What's your opinion on modding? Is it a distortion of the artist's vision or a legitimate way to enjoy videogames?

Where did you assholes come from?

as long as you aren't modding other people's games for them it's fine.

exactly

There's no such thing as art because it's completely subjective.

There are movies that can be art, but capeshit can never be art, because it is the cultural equivalent of a video game. Videogames have shit stories and are just vehicles for gameplay loops and smashing bad guys. Probably the lowest iq "hobbie" ever. Might aswell say boardgames are art. because somebody had to draw candyland lmao. My soulless toy for children designed by a committee to extract as much wealth from me as possible is art. Tell me when i have to get movie tickets from a lootcrate.

Careful with that talk the cinephiles hate being reminded they're just watching the abridged version of novels, comics and video games.

Video games can be art, but not in the hands of dudebro Americans that have the cultural literacy of a 5 year old who only cares about Cawadoody and Capeshit.

so edgy XD

Modding is great.

How is that edgy?

Modding is one of the main reasons people are still playing The Elder Scrolls. Modding can dramatically increase a game's lifespan. Bethesda knows this and it's why they try to monetize mods so they can continue to profit off of people playing Skyrim 8 years after its initial release. In fact, the idea of making more money off of fewer actual games produced is why we got Fallout 76.

According to the first amendment they are so fuck off.

obsessed

>the drip is talent, saving is boring so I might go...
what the FUCK did they mean by this??

Name TEN (17) pieces of art that follow your definition.

>anons on Yea Forums who barely passed their one middle school art class and who have been to a museum less than one hour in their lives trying to be the gatekeepers of what art is

>More often than not they're designed by committee,
The church had considerable input on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Are you going to tell me it's not art since it was designed by committee?

Are those robots? They look like robots mimicking the human form. Got that uncanny valley face going on.

You're so retarded it hurts to read.

Left is probably a real person, if one who has weird make up, plastic surgery or both. I'm pretty sure right is a CGI character who was editted in.

Attached: 38229613_1941977242526539_634284305031364608_n.jpg (465x582, 42K)

artist's vision and authorial intent only takes you so far, once a piece of art is in the hands (or eyes) of the public it is immediately destroyed and rebuilt anew to every person who comes in contact with it with their own personal take on, and experience with it. From here it is completely fair game, or at least should be, to do whatever one sees fit with it. Mod it, critique it, synthesize it with your own creativity into something new, etc. Art is merely applied human creativity, and cannot exist in a vacuum. It is only human to mod and alter that which has come before, art or not, and that is itself a form of artistic expression. It is, in an academic sense, an appropriation of, and improvement (subjective) upon, the original work. Humans have done this with art since art became a concept. Only very recently has this stopped being a regular thing due to the draconian copyright laws Disney managed to ruin everything with.

So yes in a fundamental sense it is a distortion of the artist's vision but that is only a right and good thing, as art is a continuum, not a singular work at a single time as experienced and intended by a single person.

That doesn't mean it was designed by committee. That's such a stretch I'm surprised you didn't hurt yourself while posting it.

They are first generation replicants. I seriously hope you didn't fall for the 22 and me trap, what do you think they're doing with all that biological data?

Yes, I like playing with all the bugs the developers won't bother to fix or watching unskippable, needlessly long animations, because that's part of the artist's vision.

Paintings at this time at this part of the world were seen as both art and craft. Painters were craftsmen who made socially important products. In the case of the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo was literally paid to stay there as a patron to paint it, and repaint it, as the clergy saw fit. The finished result was what he was happy with but it was not a case of "I have a grand plan for this ceiling and you're all gonna accept it on my terms." He painted what was asked of him. It was literally designed by committee to reflect the message the clergy of that specific church wanted, over a large span of time, across many different people wanting many different things from it.

It doesn't distort the artist's vision if you don't use them

It's not at all a stretch, it is an exact comparison to modern art because it was exactly the same. Modern games have a creator or director with a vision for the game, that vision is often altered by the producers to make it more profitable or palatable (ie most companies wouldn't let you release a game sympathetic to Nazis). Michelangelo was in literally the exact same situation. He had the art that he wanted to do but his vision was altered by the people paying the bill (the church) to make it more palatable to their views. It's is an identical situation where the artists vision is overrided by those paying for the art to be made.

Video game are not not art

I think it's a distortion of the artists vision.

They are, user. Art is a very broad term and has no rules set on stone. By that reasoning nothing produced by two or more individuals working together, or even comissioned and paid for is art.

Yes, the eternal checkmarks and onionlords with meme degrees are always gonna evaluate a game's artistic value in the basis of how many lesbian trans-muslim polygenders are contained in it because, some people are dishonest and have an agenda and are willing to work for pennies to push it.

Yes, this will just be an excuse for some retard in San Francisco to churn out a pathetic, half-formed turd of a game and trying to sell it as a 2deep introspection about depression or whatever. This happens in just about every medium.

It's perfectly legitimate, of course it is. I don't think there's really an 'illegitimate' way to enjoy a given game, film, painting, whatever. Just keep in mind that you experienced it in a way that others didn't and create your opinion accordingly.

duh

Sure, and some particularly abysmal movies have been successfully recut into less of an abomination.

good to know we still live rent free in yuropoor heads

These chicks with their low budget plastic surgery and implants are gonna regret it so much once they hit their mid 40s and all look like creatures. If you don't have celebrity money you're fucking retarded getting plastic surgery of any kind

all the best games are built off mods. mods are the blood of vidya and creativity. pure imagination and passion goes into it. to turn your back on mods is to turn your back on happiness. Resist Capitalist Overlords.

Even if that we're true, they'd still be art.
If this is art, then videogames are most definitely art

Attached: france-art-dscf9033.jpg (700x525, 23K)

Based Orwellian

Attached: 1473567451687.jpg (500x750, 233K)

Top 10 highest grossing games for USA in 2018 featured 2 Mario games, MHW, AC Odyssey, Spider-Man, and 2 sports games. The 3 shooters were Red Dead 2, ONE CoD game, and GTAIV. Faggot nigger.

t. obscurantist fart sniffers