"Video games are art, so therefore, it shouldn't be fun all the time. It's a concept of emotions."

Why even care what every faggot says? Laugh at them and move on.

If a games not fun then iti's not good or worth your time.

...

REMINDER
ART =/= EXCLUSIVELY POST MODERN ART
TRADITIONAL ART > MODERN ART
THE INVENTION OF THE CAMERA IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO SHIRK THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MASTER THE CRAFT FOR THAT SAKE OF "TRUE CREATIVE EXPRESSION"

Games are foremost a form of entertainment. Any game that's not fun most of the time for enough people is a failed game.

They want games to be like modern art, so they just point to a blank screen and declare it a masterpiece.

When someone say something is fun, they're really just saying that they managed to engage with that thing in a way that is compelling. You can have fun staring at paint dry if you contextualize it in a way that is engaging. What this person is suggesting is that "art" can afford to be dull, which is something I fundamentally disagree with. If your art is dull, then it will only receive passive and hurried glances, and nobody will care to speak or write about it. That's what you want? You reserve the right to be boring?

Good horror games are fun when they manage to be scary or unsettling to some degree. The fun comes from a well executed attempt at presenting the intended expression. Fun is contextual, and can mean different things in different situations. Fun is not always akin to a sense of happiness (i.e. masochists who enjoy getting tied up and tortured can be considered to be experiencing fun, but you'd likely not agree if it were you in a situation like that).

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the not having to taste good part was true.

One thing both SJWs and Holla Forums should be able to agree on

LITERALLY

FUCKING

WHO

I bet 638 KPW that the game has some #FuckDrumpf #PunchNazis messages on it on top of all the nihilism tumblrshit.

Because if we don't stop them, they will ruin videogames. I agree that they need to be mocked though. Shame is a powerful tool against these people.

This is an attempt to narrowly define fun while widely defining art. Both terms have broad meanings and anyone asserting this opinion is either a sperg, a retard, or both.

Quality bait but we just had it.

This a hundred times. Paintings might have modern art drivel and get away with it, movies might have "2deep4u" schlock and get a small following of pretentious retards, but videogames are by and large immune- or at least incredibly resistant to Marxist degenerate art influence, simply because the majority of people who play games are not the same pretentious cocksuckers who will gladly drop 2mil on a canvas with period blood smeared on it. People who buy games do so for fun. If it's not fun or turbo-pozzed it's simply not going to sell. See Sunset/Lawbreakers. Gone Home is the best example of degenerate modern art creeping into vidya, but I believe it managed to simply because people were not yet immunized against it yet. People weren't aware a game could be made and be lauded with laurel wreaths by cocksuckers everywhere without the game having any semblance of fun in it.

Why do game journalists despise "gamers" so much? I believe it's largely because unlike consumers of other media we largely reject Marxist influence that would reduce videogames to meaningless drivel whose sole purpose is to further progressivism. Not even because we're necessarily aware of the subversive elements in them, but because they're simply not fun, and they're not appealing- no one wants a game with ugly sheboons instead of cute girls. And when videogames cost nearly a hundred dollars no one is going to waste money on something that's not both fun and appealing.

games don't have to be fun all the time to entertain you, but they are ultimately entertainment. these faggots want to use games not being fun as an argument on why they praise garbage non-games like the graveyard or gone home.

games also will never be art.

I am actually ok with games being art, but not shitty "modern art". I like art. I like good art, more importantly.

no, they by definition can't be art. They are productions.

Shadow of the Colossus is art. Fucking fight me you dumb nigger.

Art is a corrupted garbage term.

Fun is a buzzword with no clear meaning.
Not all games have to invoke joy but they have to be at least decently executed in order to make them pleasant to experience.
There's music that can make you sad, but you still listen to it because it's well-composed and isn't an infernal cacophony causing eardrums to burst.

What this idiot doesn't understand is that the beauty of art is behind the malleability of it's meaning. Any number of viewers can pull different meanings from art and all build a resonating connection with it. If you have to explain to people why something's "art", then it's probably not art. Video games can't be art. Not only are they entertainment products, but developers don't make their games with open-ended meanings. You are the player, and you're told the meaning of the game through gameplay. Objectives, plot, playable characters. All of these factors educate you on what the single meaning behind the game is. Art and games are forced to be different due to how it's bestowed upon the player.

If anything, games aren't art, but rather the gamers are the artists.

I almost see where he's coming from, but jesus fuck, it's possible for a game to tell stories, be "artistic" and "meaningful" and still be fun. Silent Hill would probably be considered artistic by them, to some extent, but it's still a fun game. They think that you can either have a story, or Cawadoody, as if it's somehow exclusive.

What they have to realize is that positive emotions are the best way to promote anything. It's why people who use humor or memes can promote their messages so much easier. Same here, but with fun. Not being fun makes your message, no matter what it is, far harder to swallow.

Not exactly a term that excludes games from art, considering there are many productions that consider themselves art. Art is such a broadly defined and coopted term that it basically means anything that expresses something tangentally to some external party. Anyone who holds "art" in high regard anymore is a fucking moron, which is why so many hipsters do.

Fun is also a broad term with a subjective definition, as everyone has their own idea of what fun entails. Stupid hipsters are leveraging this fact to attempt to broaden the definition of what a "game" is in a similar manner to art, I'm assuming because they want people to stop insulting their shitty non-games as non-games.

With this in mind everyone should be able to point at these faggots and laugh at them.

These people are sophists. It's very easy to turn their arguments against them.

who are quoting

beyond that, you have to embrace the idea that people will have OPINIONS on your art and the right to not like it. Gameplay first, then message

so are movies. And music. And the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Try again

fpbp

Only if you are a pleb

Okay so what exactly keeps devs from making something that is fun and "cover emotions?" And thsi faggot obviously doesn't play vidya because there are plenty of games that aren't fun already.

Fun is too vague because it means different things depending on who you ask, you are referring to whether something is compelling, I am referring to the emotion of happiness. If we replace what he said with the word compelling then you're right and he's retarded, but if we replace it with happiness then I'm right and he's only mildly retarded.

an inappropriate approach to "fun". It certainly has a meaning.
the problem is that fun is the result, not a qualifier. It does not provide useful data or analysis

I thought this was the industry's default stance since 2008.

games don't have to be fun to be entertaining, sure, but I don't have to like your game regardless of whether it's fun or not, or fund it, or give it positive reviews, or say nice things about you as a developer

sorry if that salts your undies, princess

Boredom is just another emotion like anger or fear, it's not evil.

It sucks, though. And it has no potential for being interesting unlike anger or fear.

...

I played Journey for the first time for 15 minutes today. It wasn't fun and I didn't find it artistic. What was the point of it?

Yeah. I can get something out of games that make me mad. If it's boring it's not worth my time.

playing online with a random buddy

I don't know about that
I remember parts of American Psycho being deliberately boring for effect
Also with games, Pathologic comes to mind, where it accentuates the ambient feeling of despair
Opinions on its execution may vary, but there is at least potential there, especially for contrast

I think a phobia of boredom is just a symptom of our modern fetish with instant gratification
Boredom can potentially be used as a tool for expression, it is not fundamentally wrong
I mean it is treated like a sin just for the crime of being unpleasant

The only time it is acceptable for a game to not be fun, is when the game is developed specifically for masochistic tendencies, but for it's intended demographic (masochists) - eliciting pain is pleasure, so at least for them, it would still kind of be fun.

Games are not art, except perhaps in the broadest possible terms, and in the sense that any display of mastery in technique may also considered an art. (like, Martial Arts)

I see what you're saying, but I think we're just going to devolve into a semantic argument, because I'd argue that if you managed to take a concept like boredom, or more appropriately the concept of patience, and applied it in a way that is itself contextualized to be engaging, then I wouldn't call that approach to be itself "boring" or "dull", if that makes sense. As an example, some people consider meditation to be boring, and maybe that's a valid critique, but meditation is meant to facilitate a prolonged sense of relaxation and awareness, which itself requires a deliberately quiet and "dull" environment and frame of mind.

underrated

If games are art then artists have to embrace the idea that they may be criticized.

Its pretty well established in storytelling that excitement is not proportional to how interested the audience is, I can't think of any good story that doesn't have moments of high excitement/tension followed by moments of relative boredom. Its the contrast between the boredom and the excitement that makes things interesting, not the level of excitement itself.

Even the two most fast-paced unrelenting action movies I can think of have moments of lull, that being Hardcore Henry and Crank. They're both famous/infamous for never slowing down the pace, and while they don't slow down to the levels of most other movies they do still do it quite a bit. Even cuhrayzee games like DMC do this both out of combat with the parts where you walk around but also within combat in parts where your best move is to taunt from afar and let the enemy come to you (or charge up an attack).

Fortunately, games are not art.

It is when you're watching a movie, playing a game, or reading a book. If at any time I'm indulging myself in some media, and start to feel like I could be spending my time doing anything else, then your media sucks and deserve to be called out on it.

Slow-paced or placid mood =! boring, so long as it feels cohesive to what you're watching or something else is going to keep you stimulated.
Because it is, and always has been. When media isn't stimulating you, it fucking sucks and is worthless.

True, I play Victoria 2.

same tbh. gsgs are meant to be fun

video games are art in the way they make you feel emotionally via gameplay, not story

an epic story triumph is nothing compared to an epic gameplay triumph

I think the real problem with these garbage indie devs in the ilk of the Literally Who in the OP is that they are trying to impose a definition of art that is limited to non-interactive media… into a media that is fundamentally interactive.

This guy mentioned something about photography replacing painting not being an excuse for modern artists to start painting shit (and then again you've got talentless hacks in all painting movements), however that's not exactly what our Indie game devs are doing right now. See, what they have learned about art in their fancy colleges ironically corresponds to a traditional definition of art, or rather one that would be considered old-fashioned today, considering that video games did not exist when cultural marxism arrived in America/when tools of photography became widely available to the masses.
Now here's the deal: both classicist and modernists agree that the greatest art pieces of all time are defined as such NOT according to narrowed-down definitions, but because of the creativity and originality behind the art piece's technical process. It's exactly because of this tendency that Van Gogh and David, both of my personal favourites, are put on the same pedestal as fucking Malevitch, the god damn "white square on white background" Ruskie, and the pillars of Dada, whose entire message was "man, art is fucking horseshit".

Don't follow me? Watch Citizen Kane, then. Liked it? Okay, now take away all the political subjects and the historical references. It's now about some guy who has this massive boner for some talentless thot, and is forcing his opinion upon everyone. Yet how does that not bore us? Why are we so compelled to this movie? Why is everyone praising it as an immortal masterpiece? The reason: most movie critics will consider the story/characters to be secondary in importance, and they will rather applaud the film's technical achievements, i.e. the screenplay, the acting and acrobatics harshly doable live, the special effects that live plays just can't pull off (a better example would be Le Voyage sur la Lune), musical score in relation to the images/actions on screen, hell everything related to image superposition for the benefit of a narrative's progression (something that core photography struggles with). Oh, and what about literature? Well, lots of teachers make their students read Hamlet, but it's not really the story and the murders that truly interest these teachers, it's the way Shakespeare mastered the art of the prose, the way he makes these little words sound so pretty and so fluent when combined. In fact, Shakespeare's contemporaries shat on him because he would make up contracted forms of certain words to make them sound better orally. Speaking of plays, don't forget how all these present-day directors staged Hamlet so differently from one another, each trying to bring a new twist not by modifying the text, but by making certain casting choices and going nuts with the material aspects of a stage.

My point is: in video games, the artistic potential can lie way, WAAAAY beyond storytelling/pozzing: it can lie in the complexity/simplicity of the coding, in the levels of interactivity you can achieve, in the creativity involved behind the construction of the rules supporting the resulting game and in so many more things (not a coder/programmer myself so my examples might lack in quantity). Because that's what video games fundamentally are. GAMES.
You take away the "game", and all you have is a film that appears to have some levels of interactivity, things like Gone Home and every Telltale Games ever. Like, okay, you made a film that differs from the norm. But game-designing wise, you just got a D minus.

tl;dr: indie game devs should just be cineasts/screenwriters because they clearly fail to see the artistic potential that video games and only video games can achieve. Also, if we follow the logic of my entire post, board games and card games could be considered art forms as well. So why aren't they promoting these mediums as well?

The problem is meditation and patience both have positive connotations, with a light at the end of the tunnel. There is still a sense of fulfillment there. But that's not what I am intending to convey. Nor am I trying to argue for masochism, which is also distinctly fulfilling for its intended audience. But actual boredom, with no holds barred and no punched pulled. Not relaxation like when you lay down after a long day, but that unpleasant sense of restlessness after illness has left you stuck in bed for several of your waking hours.

Also considering things like deliberately cheating the player, frustrating them, etc.
A lot of things which are considered bad in theory could be excellent tools left unused by self-conscious artists of many mediums. I mean people put up with all of these things before, and it was "bad" design sure, but today they wax nostalgic over those same faults regardless. Just maybe there is some magic in those negative emotions which has been lost due to the sterile and "fair" development philosophy that we have today.

vidya is first and foremost a consummer product, it can be considered artsy or have good music, story or visual design but as long as you want to call it a game it has to be some variation of chess
besides, artsy stuff does not sell and this industry is all about shekkels

So? Shit is just another substance like water or potatoes. Doesn't mean I want it in my soup. Relativism isn't a meaningful contribution to anything.

I mean, there are some good games that I'd describe as not fun. Pathologic, Drakengard. The disconnect is that these faggots are treating "fun" and "good" like the same thing and then trying to use "not fun" to smuggle in "not good" because they aren't interested in art, what they're interested in is being the arbiters of art. They want respectability and power and no objective standards they can be held to.

...

Nothing will ever top Desert Bus for this

Hey, like I said, if you find a way to make it work, then I wouldn't call such a successful application "boring", instead I'd just say that you made something compelling that used a theme to its fullest extent, which is something totally different than what I'd consider to be disengaging or "boring". You didn't like my meditation example, so I'd ask you to come up with an example that you think might succinctly capture the message you're trying to convey.

Literally a aspect of a game can be defended by calling it art.

It's art

It's art

It's art

It's art

Depends on your definition of fun. If you mean entertaining, engaging, interesting, then something that is sad, tense, bleak or scary can be all of those things. Boring trash is never fun though.

Pretty much this. Boredom is the lack of interest. Just because nothing is happening right now does not mean you are not interested, if you were not interested you wouldn't keep playing or watching or whatever. Usually slower points are the buildup to something else and you keep going out of anticipation for how they play out. That's the same with gameplay as well as story and it's the reason you might spend hours grinding for various things, hopefully in order to have some sort of payoff when its all done.

Of course, different people's tolerance for slow or repetitive things varies, so just how much and how often that "payoff" has to happen can vary and just because one person finds something boring doesn't mean another will. All art should still strive to interest its intended audience though (whether that's one person or everyone), so it shouldn't ever be boring to them.

A lot of people here shit on modern/postmodern art but I think there are a lot of misconceptions about what exactly they are. The easiest examples I have of the three different kinds of art are in the form of comedic art:

Classical: a joke that is funny all by itself, like one where the punchline is a form of dramatic irony that only references things in said joke.

Modern: a joke that is funny in the context of society, so this would include satire like political commentary as the punchline requires knowledge of things outside of the joke itself.

Postmodern: a joke that is funny in the context that is presented, this would be something like the 2070 Paradigm Shift where its mostly funny because its actually being done at a TedX event. If this was just a skit he filmed in a studio the stunt would be much less enjoyable, thus the context is a part of the appeal meaning it is postmodern. Sam Hyde isn't a good comedian, that's the only good thing he's done.

Postmodern art isn't inherently bad, its just that people don't seem to realize that the best postmodern art is postmodern, and the types that go around using the word are the kind who just want to sound cultured and have no idea what it actually means. The best postmodern videogame I've played is Frog Fractions, and to anyone who has played it you should easily be able to see how the appeal of it relates to postmodernism. Other postmodern games include MGS2, Spec Ops: The Line, Doki Doki Literature club for similar reasons.

Also, the more infamous example of postmodern art would be something like a dirty toilet sitting in a fancy art exhibit. Now the first time that someone did this it was actually pretty clever from a comedic-postmodernism point of view. The goal was to confuse patrons and see how they reacted to something so strange, or if they'd even convince themselves that it is fine art merely because its in an art exhibit and they don't understand it. However, this shit has been done so many times that it has come to be expected from a postmodern art exhibit so it has no appeal. If you tell someone that your art is postmodern then in most cases you're defeating the purpose of it, unless you've somehow worked the concept of telling people that its postmodern art into the art itself.

If you read all of this autism then good for you, now it is your responsibility to educate the ignorant.

Video games, like art, have rules or structures. you have to know these rules before you can attempt to bend them to get new results. having a shitty game thats 50% cutscenes and 45% forced walking and calling it art is no different than a kid on deviantart who ignores all methods and calls his work his "style". It's an excuse to skip the hard work and to deflect criticism.

It's too bad, I was with you on Sam Hyde being gold, but clearly you're retarded. The kind of stopped clock that is right twice a day.

I didn't say any of those were good, I actually haven't played Doki Doki literature club and I don't intend to. Spec Ops was okay and MGS2 was neat at the end and I appreciate the dedication to the ruse but that doesn't excuse the rest of the game being tedious.

Be sure throw "games don't have to be fun" back in their stupid faces when they get triggered over shit that doesn't cater to post-modernism. Tell them the game is making a statement that they are precious retards.

Doesn't need to be, particularly if it is free or you have strong principles.
At which point you are creatively liberated from an audiences whims.
Serving your audience is enslaving yourself to a mass of idiots.

An artist should have confidence in their own intuition.

Then it might just be semantics.

An interesting opinion, but I am of the impression plebs do not really know what they want anyway.
I assume you enjoy all kinds of unpleasant things, and will later, and don't even realize it.

...

Spotted the kike.

Video games have more in common with football and chess than literature or film.
Look at my numbers.

Video Games are children's toys. As children's toys they need to be entertaining and challenging. Faggots need to deal with this and stop pretending like the video game they made is the next grand work of art because it won't mean shit to the horde of 7-year-olds who play it. I think these faggots need to come to terms with the fact that they're making video games for gamers who are predominantly straight white males. If they can't hang with that then they should go find something better to do with their lives because no matter how many black people and trans-sexuals they put in their games they'll never be accepted by the far left political nuts they worship because: They make children's toys at the end of the day.

Games are about challenge above all else, but these people view challenge as fascism and lie to themselves thinking that if only they could remove that challenge then their games would be accepted by all the girls and adults who don't play video games but the truth is we live in the most dumbed down era of video games and nothing has really changed. They can bitch all they want but, much like the STEM fields which girls refuse to gravitate towards no matter how many years they spend trying to force it, people like what they like and at the end of the day gaming is a hobby enjoyed by straight white male children (mainly because they're the ones with the time on their hands because they're kids and are often outcasts unlike girls who are social creatures). Denying reality is only going to result in these people's lives being wasted.

Here's the thing all these tryhard hipsters need to understand: maybe games can be art, but more importantly, art can be shit. Whether you like it or not, the value of art can be rated and quantified based on how effectively it sends it message, and more importantly by the quality of the work itself.
You can paint an eviscerated penis with your period blood all you like, but it's not gonna get your ugly ass in the Smithsonian. You aren't owed fame and success just because you're an artist.
Does a game like Shadow of the Colossus carry the same significance as a sculpture of David? Possibly. Does a game like Ori and the Blind Forest? Maybe. Does your interactive 'zine about bunnies talking about being on fire and getting cucked carry any significance whatsoever? Fuck no.

Huh. I really like that interpretation. Also what's the image from?

Again we see how leftist are shallow and vapid. They're using the art label because like current year useless artists and social scientists, they want the sweet government grant money to churn out useless shit in the name of art. They're not fighting a political or even ideological war here. It's purely financial.

I wish I knew, I just saved it ages ago.

Wew

To a point, it is preferable to them pushing this kind of shit into games because they are children's toys. We've been down that fucking road before, and while arty fart sniffer want to shove their regressive values into games - at least it's not legislated by a bunch of congressional suits looking for a soap box and hoping to court the soccer mom vote.

Inviting the comparison of games to art was a fucking deal with devil, whether anybody at the time knew it or not, but at the end of the day this rampant PC police bullshit is just a moral panic, and like the fashion trend concerns they are, they will pass in time and with resistance.

Law and regulations are much harder to get rid of.

False equivalence.

Games are made for entertainment i.e. fun.

Art is name for wide range of human expression and activity, but fun is not necessarily in the equation.

So if games = art, then games do not have to be fun,even though "not-fun" is literally antithesis to the concept of games.

I suggest all video "game" artists to just call their shit video art software instead.

Literally fucking dare desu ka?

...

...

Well that's another element of denial. People need to stop pretending that children are retards who want to be pandered to and have all the edge taken out of life. Kids hate being pandered to, and kids love edge, these are just facts (at least, certainly for the straight white male outcast demographic I was talking about earlier). Parents shouldn't be worried about their kids being shown violence or even really sex because spoiler alert: They already know all that shit. Maybe they don't have as deep an understanding as an adult but they certainly understand what violence and sex are.

I will never understand why people have to be so deeply in denial, I swear half this world's problems can be solved by just getting people to look at things objectively and without the crazy biases/fantasy world they've built around the subject.

apparently the faggot that made this obnoxious shit

jesus this is actually worse than depression quest and gone homo because at least those aren't offensive to the senses.

it reminds me of shit like frog in a blender and those little stupid "games" but this guy thinks this is art

Your art is shit.

...

It's what the arts have been reduced to. Shitting vagina blood onto canvas, feminist scream singing, crudely carved figures of men sucking themselves off, etc.. If he's getting an arts education today, he's likely mindfucked enough to not understand what's wrong with what he's saying.

...

Sometimes i wonder if certain board lied to me about niggers.

...

Art is just a code word for low effort. The ultimate goal for these art gamers is to get public funds for their game development. This way they can get paid even if no one buys their shit, kind of like with art house movies and other shit branded with the word "art".

Most niggers are shit, but some of them are alright.

They fall on a bell curve.

Don't fall for the based nigger meme, user.

...

Gas yourself any hour

I would agree if what they do was actually art instead of a vage excuse for their cheap shit.

Oooh boy, time to whip pic related again

So… No agony what-so-ever? I don't know what you had your programmers doing but when I make video games I don't waste time coding an agony system into the random monsters. Thanks for wishing me a peaceful death cunt.

...

...

Hatred was fucking shit but journalists are fucking fags

Honestly I doubt agony could be coded. The closest you could come is a system like tabletop Shadowrun where at certain damage levels all of your rolls become harder. Even still I don't think making every action harder really covers exactly what agony really is. You can't make a computer program suffer (though that could make some good cyberpunk or sci-fi fiction).

Sam Hyde isn't funny because of whatever garage your post reeks of. Sam Hyde is funny because people like you exist in this world and you honestly need to get beat down or bullied.

Install the first person mod and say that again, nigger

And what is wrong with this statement, exactly? Clueless kids posting on my Holla Forums I fucking swear.

Well for one, it's bullshit. Good art IS always fun, even if it's making you feel uncomfortable or on edge you're still having a fun time observing the art. Other than that maybe try reading and replying to the thread faggot.

Jesus why is that thing so expensive? I used to own one that cost less than $20.

This. Games have assets which can be art. Games aren't art though unless you're willing to call Tic Tac Toe art.

I don't really see video games as art in the same way I don't see chess as art or a tcg as art. A video game is a game, a toy. To pretend it's anything else is to defeat the purpose of video games. They're supposed to entertain and pass time. So until I start seeing artistic chess games where they fling the pieces off and shit on the board while reciting esoteric poetry, i'm not going to start pretending a video game is anything other than a fancy toy.

Is there a new art game out?

Looks pretty fun actually.

You two need to define your definition of fun if you don't want to be running circles around each other

What part of the Game doesn't make it art?
If it is the fact that there is no time a videogame you play out is exactly the same way I would have to say you're wrong as there are actors and dancers who do performances that are art. They cannot make the exact same outcome every time, they can also improvise, and mistakes will be made on stage.
Tic Tac Toe is art, not the highest quality of art, but art none the less

I would apply the argument I put above as the performance being art.

I really believe I am only person on the planet who have read this entire post.
But you are fully right, it is just that you could technically say same things in two paragraphs.

oh i get it, you're either a Holla Forumsack hypocrite or run of the mill troll peddling "it's only okay if we do it"

Good art is always beautiful, not fun.

Fun is enjoyment. People don't get a roller coaster and say "my god I didn't have fun on that, what a work of art!" they say "that was fun, I was fucking scared for a second there!". Even if you like watching fucked up films that make you feel disgusting inside you still like watching them and are having fun.

it seems like it depends where, if you're doing art in the city then yeah it's just money laundering schemes and conartistry

niggers aren't black people and black people are white cultured race mixed tbh

Good art is art that people enjoy. Enjoying something is having fun.

Good art is something that shows mastery of skill. Queefing out dyed eggs randomly onto a canvas is not art unless you paint some incredible portrait with it. Another example is the guy that makes portraits by hammering nails meticulously and carefully into a board. Good code, good animations and good assets (3d models/sprites/backgrounds) are art but the entire product is not. Games can contain art but overall I don't think they should be considered art.

I have never once in this thread said video games are art and in fact this was my first post

...

And I will argue for stopping to even use the tag "art".
If your work cannot hold its own weight without calling it art, it is shit. At the same time if piece of work is fucking good it will be admired and remember no matter if it is or isn't "art".
Especially now when art can exists solely because it is "art".

We were talking about good art and I never made the claim you thought games were art, just stating my opinion on it.

It's a set of rules. And your outcomes have nothing to do with the actual product. It's not art. Dancers and Performers are a visual medium to others and are thus artistic in may ways. And they're performances aren't bound by any rules either.

Fair enough.

Honestly I don't get why people want to label what they do "art". I'm a coder and I'm perfectly comfortable making games, and yes even children's toys. I really think it stems from these people's need to feel politically active at their work and as though they're "making a change". I laugh when I think about how they'll end up changing nothing and they'll look back on their lives with regret (or more denial).

i cannot understand why these attention whores won't make a blog and fuckoff with that shit

If you call it art, that means it MUST have value. Even if you paint with feces. What they don't realize is that the term is so overused, they've watered it down and it means almost nothing.

I think it has to do with the modern art.
First it started focusing on the message instead of skill. You kinda need to call modern art "art" because otherwise you aren't sending a message.

This is why I fucking hate modern art communities.
Reason it has a value is because of snobs masturbating over something trendy. It has no real value, but they give it one.
Think of people buying Iphones. These phones are worth half the price, but people will easily buy it for 3 times the current one.

nicely explained user
also, might i add, that the most magnificent modernists and post-modernists actually KNEW a lot of art theory, that's why they work has added value, not because "lol so random"
Like Picasso, at first look it seems chaotic, but when you read about him, you learn that his works are a deconstruction of different points of view and how to use them at the same time on the painting, and that's fucking impressive.

But for these "nuartists", that only copy, don't care to understand the underlying of the artistic piece, they only see "desproportionate figures and weird people, got it". Then they shit on a painting and defend themselves from the critics saying "it's based on picasso".

It's a sad world, but i'll say that this is not a sign of a decline on art, it's just a mere consequence of having all these mainstream broadcasts (social networks and so on) available to everyone, so now even the most idiot can make itself heard whenever he wants, and other idiots can join him to make it even louder.

tl;dr promote and appreciate the good artists, ignore these frauds so they rot on their snow globe thinking they are hot shit

There can be set rules depending on the performance like there are like rules in game and rules in videogames. If you are performing romeo and Juliet you can't just change all the plot and characters, if you do it will be a shit rendition of it. like calling DmC shit because it really changed near everything people expect out of DMC.
You can have an outcome on a product like people throwing tomatoes at a bad singer or booing a bad comedian at the apollo. Or a rule with less exception during a part the audience starts to clap or laugh and the actors have to pause before continuing the rest of the play. The way an actor has to work with an audience does matter to the outcome of the performance.
There is always a set expectation or a rule when you present art. If you present a macaroni sculpture and it has no macaroni on it then it's gonna be a shit macaroni sculpture. If you say you made an indie game, people will compare it to past video games and consider it good or bad.

I can see how videogames have more of a rigid ruleset as there are already set standards with computer architecture, a necessary visual and audio peripheral, and a controller of some kind, and the program itself being bound within the processing and memory constraints(unless you make an intentionally broken videogame).

can't get a large audience with instant response that way

A lot of these people also fail to realize is that we highly value skill (taking about painting and drawing) because it's a metric that has been finely tuned over millednia. Telling a story and sending a message has already been finely tuned in books and movies. The fact that they can use gameplay to tell a story and send a message, like some other user said, means they completely ignore the untapped potential and just basically want to paint with feces on a canvas and get recognition for it.

If it's art then there should be some artistic vision that they can point to. All the flaws should be things which, intentional or not, they noticed and chose to leave in place to serve a purpose. The flaws should build towards a narrative or a theme, they should comment on something or at least make the person playing aware of something they took for granted
But more importantly than being art, games are a luxury, and nobody is required to buy your shit game. You can bully as many betas into praising you as you want, nobody will lie for you without a reason, especially after paying for the experience you just put them through
Why is your art worth my precious time? The artist works for the consumer's approval, not the other way round.

Actually there are some games which use un-fun segments in order to set a contrast with the fun ones, to good effect. However, a game which is never fun to play or even only a minority of the time is still fucking pointless to play.The key, as always, is asking the question, "What does interactivity do to make this thing I'm trying to make more meaningful than a properly written film or story?" Interactivity is a two way street, no one is going to bother interacting with your game if it's not worth interacting with. The inability to understand this is a symptom of narcissism and is why games like Gone Home get made.

This. The GAMES in "video games" refers to a game.
The definition of "game" is "an activity engaged in for diversion or amusement"

"Fun" is defined as "what provides amusement and enjoyment". Ergo, it is fun to play games (unless you have serious avoidance issues).

Notice how art isn't used anywhere in this definition. Games use art in their construction: to provide a story, add visual flair, even promote the game itself. But games aren't artistic for art's sake, and any indie dev who tries wastes everybody's time with an utterly un-game-like product.

Anyone who writes trash like this to bait stupid anons like us into giving them attention doesn't care about games or art or anything. Like other anons have stated, they just want to create a niche for "game art" games where people like them can earn a living without any skill that real games require. Useless bottom-feeding cultural parasites vomiting words in the hopes their stupidity will be impossible to ignore so everyone has to tell them what vague word A and vague word B is and then they'll just say "it's not how I define it".

who

Gone Homo is a masterpiece compared to what I just watched.
At least it LOOKS and plays like a game, it's just complete dog shit at being one.

This however.
It's an "art" project, all right.

The problem is not the argument of 'can games be art', it's that the author is trying to excuse their game being a terrible mess by calling it art

By calling it art they can just insist that any nay-sayers just 'don't get it' and come out the smarter person who you simply don't understand the genius of, whether games CAN actually be art is irrelevant to the discussion when the author is just saying as much to make themselves feel better about having their game be criticized

top kek

All art is interactive. You see a painting about a baby and a mom and an apple and a dozen other symbolic tropes and you naturally fill in the details making your own story. Even if it's spelled out for you like a story the act of emotionally reacting to it customizes the experience for you. Only a robot can't see everything as art because it has no imagination.

Art is defined by: works produced by human creative skill and imagination.

It never says anything about the degree of interaction involved. So games should continue being made the way they are (minus on-disk DLC and microtransactions) and don't worry what some literally who thinks it should be. If your play, book or game is not fun in some way it won't sell. What's a better artwork in theater, Cats or Michael Moore's "terms of my surrender"? It's subjective but it doesn't mean tolerating boring shit is noble.

Indeed fellow white imageboard enthusiast.

We know. It is just fun discussing art.

If only Accolade had this joker as their P.R. person to convince everyone that Bubsy 3-D was a masterpiece. Who are you going to believe, Nathalie, or your own lying senses?

Yes but there's no requirement of the rules in a performance. In games there are, otherwise you're cheating.
DMC failed because it wasn't as engaging. After that it failed in plot and other aspects. Still doesn't mean either are art.
The difference is (again) that playing the game and the game itself is are 2 seperate entities. A game is by definition something you don't intake for any other enjoyment except an interactive one. And interactivity in itself isn't an art. And neither is the set of rules you're required to interact with. You're basically saying Let's Play's are art here.
Game's aren't held back from becoming art by limited rule sets. They're held back because by definition they must have rules. No other method of entertainment you've presented is limited by such an objective and permanent concept and thus Video games are not art. You can try and compare other mediums to video games all you want to try and make a factual truth. But you still don't understand that there's a reason it's another medium entirely.

A game in it's most solid form is a product that can only be enjoyed if somebody interacts with it. You can't play a game and say that that act (with no other context) is an artistic performance. Games have been trying to become more and more naturalized to real life since the start. But it's only done so mainly through assets. And as a result more and more people have become confused as to what a game actually is, a set of rules that a person is supposed to work within. The rules themselves aren't something video games can ever surpass because once they do it ceases to be a game.

You should know better than to use the current year US definition of art.

Parents will keep buying that shit because their kids nag. That's how it goes man. I saw some plastic piece of shit bear for 50 bucks, and it was nothing more than at most 2 pieces of plastic that wouldn't cost shit to produce and they still sell.

So you consider games like basketball, soccer, and football not art?
I'm also guessing by what you say you divide simulators and videogames into separate categories as well?
Sure every lets play would be a bad example of art, but what about the people who do perform world record high scores in arcades or people who are able to play parts of a game with a guitar hero guitar? It's not as impressive as watching a gymnastics routine but it is art.
Every art piece has to have some kind of interaction with it to be enjoyed. pictures have visual, music has audio, and videogames have tactile interaction and manipulation. I would have to say that you can in theory pick apart every medium as not art. I could say that the minerals and rocks used in the painting aren't art or the vibrations in air isn't art.
If a person presents something and claims it as a videogame it will be judged on videogames in the past and looked on at the perspective that it is a videogame. Sure you can present notepad.exe as a videogame but it will be shit in comparision to other videogames. The intended creation of notepad.exe was stated to be a program to help write stuff, so people consider it an application, not a videogame, and find it succeeds based on that purpose. You could call diagram a painting and vice versa and they probably wouldn't stack up in quality in regards to their original purpose. A lot of content tends to meld together when discussing and defining them as an artistic perspective is what I'm trying to say.

< Didn't read the thread.

They are attempting to stretch the definition of game to include shitty non-games like gone homo and other indie shit. When you can say that games built specifically for a message propaganda and not entertainment in and of itself, you can begin to claim that walking simulators are better games than popular multiplayer titles because the term "game" will have lost meaning.

This is cultural Marxism in action.

I've used this argument for why MGS V is a good game despite it's obvious flaws but good luck getting anyone to listen to that.

No one is gonna fall for it, leftycock sucker. Remember the biggest pig is your bo.

The sports themselves? No.
Simulators have rules as well as fail states. At the end of the day you're accomplishing something through a set of rules.
Again that's not art. Getting a high score in a game is not an artistic achievement. The reaction and skill might have a degree of talent that you might consider artistic. But in the end it's still a game. Which isn't art.
Mental interaction is not the same as physical interaction and every one of those mediums you bring up hasn't been brought up with the condition that there must be rules.
Except I'm not picking apart a video game. I'm stating what it is at it's most basic form. A painting in it's most basic form is still a painting. Your analogy with minerals would be like applying the game with the TV screen. Which I'm not pointing to here. Painting's aren't inhibited by anything but the visual sense. Games are inhibited by the requirement of rules. Painting doesn't have to be on Canvas. It can be on any surface paint will stick. Video games have to be inhibited with rules otherwise they're not video games.
The difference here is that video games have a specific key function that must be incorporated into them in order for them to be considered a game. No other medium really does this. You can't take a film and put a video game in it and call it a film. Because in the end it's a video game. Vice Versa if you took a game and put a film into it, it's still a game. So in this context nothing "melds" other than assets.

Are horror games supposed to be "fun"? If it is, then I think you've failed at making a horror game.

Stalker and Fear are horror games and I'd say they're pretty fun.

Problem here is that fun doesnt mean 'hahaha', but fun means good.

She wrote this, because she made some dumb game and nobody liked it. Now A Man In Black is shilling it on pcgamer.

I would call Fear a horror game by technicality and nothing else. Though it did a great job of incorporating horror into the gameplay by making side paths have rewards at the end with the risk of a jump scare.

twitter is a piece of shit, but the idiot in chief uses it so people think its okay

Your mother must have dropped you from the top of the bell curve when you were a baby

you realize the kikes want to keep the lower class in a perpetual state of this soft conflict because it's keeping us from going after them

do you remember what happened with occupy wall street?

its really scary how quickly people forget this. how quickly theyre willing to attack their fellow goyim.

There is a greater chance of you meeting your waifu in real life and marrying her than there is in meeting a smart nigger.

yeh nah

Why the fuck does anyone care?

user was saying that he thinks "a certain board" is wrong because of that webm that was posted, and I'm calling him retarded.

I'm not pushing the "based nigger" meme, I'm just saying, you'll meet "smart" black people that are closer to normal white people, and they may even provide insight. Not all niggers are stupid, and not all whites are geniuses. Most niggers, however, are retarded compared to whites, and most whites are geniuses compared to niggers. A bell curve goes both ways.

Besides, it doesn't even take an IQ of 105 to realize "games are art and therefore can/should be bad" is fucking stupid.

...

...

Either something is art or it isn't. Nothing really excludes games from being art but 'true' art in the sense of it brings you closer to the truth (or maybe God, in a sense) is something that happens very organically and semi-unconsciously. Hell I think that a lot of guys who just want to make entertainment sometimes make art entirely by accident. So games can be art but I don't think pursuing it consciously the way these hipster faggots do it can really work.

It's a fun philosophical argument that will never really be resolved.

user if a man spends an hour explaining to you why getting pissed on is fine I'm more than reasonably able to assume he's a piss lover. Thus, if someone comes in and can't stop talking about how much they love niggers, well…

Came here to post that.
Thanks based negro of good arguments

...

Translation: I want to continue to make shitty unplayable artsy wankery and be called a dev

I should charge rent for how much I seem to be living in your head then

You can't reduce art to just craftsmanship. Art without that extra spark is just kitsch, the issue with modern art (among others) is completely ditching the craftsmanship in favor of chasing the spark and then still not finding the spark because modern "artists" are hacks almost every time.

i think you got it backwards. you gotta pay him if youre living in his head

i don't know what i expected but i was not prepared for this

I think you are baiting, but if not, that artist should also have the conviction to be ready to starve for the cause of his art, if that art happens to lack appreciation from its recipients.

"Games are art" was the beginning of what eventually led to Gamergate. As soon as the fucktarded liberals with mental problems realized there was another place to smear their shit on the wall and get paid, they invaded en masse. Ebert was wrong, but I regret the whole argument being public like that.

I like it. It has a very obscure, underground vibe to it.

The only pleb here is you. Not counting those who prefer its remix by DJ Tiesto to the original.

Because they want to reassure themselves and to prove to their parents that they didn't make the shittiest life decision.
Saying that you're an "artist" is the equivalent of slacktivism: you think you're changing the world but you're actually doing nothing.

It's shit
worse
It's post-modernism shit

ebin

sounds like an excuse to create shovelware

Face it losers and social welfare parasites: no matter how hard you try to appeal for some sort of cultural legitimacy for your worthless solipsistic pursuits it won't change the simple fact that art can never be video games

basketball is art now?
darts is arts?
The crux of a good video game should be that it's fun.
Educational games have their own distinction. We need to come up with a label for halfassed boring artfag games.

That's giving it too much credit, it's WOW SO WEIRD youtuber bait.

He's not wrong though, the amount of times I've seen faggots defend shit games with the excuse "but it's fun" instead of an actual counterargument.

Games like these are being made.
They don't sell.
This is totally fine but then they throw a tantrum because nobody bought it.

...

The reason, and the sole, only reason, those fucktards are even considering video-games are art is because of everything that is second to the game itself, but not what makes a video-game a video-game.
They are considering the art assets, music and story when talking about the merit of art in video-games, their abstraction has reached such an insane point that they consider Asteroids and Pong art. That's like considering chess art, sure you can have special, quite intricate pieces made of whichever materials and several other quirks, but at the end of the day the game itself is chess, which has no intrinsic artistic value.

Yeah they tried that with movies in the 70's? And guess what, no one wanted movies that weren't enjoyable. Let them make their boring as fuck un fun "games" and let the market sort them out.

sure, the combination of different kinds of art isnt art at all ;^)

the problem with games are art fags is not that games arent art and they want it to be, the problem is that their definition of art is "something grownups do", and so is yours because you play right into their hands by assuming their definition

Those bunnies are cute at least.

This game is fun and you should feel bad about it for posting it here.

The combination of different kinds of edible stuff doesn't have to be edible too.

Every fucking time

sick analogy bro, can you give me an example of multiple edible things becoming inedible as soon as you mix them

Games are a luxury item people buy to kill time and enjoy themselves between work, training or study. Why would anyone buy his game if it's not fun? Did they forget the time investment between looking at a piece of art, and a game is days or weeks and you don't get to showcase it?

This dude gets that the chicken hat only works for big boss right?

It's like their definition of "emotion", to them it means "sad". See the visionary creator David Cage for example, you never see happiness in his games, only sadness.

Then do it for the science and eat some fish dish with chocolate.

that does not make it inedible, it just makes it taste like shit, try again

So you want something poisonous? Some mushrooms are unedible just because they taste like shit, not because they can kill you.

*inedible

and now youre trying to move the goalposts and redefine what edible means instead of conceding that yer analogy is shit

case in point, the "are games art?" debacle is an autistic screeching competition between retards that both live on the assumption that art literally is "something that grownups do"
except SJW hacks operate on the imposter syndrom while you operate on munchhausen imposter syndrome

if they're inedible to begin with,they're gonna still be inedible after you mix them with something else

theres always like 4 assholes who cannot for the life of them read. whether its due to horrible dyslexia or having english as a second language.

Takeshi's Challenge

If that's the case, then they should admit that they games are crap and barely qualify as games.

video games consist of more subcategories
Art Designe
Music
Gameplay
technic
engine
all these core modules determine the immersiveness of a game. As we see, Art Designe is just one core of the hole concept but Art Designe is the only core which you can aply the Games are art badge.

If these fucknuts continue to arguee like this, they will continue to play games without any game mechanics
it wouldn't be a problem if these fucknuts where not in high ranked position within the gaming industry/Media
But even if not, there are still enough shills/goons/sjw pushing this theme

He's racemixed, grandparents probably burnt coal.

Is this mushroom edible?
first-nature.com/fungi/tylopilus-felleus.php

Cya, little baiter.

Fish and chocolate are inedible together, for example. Read the reply chain before you post in it.

what are you trying to prove

That you can't read at all.

Games aren't art, they should always be entertaining and fun.

...

if my team gets to define what art is I can just say all my critics fundamentally misunderstand and thus their opinions are invalid - SJW

what if art is entertaining and fun?

Either a genuine chromosome hoarder, or a baiter so bored he stoops to outright lying.

Why OP, it is like you knew I had the Fag Theory webm about how it is okay when vidya isn't fun.

GOOD LUCK SELLING GAMES THAT AREN'T FUN
lmao

A game should be engaging, interesting, and evocative.

"Fun" can be any one of those things.

i like that

Why is it that the group of people who think games shouldn't be fun all the time are the same ones who try to start a riot when a game won't beat itself for them?

I am planning on buying a large replica of that painting and hanging it in my living room with a small etching on the frame that is just a translation of the letter. Feels real fucking good considering it's not that expensive.

...

Does it have some colours mod?

Anything can be fun, because different people find different things fun. Fuck off.

kinda

why

Of course they don't have to be fun. A game doesn't have to be fun, a movie doesn't have to be entertaining, music doesn't have to sound good, and food doesn't have to taste good. It just means that they are bad at what they do. All those things are still art even when the execution is bad, but part of being art means that it's open to criticism and there are bad creations. Games being art means that they can be bad art.

More importantly, how many times a fucking week do we need this goddamn thread?

You can find things appealing without finding anything fun about it at all. I don't understand why you're so obsessed with claiming the word "fun".

It's like saying all food has to be delicious. You can enjoy food that's really bitter or sour and makes your face turn inside out, but that doesn't make it delicious.

Yes it fucking does you retard.

If somebody enjoys food that is overly bitter or unbearably tart, that's just having bad taste. "Delicious" means that something tastes good in any way, meaning you enjoy it. It doesn't make much sense to enjoy the taste of something that tastes bad to you. If you enjoy the flavor, it is delicious to you to some degree.

Depends if by fun you mean happiness, bright colours, and laughter, or just entertainment.

Alright, then: Games should be compelling. Can we agree on that?

Yes.

So just like art is there going to be. Games and "Modern Games"?

...

...

Think that this guy is President of America now hahahaha

Video games do not have to be fun.
They do have to be entertaining, however.
You can have something that is entertaining without it being "fun".

How I've been waiting for this. The chess analogue is always relevant. Chess is a perfect game. It's all mechanics and tons of potential challenge, depending on your opponent.
Chess would not become a better game if you added cutscenes, detailed pieces or "progressive" message to it. Now, of course this isn't enough for the rainbow hairs. The game is too challenging, so they would also like to simplify the mechanics until it becomes checkers.
Chess is actually a progressive game. When a pawn is promoted, they can become a queen. That's right, you had a sex change operation right in front of your eyes.

two terms

Chess is an unbalanced game that has a win ratio for white of about 55% in high-level play. It has a strong first-move advantage. Chess is a good game, but not perfect.
Go is a much better game, and being points-based, you can fairly and accurately handicap for player level and first-move advantage. Go is a perfect game.

FUCKING DONALD DRUMFP, WHY CAN'T YOU BE HAPPY WITH ONE!!!

weve fallen pretty far

Again, that's debatable. A lot of people would consider horror movies fun.

Is making anything "modern art" the way to ruin things people like?

Horror movies are not always fun, though. More importantly, they are not built to be fun. But you will find all of them have the goal of being entertaining.
It's an undebatable fact, here.

That first webm plays out like a comedy sketch.

I would agree with this, but on the condition that fun games receive equal recognition for being on that same spectrum. But that will never happen with these half wits. So fuck this guy in his strong eye hole.

I disagree, The Evil Dead series and by association the modern remake attempted to keep the fun of the originals while attempting to make a serious horror movie.

Newspeak gender-neutral name meaning 'failed abortion.'

Not the point, you kraut.
Or do you think that because some games are made to be scary, all games are made to be scary?

The basis of games, and most media in general, is to be entertaining, not fun.
Fun is something in the same realm as "scary".

Thats because it was.

Whether fun is just a synonym of entertaining is a debate in and of itself.

Why would you name a boy Nathalie?

I, for one, only play unfun games.

Not a boy, but maybe a demi-boy.

True, but it's a stupid debate, because this is basic english.

This.

It's really not an agreeable argument to anyone but the insane. Art as a pure concept is enjoyable and fun to appreciate for some, but the argument made here is using a different definition of "fun" that doesn't exactly make sense.

Essentially this is an SJW trying to get people to accept disgusting, low effort garbage after he got salty that people didn't like his putrid waste of fucking code. Art can be very fun, but in a passive manner where observation itself is fulfilling. If you can manage that in a medium that prioritizes action of the participant rather then passive observation, then fucking great, you've mastered your craft by getting people to appreciate art in a vastly different medium. But these fucks aren't artists, they're rejects, and this is complaining.

Video games are a much different type of art, and you cannot come into it expecting people to accept you or appreciate you, because people come into the medium wishing to participate. The plain fact is that these rejects expect gamers to act as their hipster former audience and sip wine in a corner while listening to pretentiousness to justify their existance.

If you cannot appeal to the audience that you target, then your art is worthless and you should either change yourself or get the fuck out. No one has to appreciate you at all, it is not a privilege you have handed to you.

Well then no game made by you leftist cucks is good art even by your own standards.

Face it, you came into it because you didn't have the technical chops to sit down and get better at drawing, script writing etc and either got laughed out of the artroom or KNOW you can't cut it, so you moved to another medium thinking we'd accept you THERE. Just fuck straight off.

Was this during the campaign? because this is the first I saw this. This looks way too ridiculous.

Well, she's right. A game doesn't have to be fun. It can be an intentionally bad game. Just like how someone can intentionally bad movie.

Yes, any game that isn't fun is bad. Being engrossed in something, whether it makes you happy or sad, is fun. Blade Runner is fun. Dredd is fun. They're fun for different reasons, but I still enjoy them.

Something that isn't fun is either forgettable or bad.

...

I wasn't talking about ironic enjoyment. Why are you?

Theres a difference between making a game to satirize a genre, or to make a game thats shit and defend it with muh art

why does leftypol still trying to shit on pol by bringing them onto an unrelated issue?
fucks sake, stay on your containment board or fuck off back to reddit

i'll deffend a game like God Hand to the bitter end just because it's fun
despite all it's flaws when i pop that disk in i laugh and have a blast from start to finish
wether it is from laughing at the silly jokes or overcoming the game's challenge, i enjoy playing as much as i enjoy fapping
fun is like beauty
it's not something that needs a description when you can just feel it
that why kikes hate them both, because they don't feel anything, they only know how to count numbers so if they can't measure something it doesnot exist for them or is a relative term with no objective standard to define it

So you are saying objectively bad games and movies can be enjoyed? I'm sure there is some level of enjoyment akin to a child enjoying the box more than the toy but we are trying to make an objective case here. There are definitions that make something enjoyable or entertaining. Bad games and movies don't meet those criteria, simple as that.

Complete shit

What is an objective measure of fun? That's personal engagement.

A game can be well made but bad because it's boring. The objective measure of a game's quality is in how well it's made. Bethesda games are inherently bad because they don't work. Whether or not they're fun is an individual question.

Preferably a label that doesn't apply to a lot of things other than halfassed boring artfag games.

"fun" is subjective, it's not an argument about why the game is good nor it is a good way to discuss a game with other people because the reason why the game is "fun" for you might be entirely personal

It could be "fun" to fuck a lion on the train tracks somewhere remote facing the wrong way so that you won't even be able to see the train coming up behind you. There is no context about why it's apparently enjoyable because I didn't tell you about the time I put my cock in a lion or about when some cunt threw a cell phone on the train tracks and the rush of getting it before it ran me over was amazing.

"fun" is a buzzword for when you can't explain what made the game fun.

Completely retarded argument. Fun is a measure enjoyment, not an emotion. A sad game can still be fun. If your game is not fun, it's just shit. No matter what emotion your game is attempting to convey, the game can still be made to be fun.

...

...

The worst thing I can say about the game is that it is meta shit.

When a 'game' behaves like fucking malware, they should be banned because they might actually be malware.

...

This reminds me of certain lad at /agdg/ who had a dumb libshit colleague that wanted to make a 2deep4u meta game that had malware as a feature.
I bet you will love lostboy.exe :^).

Fun is just a function in your brain user, learn to live without it

You can't reduce games down to a single, or even group of individual (and not even wholly necessary) components - then classify it as those components. Games contain more traditional art forms, but they are games first and foremost. That is what (at least should) take primacy - if you want to call your software a game.

Again, if games are an art - then it is an art only in the most broad sense relating to technical mastery, both of the game designers and of the player working within the rules of the game. To truly be expressed, it requires not only active participation on the part of the player - but a level of competency necessary to push the limits of the mechanics. It is not a passive art meant for consumption, but is the result of a synthesis of both player and software.

It has far more in common with sports, martial arts, or craftsmanship - than it does with more passive consumptive art forms like literature, poetry, illustration, music, etc.

It's one thing to listen to a song and enjoy it, and it's a significantly different experience to actually playing a song on an instrument you've mastered.

I've seen few, if any, people actually use my definition. To the point where the vast majority of people would likely consider me to be full of shit. I don't see how that supports the "games are art" fags, since it flies in the face of many of their precious narratives - such as not needing to be good at video games, or having gameplay-skip buttons to just enjoy the narrative. My definition requires "git gud" in order to even come close to being considered art.

And age is irrelevant. It's not something grownup, exclusively, do. Mastery is all that matters. A seven year old savant, and a 30 year old veteran, are on equal footing here.

You played yourself, you sophist nigger.

Social Justice Simulators

Nani?!?!?!?!?!?!

So you are saying universally praised games like Super mario bros., Crash Bandicoot, and Diablo 2 are not objectively fun or engaging? I'm looking at it from the definition of what is fun and engaging. It's one thing to call a game a 10/10 masterpiece since that will differ from person to person but there are certain games that anyone can play that will always be fun. That's what makes a timeless game, movie, or book. No amount of commie doublespeak will change that objective fact.

You are already fooled, (4).

...

That must be the bugchaser equivalent for indie game design. You aren't a true gamer until someone infects your computer.

It was real damn funny seeing a friend show me a top 5 scariest things on the internet and seeing sad satan. Did you know that game came from the dark net and is full of malware and CP with possible clues to murders that haven't happened yet?

I was talking about what I assumed what your spoiler was. Besides, only retarded liberals would download something on 8ch and not expect dolphin porn.
Says the faggot that didn't know sad satan was made here a few years ago.

And I never implied that I didn't know what lostboy was. You were already assuming, I thought I would join in. :^)

But user they literally argue for all of those

Since you are an expert about living with no brain, how about you give us some tips?

I assumed you were not. I was just being nice and didn't bring it up. Oh well.

Get into mobile gaming and worship Satan.

>TruthSeeker
What did you mean by this?

Lurk more faggot.

No.

...

Eat shit

Objectively, not really. They do basic things that are meant to hit the psychological reward systems games are meant to hit, but most if not every game does that. Whether it works or not is dependent on the person.

There are no objective measures of fun or engagement. Each person experiences this on their own level. Being universally acclaimed doesnt change that. Nothing is objectively fun, because there is no objective measure of fun.

I was referring to people who defend mostly bad games with "but it's fun" in place of an actual valid reason why it's not bad.
It was used a lot in the Overwatch threads we had here, because the anons there clearly knew that the game was indefensible.

'but it's fun' is the 'but I came' rating you might give a prostitute - it's a low bar.

"Fun" doesn't mean "happy".
You can have fun with a sad song, or reading something that makes you angry.
"Fun" is a simplified form of "engrossing", or at the very least a closely-related concept; nobody has had fun with a thing that doesn't engage them on some level.

Yeah, but if you watch a really engrossing tragedy that moves you to tears, would describing it as "having fun" be the most appropriate choice of words? In that situation people more often than not say "it was really moving or it made me think" rather than "I was really having fun with this movie about suicide or alcoholism".

that reminds me, Killer 7 got so much praise for being art but these faggots that say games should be art. probably never played games like Killer 7 or other games that where experimental in the gamecube, xbawx and ps2 days.

And thanks to faggots like him, we have a god damn formula to everything gaming. Indie games are 2d platformers, if not a survival game with a gimmick, if not they are a literal walking simulation game with minor interaction.
I fucking hate these people.

I feel like this whole thing stems from misinterpretation of the fact that emotion is created from within the person, not necessarily directly from the medium. Meaning that something that doesn't look objectively good to an outside perspective can be meaningful to a particular person.(a semi-relevant example would be horror games, a lot of men just don't find them scary, at all) So in other words, they've taken subjective value and driven it into the ground. Maybe in their twisted little heads it feels good to them, but that's delusion.

I wish I could explain it better…

I hate the whole "games are art" bullshit and all the pretentious garbage that gets a pass just as much as the next guy, but the idea that every game needs to be fun is just as one-track minded I think. Not every good video game is fun the entire time, but if it's an interesting experience that leaves you yearning for more, then I think it deserves a pass. A good example to exemplify my point would be a game like Silent Hill 2, which is interesting in how it creates a sense of dread through its atmosphere and gameplay, that goes hand in hand with the narrative to result in an utterly unique and memorable experience. Yet despite this, I wouldn't say Silent Hill 2 is a fun game, because it's really not. Of course, all that being said, a game is shit if it's not fun or interesting, and most of the time, games that get a pass under the guise of "not trying to be fun, trying to be thought provoking" are pretty bad, which may be indicative of the fact that games that try to be fun are usually better than games that try to be interesting. This, in my opinion, leads to the obvious conclusion that developers aren't thinking enough about the player's experience when designing games with the intention of being interesting, As with the aforementioned example, there are cases in which they get it right, but those are much rarer than the cases where they fuck everything up. This should be a warning to the shills to stop flagging their games as intelligent, because any consumer who's realized what I've outlined will take such a description to mean that the game is most likely bad, thus ensuring the game will get even less attention, or worse, more negative attention than it's getting now.