead and say some "hurr /pol/ shit" if anyone wants, you're missing the point of the argument.

Fame.

Short and simple.

Games don't have famous over-paid actors, with grandiose release events attended by hundreds of A-list celebrities.

Movies are steeped in fame and fortune, and attract the public eye because of cult-of-personality media.

Games are just toys to them.

Not enough Jews

Difficulty is something interesting and unique to the art form. I kind of feel like Demon's Souls and Dark Souls do similar things through their difficulty, in DeS it's very much intentional when you get to King Allant, but in DaS it's more questionable.

Not enough time has passed. Nobody thought movies were an art form in the early days, but now it's been over a hundred years of cinema and there's a movie for every person. Dramas, action, comedy, super heroes, romance, animation.
Movies can be almost anything because it's been a hundred years since we have them, even old old people like movies

Video games are still very young and are still seen as merely entertainment, the NES was just over 35 years ago. The oldest gamers around are 40 year-olds, so old people still look at games like expensive toys.
Millennials are the first generation of parents that grew up with videogames.

Also this.

Nice job projecting modern identity politics into the conversation, retards. The thing about 1984 is that it managed to make our society more cautious about the power our government can wield. Even if you think that modern leftist politics suffer as a result of it, you still can't deny that 1984 had a positive cultural impact, unlike, say...Pacman.

Fair enough. But I love when the work fully relies on its media to deliver their messages.

>I'm glad that you just admitted that Avengers is on the same level as 2001 A Space Odyssey
They're both art, yes.
Are they the same? Do they offer the audience the same experience, or send the same message, or affect them in the same way?

Of course not.
They're still both equally a part of the medium of film, which is an artistic medium, making both films works of art.

Get your head out of your ass.

>video games are toys
So what?
>Toys don't change society
Yes they do.
But something doesn't have to "change society" to be art. That's an absolutely ludicrous position to have.

>A message loses value when it has been done before and better.
I don't think that's really about the message so much as it is the work's efficacy in delivering it

Is Space Odyssey really your favorite movie though? Or are you just highlighting the objective nature of it's composition?

If anything, I'd argue that video games are actually maturing much faster than your typical form of media. There's at least some level of mechanical self-awareness.

...

>I don't think that's really about the message so much as it is the work's efficacy in delivering it
And when it's delivered poorly, it loses value.
For example, The Last Jedi could've been incredibly deep and interesting, had it not been for the incredibly poor writing and filler keeping it from being told, as well as another message being told at the same time and in quite possibly the poorest fashion I have ever seen.

I hate political comparisons but it's usually the easiest thing to get across on this board. Moving on, why the fuck do you have to compare Pac-Man to 1984. That isn't an equivalent comparison. You should be comparing 1984 to stuff like Mother 3 or I Have No Mouth, and even then that's just off the top of my head, you'd need to look at the exact themes and ideas 1984 and find a game similar enough. Its likely one doesn't exist yet, but it's also likely it does and neither of us know about it, and it's also likely that it will exist in the future.

Again, why i say cyncism is the foundation of your argument. It's not even remotely trying to be objective.

Not him.
>I Have No Mouth
That was originally a book.

Also not him but the book and game tells completely different stories, and the game is a sequel to the book.

Okay user, tell me a video game that manages to tell the same themes as 1984 but better. I'll wait.

Honestly I was just throwing that out there for the PC crowd, but having not read the book, that doesn't mean the game doesn't still offer something different than what the book does. The Godfather was also a book but general consensus in academic study is the movies are even better than it's original format.

portal

I said "but better" numbnuts.

I answere that back in "Its likely one doesn't exist yet, but it's also likely it does and neither of us know about it, and it's also likely that it will exist in the future."

Stop being a cynical asshole addicted to Yea Forums and do your own research. I already gave you an answer to that question. If you really give a shit, go look for yourself, but i'm guessing you don't and just want to prove how "right" you are while the rest of us are actually discussing what's keeping games from having academic prestige.

Attached: dug.jpg (720x720, 70K)

1984 specifically?

Well, there's the Orwell duology
I don't know about "better"
But it utilizes the interactivity of the medium to deliver a unique perspective on the concept

Here's the reason why I hate video games and I don't consider them art:

Imagine you spent years of your life as a painter. You started drawing since you were only ten years old, and you practiced as much and as often as you could. You're 30 years old now. You've created piece after piece after piece, and you pray that one day you'll be recognized as a legitimate artist. Maybe you'll have a painting hung up in a museum. Maybe you'll go down in history.

Now imagine that a group of fat, sweaty, disgusting nerds insist that their little video game toys have just as much artistic merit as your paintings. Imagine people unironically thinking that a soulless corporate product like Star Wars Battlefront is just as valid as your paintings.

This is why I hate gamers. This is why I can't fucking stand video games. They're a pass time. That's it.

Attached: 1553445412682.jpg (253x322, 17K)

This.
Fuck the people claiming for video games to get prestige. The day that happens, I GUARANTEE video games will die as reviewers start calling games shit for not being "muh artpiece".

That didn't happen with movies. Why would that happen with video games?

I love how pretty much all of those minus 2001, Lawrence of Arabia, and The Good the Bad and The Ugly are boring as fuck.

This is exactly what will happen in the future if videogames are seen as art.

So your problem with video games being art is... the "disgusting nerds" the enjoy them?
And cherrypicked "soulless corporate products?"

Do you consider film to be art? Because those same fat, sweaty, disgusting nerds are making superhero movies the biggest thing in the medium right now.

Wait
That story about the painter couldn't possibly
It's not YOU, is it?

You're not just extremely bitter about your failing artistic career, are you?

Most paintings are trash though. Code can be downright artistic. Videogame music is obviously art. Concept art is better than a lot of painting ETC.

I find it funny that you think the same artists trying to make it in the museum are somehow different from the artists making trying to make it with production work.

Consumers really are brainless.

People are far more likely to listen to game reviewers than they are to listen to film reviewers. The latter are far more likely to gauge films as a whole, whereas the former gauge videogames based on their entertainment value and nothing else.

>Why don't video games have the same prestige as film?

Why would you even want them to have the same "prestige" as film?

Most of the prestige you speak of is just pretentious elitism.

This is the irony of SJWs wanting vidya to be "respected" like movies.

>So your problem with video games being art is... the "disgusting nerds" the enjoy them?

Yup. Exactly. You're acting like that's some weird thing, but art is a two-way street. The people who consume your art reflects what kind of art you make. I want more art that makes people think, not art that makes people's dopamine senses tingle when they see pretty colors and flashing lights.

Your pain makes me happy. There, I said it.
The fact that you can't even enjoy living vicariously through a person who only exists in your head gives me joy like you wouldn't believe

Attached: 1555653070623.png (1336x1060, 1.05M)

This is why I hate having this conversation on Yea Forums. You idiots always devolve it into "muh SJW" shit.

Grow the fuck up.

Attached: 1554622708214.jpg (1024x1004, 60K)

>I want more art that makes people think
Video games have that, too

You probably aren't thinking to hard yourself, making sweeping generalizations about an entire medium like that

So do you think the artists who work in games and quite like games are not artists at all because you don't like the people who play games?
Did they not study endlessly? Did they not work hard to perfect their craft? Do they not have dreams of their work being seen by the world?

What is the difference?

>Video games have that, too

NO THEY FUCKING DON'T! THAT HAS BEEN MY POINT FORM THE VERY FUCKING BEGINNING, YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKING LEECH!

THERE IS NO VIDEO GAME THAT MAKES YOU FUCKING THINK! GAMES ARE JUST A SERIES OF BRIGHT FLASHING COLORS AND "BING BING WAHOOS"! THAT'S FUCKING IT! JUST BECAUSE YOU DISGUISE YOURSELF WITH A SWEEPING ORCHESTRA SOUNDTRACK AND PRETTY GRAPHICS DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU AREN'T PLAYING WITH FUCKING TOYS!

GOD FUCKING DAMNIT I HATE YOU ALL SO FUCKING MUCH! YOU MENTAL FUCKING PYGMIES!

Attached: 1553658218881.jpg (1651x1261, 749K)

There are no artists that work in games.

Are you claiming to have played every video game there is, or are you talking out your ass based on popular titles you see commercials for on TV

>THERE IS NO VIDEO GAME THAT MAKES YOU FUCKING THINK!
See pic.

If it makes you feel any better, only books have made me "think" in the fashion you're speaking of. Most Paintings and Movies are equally as vapid, but the people who consume them have the massive ego that I just despise.

Attached: BabaIsYou.jpg (1000x1000, 99K)

Except there are. There are video games that make you think. You can argue they're subhuman in some manner, but going back to 1984 there are plenty of subhumans who thought that really made them think too

I've asked OVER AND FUCKING OVER IN THIS FUCKING THREAD for an example of a game that isn't shallow and derivative. You people have failed to meet that fucking requirement.

All I'll say is that if you need a fucking book/movie/painting/videogame to think, then you are doomed.

That said, if all "art" means is "it makes you think", then sure a videogame can be art, why not?

So what is the difference between the painters? Is it purely their audience?

Gravity Rush
Tearaway

You're failing to engage in good faith with the medium of video games and you seem very preoccupied with what a video game offers via its narrative rather than what it offers as a complete experience

All you want is some pretentious garbage like whatever film school prereqs you binged over the summer

You don't want to talk about art.
You just want to feel smarter than us.

I've cried more from video games than movies or songs. I've been scared from horror games than horror movies or horror books. I've been more hyped and pumped up from a game than any movie or book.

I'm not trying to downplay books or movies at all. I'm just saying that video games have more emotional merit to me than other forms of art. To me, video games can inspire just as much emotion. Isn't that the goal of art at the end of the day? To try and invoke emotion out of people?

Attached: 1552511110556.jpg (640x633, 44K)

Don't throw out the value a piece of art/book/movie/game can bring to someone's life. Everyone has had their life touched and their perception changed by something, may it be the Bible, the Republic, or even something like Gurren Lagann. The work of men are flawed, since all men are flawed, but that doesn't mean they should not try to do good for people.

What always gets my goat is when people put their pet medium on a pedestal and pretend they're inherently better for read/viewing/watching/listening to that.

No, the goal of art at the end of the day is to stroke your ego and make you feel smarter than everyone else.

Don't you know, user? Art isn't meant to be interpreted by different people. It's a competition to see how has the biggest intellectual dick.

This guy sperging out is probably just a failed art student who is desperately trying to justify their existence by poopooing what they were taught was illegitimate art. Brainless AND tasteless. I would be mad too.

Oh great, another mouth breather who thinks he knows anything about """good art""" because
>but representational art is prettier :((
No shit you actual moron. When people are trying to depict reality as though the canvas is indistinguishable from a real event, then yes, masterful skill and artistic techniques are quite valued in the making of them. But that is not all that's going on in "traditional" art works. Anybody can get good at chipping or painting. Do you think people talk about Dying Gaul because it's a real pretty sculpture (it's not compared to others), or because of its early depiction of an enemy of the state being handled with dignity and respect? Is stuff like The Gleaners or The Floor Scrapers remembered because of their brush strokes or because of how they advanced interest in and the narratives of the lives of commoners? LHOOQ, a photo of the Mona Lisa with a mustache drawn on, came out in 1919, and discourse about what art can be has been going on before that and ever since. Next time think about educating yourself before saying something so stereotypical and devoid of any critical fucking thinking.

Attached: Screenshot_20190724-110344_Quizlet.jpg (590x1016, 361K)

Well when you put it that way, it sounds like painting and sculpting is a vapid field that lacks any real depth and has to resort to messages and meanings to get anyone to pay any real attention.

I think the issue with discussing videogames as a medium is that we can get hung up on what part is actually videogame. There can be cutscenes or dialogue or visual novel but all of those things are really just presenting another medium inside something we call a videogame. What's unique to videogames is the gameplay, and few things have been able to elevate gameplay to a very meritorious art form. You can have stuff like RPG choices or QTEs but such things influence what is told, not how a story is told, so they don't seem that interesting. MGS2 is a good contender though.
We can certainly call COD or Tennis for Two art, but it's in the same way a paddle ball or broom is art, which art enthusiasts don't have much interest discussing.

Reminder that, without a definition of art, these threads are worthless.

That's literally the premise of the fucking thread.

>Grow the fuck up.

You're literally a fucking film snob trying to shit on regular gamers who don't care what people think of them for just playing fucking video games.

Who gives a fuck if Roger Ebert thinks your favorite walking simulator is progressive enough.

Nobody.

Get the fuck off my board.

Why do you pretend to see movies you haven’t seen? What do you gain?

Anybody can paint and sculpt, yes, so you should be able to bring something worth discussing if you want art enthusiasts to take interest. People don't like to talk about it, but art, interesting or not, has been a way to flaunt wealth and transfer money for the longest time, so can't say there's not some pre-tension baked into the topic

I feel like games like Waxworks, I Have No Mouth, and other PnC adventures like it are the closest to feeling more than a toy, and just entertainment in general. Games that feel like you're not just brainlessly consuming something, but something that's challenges the way you consume them as well.

Attached: Waxworks 1992.webm (480x300, 2.98M)

If paintings, music, literature and film are all art. Then why is a form of media that uses all four but adds the element of interactivity not also art.

Why can we slice out a soundtrack made exclusively for a game and call that art but not include the fact it was made to be accentuated by it's place in the game. Character models are digital sculptures aren't they? Is a beautiful alien landscape in a game not artistic? Those tragic backstories and uplifting redemption arcs may be shorter than a novel, but they are still literature, no? Fantastic battle cinematic scenes are again, short as hell, but still utilize all the tools film uses to do things like frame the shot don't they?

I might be an ignorant asshole but this seems like a no-brainer to me. People need to stop being elitist fags who want to feel superior and gatekeep shit all the time and learn to just appreciate all works that people have put time and effort in to making, even if it's just a plain wood cube. It's not hard to acknowledge that it might mean absolutely nothing to you, but since when has your opinion mattered in the grand scheme of things anyway. Just let things be.

because even more so than film, vidya is controlled by corporate interests that seek to create a product with no regards to an artistic vision. Anything and everything good will be thrown out if it might make a buck. Video games have no artistic integrity thus they have no prestige.

growing up means no longer playing video games
fuck off

art is subjective, that's why all of these threads are just about people bitching about why they don't get respect for playing video games. it's not that they actually care about videogames as art, they clearly include artistic endeavor, the only actual difference is that film is respected as art and videogames are not

stop caring what people think and "grow the fuck up" as the SJW poster said earlier

Based and thank you

Your post contradicts itself, the game is not a sequel at all, it only shares the basic aspects of the charachters.

>Only da Ess Jay Dubayuus want videogames to be "respected"
Gamers, 'hardcore' or 'casual' and whatever else labels you want to invoke, have been shitting and pissing themselves since the beginning of time that Majora's Mask or [insert game here] isn't more respected as art by the general public. Saying that non-'SJW's never wanted videogames to be art is your own cope over the fact that now some people are examining vidya as something artful at the same time that the people going into game development lean left and don't have an aneurysm about writing gay characters.

>EA and Ubisoft are all of video games

When films started out they were made as a form of artistic expression, when video games started out they were seen as toys of children. Of course video games are a legitimate form of expression as massive amounts of creativity is needed to create them, but it's hard to shake the stigma.

I also refuse to believe films are even an artform anymore considering the highest grossing films are all low brow brainlet entertainment like capeshit.

The question shouldn't be "are video games art?" The question should be "should we take video games seriously as an art form?"

The answer is no. We shouldn't. The last thing we need is for infantile gamers to feel validated. There's a reason why you don't bring your Nintendo Switch out in public if you're over the age of 10.

It took movies quite a while to garner that prestige. Many of the oldfags that "decide" this things still associate videogames with pong, give it time.

I think the question is what videogames are bringing as a full package. For a comparison, people don't talk about miniatures in movies the same way they do the overall cinematography of movies. Lots of movies are out there with beautiful and clever miniatures, but that's not focused on because the miniature is not the purpose of the work but rather an element meant to facilitate in. In the same way, speaking of videogames as a medium for art must invoke what the game accomplishes as a full package and not the elements of other mediums that make them games. In this respect, most videogames haven't been able to accomplish much not done to death in other mediums or even at least give them that interesting a spin. Story interactivity is interesting like in WRPGs or QTEs, but those more change what is told in the story, but not how it is told or depicted.

>The answer is no. We shouldn't. The last thing we need is for infantile gamers to feel validated.
What a petty and vindictive reason to dismiss the artistic validity of an entire medium

>Gamers, 'hardcore' or 'casual' and whatever else labels you want to invoke, have been shitting and pissing themselves since the beginning of time that Majora's Mask or [insert game here] isn't more respected as art by the general public.

You have to be at least 18 years of age to post here.

Nobody gave a fuck about "videogames as art" until the mass culture adopted vidya, of which the "left leaning game developers" of the millenial and zoomer generation are a part of.

Videogames were still looked down upon in the 90s and early 2000s as a "nerd thing" until Xbox Live took off and the medium became social-centric. Leftists congregate in upcoming subcultures because they derive social status from how "unknown" and "underground" their work is, despite their desperate cries for the opposite (inclusiveness, diversity).

I blame Xbox Live and "The Big Bang Theory" in particular for popularizing videogames to the point of giving leftists reason to make games more "underground" and hipster elitist.

People who played videogames before "Gamer" was an identity were just nerds who wanted to play their fucking games in peace without these kinds of arguments or "conversations". That's what I want to go back to, and it's why I'm only giving money to studios that make games completely apolitically and let their games speak for themselves.

If we base the legitimacy of movies as an art form on public attention, then videogames can never be art either. People didn't go see Bladerunner 2049. That doesn't mean it didn't exist. This isn't a new trend, you can go back about as long as you want and 'artful' movies are never the only ones (if they are at all) topping charts. The only time you can argue otherwise was when there were one or two movies in circulation anyways.

There are lots of movies that I wouldn't watch in public. Books too.

Art is petty and vindictive.

Not him but this about video games, not gamers. This is why games aren't taken with any seriousness. Unlike those that enjoy literature, music, and film, video games attract a gatekeeping community who dwell on being a "gamer", an individual that specifically exists to mindlessly consume product.

Sure, all other art forms have sects of gatekeeping, opinion jerking, and all sorts of discourse regarding criticism, but at its base none of its consumers tag themselves as a consumer. The closest you get are "audiophile", or "bookworm", or "film lover", which do not carry the same reductive connotation as "gamer", full of feeling yet lack of awareness.

So not only did video games grow up at the cusp of corporate meddling like said, it created a consumer base intent on denying any attempt to "grow up" the industry.

The very fact this thread invited gamers that easily drop the word "pretentious", "elitist" and "boring" shows why both industry and consumer are in a cesspool. Gamers treat anything that isn't a toy - something tactile and easily understandable - as something denied to them by merely having the gall to be challenging.

Unlike in literature, music, and film, where both their consumers are more open to both mainstream and niche, and there's no air of pretention or inferiority between the easily accessible (e.g the popularity of Seuss) alongside the harder to grasp.

Attached: flying over the sea.png (2560x1440, 2.39M)

You're essentially asking why team sports and board games do not have the same prestige as narrative media. Music isn't inherently narrative either, but music isn't really comparable to any other artform to begin with. Trying to argue a direct comparison between video games and film is a futile effort, they're both commercial and commodified under capitalism but fucking everything is, you're not paying any attention to what these things really are in their own right.

They’re certainly the standard the industry is tuned to.

Because vidya requires input from the player, and the average player is not creatively minded so by involving them you remove prestige because you have to make concessions to ensure that they are involved

And that's no different from music or film which are also dominated by giant corporations only out to make a profit.

Someone post that maze commentary in Half-Life 2.

>Nobody gave a fuck about videogames as art until the advent of mass-communication when people could talk to each about videogames as art
>The Big Bang Theory popularized gaming when there's like three scenes in that show about games and they're all either Sheldon being an unlikable autistic or people missing out on sex because they played a game
Yeah and Drake & Josh brought the Gamecube back into the vogue you fucking troglodyte. People don't watch The Big Bang Theory because they want to be losers, they're laughing at the users and the incomprehensible nature of their antisocial sperging. The BBG cast dress geek-chic only insofar as the main character wears glasses.
Geek-chic as a fashion is certainly more associated with people realizing "geeky" stuff is fun from the mass appeal hits of shit like Marvel and The Lego Movie and simply people who grew up with geeky stuff bringing into pop culture. Hate to break it to you but gaming isn't just you vs a world of posers.

>Bioshock boils down to "unchecked capitalism is bad"
>Rapture works well for almost a decade under the original ultra-capitalist system
>Ryan gets paranoid about foreign government agencies
>out of fear compromises on his ideals, starts illegalizing certain materials like Bibles
>this creates a black market and allows Fontaine to gain power
>Ryan starts lynching smugglers, turning his capitalist population against him and causing supporters like Sullivan to leave him, giving Fontaine's side a foothold
>city only collapses when Ryan completely abandons capitalism and nationalizes Fontaine Futuristics
Come on now user. I'm not saying the game was all about how great capitalism is, but it certainly wasn't an indictment of it. The basic facts of the plot show otherwise.

Attached: 1560428592047.gif (366x245, 224K)

Wasn't religion always illegal? He criticizes the Vatican and religion in general on the opening film.

Didn't Fontaine build his business empire on magical seaslug cocaine because Ryan didn't want to touch that shit?

Is Pathologic art?

>>Then why is it that the video game industry is not growing the same?
The companies up top want disposable money and push those things to the forefront much like how movies have started remaking successful properties for an easy buck.

How can you say so little in so much while feigning insight and not know this? There's info all over for anyone barely literate to hear how DLC, Mobile, Lootboxes and so forth have influenced things.

Physical objects =/= religion
He was highly critical of religion from the start, but just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you jail them for their beliefs, or possessing objects related to it, nor is there evidence he did that at the beginning. Sullivan's audio diaries show the police force being progressively disgusted with the measures he starts implementing, and how punishing people for "running contraband" is contradictory to the city's ideals.
2's canonicity is debatable but it actually touches on this; Ryan freely admits during a debate with Lamb that she's free to worship as she will; he just doesn't respect her for it and won't acknowledge arguments derived from faith.

Mostly, yeah. Fontaine started out as a smuggler and was the Bogeyman of Rapture; it's why Peach Wilkins is so terrified of him. He funded Tenenbaum's research with his profits from that. ADAM was the backbone of Fontaine Futuristics
And yeah, Ryan didn't see that research as going anywhere and panicked when Fontaine started to get more powerful than him.
The two most relevant audio diaries from Ryan and McDonagh respectively:
>Something must be done about Fontaine. While I was buying buildings and fish futures, he was cornering the market on genotypes and nucleotide sequences. Rapture is transforming before my eyes. The Great Chain is pulling away from me. Perhaps it's time to give it a tug.
>Ryan nationalized Fontaine Futuristics -- he owns it now, lock, stock and barrel. For the good of the city, he says. He'll break it up in due time, he says. I've resigned from the Council and lodged me letter of protest, but that's just pissing in the wind. It'll be war, I say… unless somebody stops Ryan, and right fast.

If anything BioShock is about how utopian ideals are doomed to failure because flawed humans will not live up to ideals that depend on them being incorruptible.

Attached: 1560794517971.jpg (500x403, 71K)

The audiotapes concerning Ryan, to me at least, draw a picture of an idealistic and relatively moral man (he was certainly not a saint, but he had principles and limits), who reluctantly adopted the tactics of his competitors. He feared his vision being distorted, but his attempts at halting the process only ended up distorting himself. He's a broken man by the time the game happens, because he was forced to learn that the thing that he put so much faith into betrayed him. He became disillusioned with free market capitalism and couldn't take it.

>because he was forced to learn that the thing that he put so much faith into betrayed him. He became disillusioned with free market capitalism and couldn't take it.
Everything up to this point I agree with but why on earth did you pull this out of nowhere?
A moral ideal cannot "betray" you, and it was only by him abandoning his ideals that things went wrong. What are the facts to support your claim?
That's like trading your car for a bike and then blaming cars for why you can't get to places as fast.

Both points are complete bullshit.

Thread was over by this point.

It’s a good question. Off the top of my head I can think of two reasons:
- Right from the start of film, actors were able to convey emotion and subtlety of intent through good body movement. Think Charlie Chaplin. So people were able to empathize with characters visually from the offset. Vidya is arguably still not there because stuff often sits in the uncanny valley when it goes for that. Like LA Noire.
- In general, vidya has been more about the game side element than the conventional art elements; providing a challenge and rules to accomplish it by instead of a character-driven narrative. I’d say it’s natural that they aren’t as popular for the same reason movies are more popular than board games. And when “movie games” come along they tend not to be very good at either side, so they appear as a mediocre film rather than a game with a good story.

Attached: Red.jpg (1920x1080, 421K)

Ryan thought he could build a utopian society through free market capitalism. This was always impossible, as had Ryan not taken action against Fontaine he would've been crushed by him, and Rapture would've still ended up a stagnant mafia kingdom with Fontaine controlling everything and the population destroying themselves by snorting too many slugs, not to mention enabling deviant serial killers and shit.

Because you can't be "good" at movies. There isnt a skill ceinling.

>don't compare thing

Yes there is. You could fall asleep.

>Teens 100, 200, and 300 years from now are going to be told to play MGS3, Trails in the Sky, Gravity Rush 2, Super Mario World, and precious else.
this is why we need bullying

Baraka, Homo Sapiens and 2001: A Space Odyssey are the biggest mainstream pleb filters.

>as had Ryan not taken action against Fontaine he would've been crushed by him
My dude, Ryan taking action against Fontaine was precisely what gave Fontaine power. Over and over again.
>make certain objects illegal, opening up a black market that Fontaine grows strong on as a smuggler,
>have the police raid Fontaine's hideout for contraband, "killing" him and solidifying him as a martyr
>nationalize Fontaine's company, inciting dissent from his capitalist base
>institute martial law against Atlas sympathizers, inciting dissent from the lower class who idolized Atlas as a hero of the people
Every time Ryan violated his capitalistic principles he played right into Fontaine's hand.

Attached: 1563139484935.gif (237x304, 2.04M)

The movie still plays. Its completion has nothing to do with your involvement in it.
In a sense books are the closest thing to vidya in that respect. Both require your participation to complete.

Do you also tell people that they're reading too much into a film's story? Because reading into it is the point and the only way to understand it.

>The movie still plays
Not if you stop it.

Falling asleep and stopping it are mutually exclusive unless you have like a webcam watch your face and pause when it can't see your eyes

>Falling asleep and stopping it are mutually exclusive
When you wake up halfway through a movie you don't stop it?

Attached: 1563243673545.png (1280x799, 1.12M)

I mean you can't stop it if you fall asleep. Even your scenario requires you to be awake to stop it.

It is entirely possible to watch a film without actually watching it. People who do this are the same people who complain that they didn't understand a movie and do not understand why some films are more highly regarded than others.

Is this a real, legitimate discussion with Yea Forums actually discussing? Is this bizzaro Yea Forums?

Sure, but that's like flipping through a book in a couple seconds and claiming you read it because each page was within your visual range for a moment.
It's a soft distinction between "watching/reading/playing" and "REALLY watching/reading/playing it" but is necessary to mean anything of substance.

Nigger...!

It's not a soft distinction, retard. You are either paying attention or you're not.

>mean anything of substance

Lmao

>that reddit spacing
And do tell me, what is the hard distinction between paying attention and not paying attention? Percentage of synapses firing?

Attached: 1562602781739.png (338x327, 169K)

Because video games have the same intellectual merit as fucking Infinity War, which is to say
>they aren't art

Lmao dude you are such a moron.

Attached: tegaki.png (400x400, 11K)

Citizen kane

We already established that the person is awake and at least observing the movie. The question is how, under those conditions, the distinction between paying attention and not paying attention is "hard", and how do you quantify it.

Attached: Reddit_Spacing.png (909x720, 156K)

Sure, but shit aint mutually exclusive.

Isn't the games industry worth more than the film industry these days?

Attached: 1558364195869.gif (375x375, 1.39M)

There's a difference between splitting up complete thoughts and sentences with line breaks and proper punctuation and using 4 lines for a clause and a 4-letter acronym.

Attached: 1561493012548.jpg (959x540, 91K)

Because game developers are trying too hard to imitate film and aren't using the medium properly to its fullest potential.

>that's like flipping through a book in a couple seconds and claiming you read it because each page was within your visual range for a moment.
This is EXACTLY how most people watch films: as audiovisual white noise that either instinctively triggers good feels in their brain or doesn't. They cannot discuss film outside of the scope of "I liked/didn't like", but that's their limit not the medium's. You could compare it to people who take the time to learn a game's rules and mechanics vs. people who don't and drop the game for being "no fun".

>We already established that the person is awake and at least observing the movie.
No "WE" did not retard. But even if the person is watching the screen the person could also be thinking about something else and not taking anything in either. The distinction is easy dude. In your peabrain you just imagine one person looking at the screen in both scenarios and you don't even realise that person has a fucking functioning brain. Which you don't have apparently since you aren't able to conceptualise it.

And neither of them is "Reddit spacing" because this style of writing existed long before Reddit ever became popular or even existed

Fuckin' idiot

Since you're clearly not following the conversation; the issue was not whether or not the distinction existed. It was whether it was a hard or soft distinction. That is to say: whether or not it is quantifiable.
The question I posed was in response to saying
>It's not a soft distinction, retard. You are either paying attention or you're not.
You've completely misunderstood the argument and assumed I can't conceive of thought.
I'm saying that there is no externally provable metric by which you can say someone is thinking about one thing compared to another. That's why there is a soft distinction between paying attention and not doing so.

Attached: 1561578685226.jpg (778x675, 200K)

If it is used to separate ideas for ease of reading, like a paragraph break, then it's conventional writing. If it is used out of habit because of Reddit's text formatting conventions then it is Reddit spacing. This isn't hard to understand, user.

Attached: wooloo.png (1000x975, 453K)

>If it is used out of habit because of Reddit's text formatting conventions then it is Reddit spacing.
And you, with your mystical mind-reading powers, are able to perceive which of these scenarios is the case in any given post

Makes complete sense.
Definitely doesn't support paranoid bogeyman hunts where people who've been on Yea Forums probably much longer than you are accused of being Reddit secondaries--likely, by actual Reddit secondaries--because they're just posting the way they always have, the way everyone always has

Reddit spacing is a fucking meme
It's a dogwhistle to alert everyone to who ACTUALLY came from Reddit, because only dumbass migrants from r/Yea Forums would be stupid enough to think that Reddit's weird format limitation somehow invented or popularized any particular style of posting

I can type

however I want

and I will never

be a Redditor

You fucking faggot

>be a Redditor
ok redditor

You're obsessed with reddit. People were posting like that on Yea Forums before reddit ever existed. Stop circulating this nonsense, you're embarrassing.

>Reddit invented paragrapgs.

That's almost the opposite of what says. Standard writing conventions like paragraphs =/= Reddit spacing.

>And you, with your mystical mind-reading powers, are able to perceive which of these scenarios is the case in any given post
No, I was only evaluating the results of - which suggested a formatting habit rather than 3 separate ideas that needed to be considered separately to allow ease of reading.
I never said you were a redditor. I said your writing standard matches up with the format that they use there. It's extremely ugly to see and bad writing form.
Like When People Capitalize The First Letter Of Every Word In A Sentence.
>It's a dogwhistle to alert everyone to who ACTUALLY came from Reddit, because only dumbass migrants from r/Yea Forums would be stupid enough to think that Reddit's weird format limitation somehow invented or popularized any particular style of posting
And you accuse me of being presumptuous about others' intentions.

Attached: 1554009586950.gif (244x300, 2.66M)

>OP mentions how one of the effects of the industry is different kinds of toy camps
>Thread devolves into Reddit vs. Yea Forums

because the players are awful.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 136K)

>Hate to break it to you but gaming isn't just you vs a world of posers.

You're literally arguing FOR my point. Are you retarded?

People watch the Big Bang Theory and then women see Penny and emulate her behavior but farm the attention of male "losers" like you say by simply pretending to like video games. The whole idea of BBG is that a bunch of geeks are orbiting some dumb white bimbo and how they'll never be normal because of the media they like and the hobbies they're into.

Twitch is a multi-billion dollar company because of this, so don't try and pass off this "culture vulture" activity by normies as some kind of facade of only how they dress. They consume the most popular media and then the market responds by creating more of this popular media (Marvel, etc.) and further commodifying the culture.

tl;dr Gamers are dead, long live videogames