Video Games & Art

There can be excellent video games and poor video games. They can affect the player emotionally, viscerally, and convey every sort of information. They can do this directly, or experientially by having it happen to the player directly. That is to say, have them feel in spontaneously from context of the game.

You can call it whatever you want as long as you don't lose sight of the capacity of the medium. Your whole diatribe comes down to saying leftism is why video games can't be art.

Whatever you say, pal.

What I'll never undestand about this art vs. not art debate is why the fuck does it matter?

If all the world collectively decides today that "yes, video games are art!" will EA stop releasing yearly rehashed sports games? Will tumblrites stop making broken, pile of shit walking simulators? Will Call of Duty stop being produced? WHAT CHANGES WHEN WE ACCEPT VIDEO GAMES AS ART? They get a fucking museum? They're already in museums. They get taught in school? Many schools, in certain countries, already use video games as teaching guides.

Nothing changes. Nothing matters. It's a bunch of fucking morons arguing about nothing.

A miserable pile of secrets.

Concept artists are virtually essential for a game, really. But most of them just enjoy their work. They're in it to get paid, of course, but they're not attempting to make works of art. They just want to make.

Combination of and
To create a good expression in a creative work, you need to use your understanding mastery of the medium. Sure, you can make art without the technical mastery, but it will most likely be shit since you have such shit control of your work. Conversely, a masterful piece of work in that medium isn't truly art unless it's created with the purpose of having that expression. It also won't necessarily be good if you aren't using the medium to its fullest, even if there i some technical mastery to it.

Satan gets it though. This argument doesn't really matter. As far as society is concerned, video games are treated just the same as any other creative medium used for art.

little*

That was a really good webm, thanks user.

Video Game isn't art, it's just a support, like cinema, a book, audio file, a television, LP.

It's just a language, a form of media communication.

So, you really can't define this shit as art. But, what people do with this language can be considered art.

I jotted this down in notepad before going to sleep before.

Also, Much of the things OP said already been debated in cinema circles hundred years ago.

I have to disagree. Video games are art, but barely any are by my standards. Only the best should be considered art. Just like the best fighter's fighting would be considered art. Or the best sculpture, best song, best dance. Plenty of things are art.

In the end, you said the same thing.

Pretty much everything in that image is obvious if one is familiar with the production of art and its financial sustainability.

I suppose what people struggle with is that they want video games to be relevant to society as a whole, much like people latched onto the absurd concept of "The Great American Novel."

In actuality that probably would not be desirable. Who knows how many hobbies, arts, crafts, and subcultures were lost in the course of history? Really, it all boils down to whether people value the concept of culture, and many capitalist people only care about it in the sense that they can make money off of it. People put living and other material needs ahead of higher pursuits and luxuries most of the time.

That's not the reason why video game isn't art.

Video game isn't art because it's mechanics-heavy. Video game isn't art because it's driven by competition. Video game can't exist without mechanics, rules, and competitions. This is why it's not a good medium for art.

Creativity, passion, and skills are not enough to make art. Art has to be an emotional reality. The vision of art must be a form of introspection and retrospection. Art must be a manifestation of the artist's long lasting spiritual longing for harmony.

This is why video games, math, science, machinery, and porn can't be art. Unlike music and poetry, they aren't born out of the spiritual dynamics of the artist nor they are made for the main purpose of bringing the artist's metaphysical emotional ideas into reality.

The problem with modern art and impressionist art is they're experimental and not contemporary. In order to be a form of emotional reality, art first has to be recognizable by the audience. The definition of reality and contemporary are similar, they both imply a real and tangible thing that exists here and now. Introduction to the artist's inner own self must be supported by the tangibility of his creation.

This is the problem of modern art. The artists are selfish, they don't want to sacrifice time and effort to be understood by the audience. They want to be ~deep~, even though their half assed art shows the shallowness and self complacence of their soul.

No, video game should not be considered as a form of art, no matter how good it is. Whenever video games try to be more like art, it fails. Video game isn't medium for a search for faith and ideal. Video game is a medium for competition and amusement. Competition and amusement are a HUGE distraction for the audience from the experience of art, just like the vulgarity, twists, and shock value of modern art.

Video games aren't a valid medium of art. Not that it cannot produce something of quality but most people that made good games did it by accident. Shit games get over praised while no one truly understands what makes a good game good.

When standards don't go up, they will go down. nuDoom is only considered good only because the declining standards. Without a well defined standards, the word mediocre will be the Trojan horse of lowered standards.

Check em

In the past, painters and sculptors were commissioned, usually by nobility, royalty, or aristocracy.

If we can agree to consider classical painters such as Da Vinci as artists. It brings a conflict if finances and profits are a factor in whether or not something is considered art. If the term art no longer just describes creative work made from skill or imagination.

Plus the whole are videogames art thing was only to get them protected as a creative medium in the same lines as film and cartoon and music were, as added to the limitations of free speech as a creative work.

Good shit that did when the leftists took over for 8 years and sank the constitution into the ground.

Let's have another go at that.

How about no twinky.

Well i've failed miserably, have a sage.

...

Yeah, everytime somone brings up how good nudoom is i always tell them "its not hard to be good if everything has been shit for the past 7~ years". Nudoom is shit, but not as shit when compared to a mountain of even smellier shit.

You know, I think this can all be summed up in an explination of one of the great artist of the video game industry: Todd Howard, and how he is the VG equivalent of Andrei Tarkovsky.

You see, this is the next evolution in gaming. IMO, some games should be less competition oriented. In it's early development, video game was a medium for translating logic and reflex engagement oriented activities into digital video format. Some people turn out to enjoy the experience of observing and discovering instead of engaging their reflexes and logic in the game their play. This is how games like Morrowind were born.

Just like the evolution of films. Back in the 20's great directors like Fritz Lang directed beautiful looking films that are focused on the exposition of the plot, but it turned out that the audience were more mesmerized by the grandeur audiovisual telling of the story. Then came Tarkovsky and his unique way of directing films with the logic of poetry where man and nature, instead of plot, are equally the star of the film even though they barely recognized each other. This technique of recreating life using the audiovisual medium stands at the highest ground of the evolutionary ladder of cinema.

People like Todd Howard are the Tarkovsky of video games. With his unique non autistic perspective, he sees video games as an experience rather than a puzzle. With trials and errors, he has tried to create an experience oriented video game rather than the traditional game oriented video games. His technique might still be in the experimental stage, but I hope someday he will find the perfect formula to articulate his visionary ideal, a combination of discovery and world manipulation.

I think the image you posted before I got a chance to best describes the state of art as a whole: good artists don't even want to be called artists any more, because it means be classified along with people who have no actual talent or ability.

If you can't get dubs with three attempts, what are you even doing here?

Unfortunately, most people purchasing have no experience with older games, or just don't care either way. Which is how the industry likes it.

What a ripping off thief you are, user.

Beautiful and moving post, it really touched my soul.

True, but at the same time. nuDoom is more like, sand, than shit. Slightly more useful and entertaining but, mostly just a big useless mound.

Scientists argue that our universe is expanding in an accelerated rate instead of the commonly accepted constant speed. They argue that gravity would eventually compress the universe if the universe were expanding in a constant pace.

Now pretend that I made a clever analogy for video games.

here's a (you) for (you)

Nice pasta m8, but nevertheless, it misses something:

Film was a puzzle. It continued to be for a very long time. Many of the things we see today that make film work are taken for granted. Even video games, with all of their genres and forms, can barely be described with the same degree of complexity. That's why devs try to make these "movie games" with lots of cut-scenes - that way, they can just use techniques from film.

The problem is, they don't understand why those techniques work, or the medium they are working with. As a result, the games are shit, both as games and as movies.

So youre saying games are getting shitter, faster?

Is something wrong? Oh wait you have a tripcode, you should be filtered. If an idea is good, it's worth spreading. If someone wants special attention for their brilliant works, they should go post them somewhere that you can get credit for it. Not an anonymous message board where the idea is all that matters.

It's why I don't use a tripcode, I want people to appreciate my brilliant post for their own merit.

How dare you! Let me further explain so it makes it more clear. Since you will see I agree.

Stalker is Tarkovsky at his prime. He knew his strength and already figured out all the faults he made in Ivan's Childhood and Solaris. Among all Tarkovsky's kinos, maybe excluding Zerkalo, Stalker has the most flawless pacing and visuals. It might exceed Stalker at a few places, but while Zerkalo was meant to be watched by people who grew up in cold war era Soviet, people who can relate their life experience to the film, there is a more universal aspect of Stalker that makes it understandable by those who don't even understand Russian culture. Stalker is very articulate in presenting it's theme of apocalypse, faith, hope, and freedom, while Zerkalo is one of Tarkovsky's more personal works based on his childhood.

Unlike Tarkovsky, Todd hasn't truly learned all the strengths and weaknesses of Morrowind. The immersion of FO4 and Skyrim is simply unable to match Morrowind. Morrowind with it's alien world, colorful ecosystem, and various cultures, is still not yet fully understood by Toddovsky. Therefore, Todd is still at the experimental stage, not contemporary.

What comes next is people like Todd understanding the medium at it's fullest. With that comes the why.

Is that seriously the CEO of EA? He looks like a super villain.

Who gives a shit? They're fun and that's all that should matter. Art has its head way too far up its own ass for anybody to take it seriously anymore.

Patreon is just an artist's way of locking pictures behind a paywall. Calling Patreon beautiful is like calling Amiibo a godsend.

Art is subjective, and will always be subjective. It's the same thing with a game's quality. You can tell me a game is good, but until I play it, I'm not going to call it good.

You can make vidya art, but you can't make art vidya.

Todd wasn't even the project head until Bloodmoon. He was relatively high in ranks, that much is true. But he had virtually nothing to do with the world and lore for Morrowind, which were its primary strengths and weaknesses.

Since then, he has arguably been doing less. In his current role, he handles business goals and "ideas" and so forth, but the game as a whole is being designed by other people. He's a classic example of a person who was promoted too high.

Exactly.

If you honestly think video games are fun anymore, then I'd love to see which games you're playing. Gaming is much less entertaining now than it was in the past. The reason for this is precisely because of the fake artists. This isn't about "are games art", it's about the fact that they are not art, the reason why they aren't art, and how the people trying to make them into art are bringing down the medium as a whole.

Most of the people who lock things behind pay-walls are the type who I'm pointing out as being the issue: The ones who aren't really in it for the sake of art. I dislike how Patreon and similar things have turned out, but to reject the idea of the masses paying small amounts to artists in great numbers rather than singular persons expending large amounts on singular pieces is ridiculous.

Techniques are only a part of "streamlining" your artistic creation to meet the expectation of the audience. I Yes, there is a puzzle aspect to it, it has to work in a contemporary way first to be digested by the audience before being able to introduce the spiritual ideas of the creator.

But puzzles can't be the center of art. There are artists, for instance filmmakers, who take the puzzle aspect to far by giving their films an elaborate plot and unexpected change of scenes instead of focusing on the life creating process of art itself.

In order to create a work of art that works, one has to see the big image first and observe the details later.

Don't get me wrong buddy. You have my permission to perpetuate that pasta. Regardless who made it which was me, I'd be happy anyway if every ignorant post on this board has the chance to read this post.

But quality is objective :^)
Or please tell me that two inch line is one inch in your opinion. Let's see how that works. The "art is subjective and is unable to be judged in any meritocratic and objective level" is a postmodern meme. Whether you like a piece or not is not the same as the piece being good or not and if you knew fuck all about art you'd know this.

...

No, that's not true. Here's an interview from 2001.

I'm talking about the industry as a whole, there have been plenty of good games made in the past, and those ones are fun.

I don't need a trips permission to spread my knowledge of Tarvosky. Who are you? it's an anonymous message board. I don't know why you are so insistent on scoring points by claiming my post are yours or something.

Let me explain why you are wrong about games.

Do you experience math? No, experience is like a childhood memory. You remember the feeling and impressions, but not the details.

Discovery in Metroid is essential to progress the game. It is also dictated by the game. Whereas in Morrowind, discovery comes from the internal motivation of the player. You can finish the game according to the rules, but there is a sense of curiosity that makes the player halt the intended progression and resort to experimentation. This is the beauty of Morrowind, sense of progression is defined by the player rather than the game. Curiosity is what Todd exploited well in this game.

As I have explained above, true experience come from intuition, and it differs from people to people, hence why a book read by a thousand people will turn into a thousand books. The details of the puzzle and rocket launching are not the experience, they are knowledge. The feeling you get after finishing your puzzle is what experience in this context is.

Games and motion pictures are two completely different mediums. One is a medium for art, the other one is a medium for competition. Video game can't and shouldn't try to be art, but I notice that the interactivity aspect of video game can deliver a different experience that is not all about competition.

Did that guy ever even post a picture of his fucking dragon? All you ever see is the dude sucking his own dick.

Intelligent discussions, my favourite.

Art and vidya share some basic qualities, but they don't operate the same, and they aren't even using the term art with the same connotation. People are trying to make games "art" so they can avoid bad reviews or a negative audience, and claim they're just being subjective asshats so they can put out shit games with fuck all thought put into them.

Any moron can figure out that games are only dubbed "art" by some when they're universally loved and well-received, made with a finesse that some Holla Forums-grade autists can only describe as "art".

Techniques are the entire basis behind the medium. If you don't understand how and when to cut, you can't convey anything besides images. You need to know when, where, and how to make everything work. You need to know what angle to use to convey certain emotions. Do I go for a high angle? Do I go for a low angle? What distance should I set it? Is this shot going on two long? Is the spacing right? Do the actors look organic?

The big image is important, yes, but it must be convey in a way appropriate to the medium.

You're right, I mixed it up. His job then was project head. The second job, which I was intending to reference, was executive producer. That was when things went downhill.

Yes, there were. Before people ever brought up the "are video games art" bullshit. Before the developers were attempting to become "artists" and fucking up utterly. You can't compare the two.

Okay here's my take on the issue. Games are art because i say so, they can be good or bad art(Journey), even fucking Joust and Pong are art. They don't stop being art because some Ebert wannabe sez so.

My country has a lot of artists. Really good ones too actually. But we're one of the poorest in Europe and people are retarded and can't appreciate art. A lot of artists will end up starving or just drawing as a secondary thing. Art isn't dead but a few countries in the world want retarded art and the rest don't do anything to help out the artists.

You don't understand me. You're right at this point:

A director needs to articulate his vision. In contemporary film making, the technique of articulating his vision is extremely important, but the vision itself is even more important, it's the center of his creation. Vision is the power of reason, the absolute mover of everything the director does. Mission can't exist without vision.

This is why big image is the most important aspect of film making. Big image gives you direction. The director's job is to create the big image and convey it into smaller details. Visionary directors are always valued more than experienced directors. Those with great skills but without the ability to see the big picture should stay as a cinematographer or co-writer (directors should always have an important involvement in the writing and screenplay departement).

If he draws another man's family is he a cuck?

What if draws the family that desires?
An expretion of his envy?

CONSUMER PRODUCTS ARE NEVER ART YOU FAGGOTS

Don't worry my friend. Someday an Andrei Rublev will appear out of the depravity of your nation.

I think we have a few more famous artists. I personally love architecture nyself. I'm happy that the ugly Soviet buildings are being abandoned. Modern European architecture is pleasing to the eye. Same with pre 1944 buildings. There's something so empty within Soviet work, it's uncanny.

Try 'commission'.
Honestly, it would suck if you drew stuff, and everyone thought you were lonely, and whatever projected assumptions as to why you drew that.

Are you a polish by any chance? Or maybe something more obscure, like Moldova?

You couldn't convince me that Riven isn't a work of art. It's a masterwork of brain-wracking puzzle gameplay working in tandem with a jaw-dropping visual style and flawless world building. You can see the effort and care that was put into this game oozing out of every little detail, it's truly an experience I've never had with any other game.

Why is it never brought up in "videogames are/aren't art" discussions? Is it because the shit-slinging journos are too retarded to even come close to completing it? It's a truly wonderful game

Shouting "MY OPINION IS RIGHT" doesn't make it right.
Explain your reasoning or leave.

Bulgarian. We have a very long history and Veliko Turnovo shows fantastic architecture we had in the past.

Wew lad wew

You know, I was going through google images finding examples of artwork that refuted OP's picture, but he didn't spend a lot of effort making this diarrhea so I'm going to skip the images and just tell you that you're a shitposting moron.

You have absolutely no quantifiable statements in your abortion of a thread to even latch on to in order to refute; it's just an indecipherable ramble against liberals, video games and entertainment in general. Ironically, it could be the most artistic thing you've ever done because it takes genuine brainpower to try to unravel that tightly-coiled turd you call a thesis. In other words, what the hell are you talking about?

define "good"
define "shit"

Don't go waving your opinions in my face without a single point of reference to anything you've said.

Because after photography art became less about craftsmanship and more about bullshit. Riven is aesthetic as fuck but nobody cares unless the game takes a dump on western civilization and has kike investors who auction the game off for retarded prices. Art is something upperclass tards do when they shoot pain enemas over a canvas or make gigantic turds and buttplug sculptures out of plastic, it's not something an artist makes anymore.

But user don't you see. This random Holla Forums browser on the internet said that art is definitively this one thing and that if it doesn't meet that standard it can't ever be art. HE HAS TO BE CORRECT.

baby don't hurt me

Well you got the shitposting right, but the rest is a little different. Art can be objectively classified as good or bad. Entertainment can be classified as good or bad. And leftist philosophy is clearly responsible for the idea of subjectivity being applied to things.

I suppose. Just remember that the prequels and original Star Wars films were made by the same director, with the same big image. The difference between them was the smaller details.

Do burgers geniunely think "art" is limited to awkward stunts by deadbeat students in liberal arts, money laundering galleries and tumblr?

I don't think left-right has much to do with this shit. Just nutters being retarded. It's not like the right has had a shortage of religious nuts to pull this kinda bullshit where the only thing that matters is how they choose to interpret your work.

Fuck artists OP

All artists are leftists. There's no such thing as right-wing artists, because right-wing people aren't fucking faggots

This thread's gay. Video games aren't art and they fucking shouldn't be. I'd be insulted if someone told me what I had made was art because it'd mean I'm a self-fellating douchebag

The medium is already at its cynical phase.

...

Please go back to cuckchan, OP

Certain aspects of art can definitely be objectively classified as good or bad. If you see a modern book that's so filled with flowery language that it's borderline unreadable, and when the only reason for it is that the author thinks that overusing thesaurus makes him look smart, you can tell that the writing is objectively shit.

There are, of course, subjective parts, such as the topic the author writes about (some people hate certain topics with fashion and call the book rubbish, others love it and call it a literary masterpiece), but if you look at literary criticists, they rarely make any comments about these subjective part, and if, then mostly to point out that these concepts have already been done many, many times in other books and the author is unoriginal, or that they're refreshingly new, etc. which, again, are objective statements.

I wrote fashion instead of passion. Fuck

What kind of cool aid have you been drinking? See:

The main problem isn't with the right-left dichotomy but with the current evolution of the understanding of art. Currently, we live in a time where realism and quality are considered unimportant. If someone with an art major says what they made is art, it's considered to be art. The thing is, people with right-wing beliefs lean towards traditionalism, which casts its eye back to a time when art was judged by the effort that went into it. Nobody wants to be in a community of people who disagree with them, and so those with right-wing beliefs are largely pushed out of the art world.

Without anyone to dissent, instead of constantly improving in quality, the so-called artists stop striving to craft something better than what they did before, and instead just produce things with the expectation of getting paid. That's why I call them false artists - they have ceased making art entirely, and instead begun to produce trash.

The thing is, the common man doesn't hold those beliefs. As much as leftism pushes it, people still mock "modern art" more often than they celebrate it. They're much more interested in old works, or in pin-up girls, depending on the type. Were our culture completely flipped, and everyone loved abstraction, the leftists would of course become the crusaders in favor of quality and traditional values, seeking to become the counter-culture. But such a thing runs counter to how humans think and feel, and so it can never be.

How do you define "art?" Because, the common definition the rest of the world uses isn't a label that informs the thing being label as much as a way to think about said thing. Like I understand if you don't like the idea of "art," but it's not a label that has any meaning or requirements. People call things art, because they want to talk about it in a specific way not because it is or isn't art. Anything can be art. There is no relevant definition of art that excludes anything. You could frame this fucking post and it could be shitty experimental art.

If you say video games aren't art you've literally just redefined the word art into something it isn't that encapsulates something you don't like so you can try and convince people it's objectively bad. I mean I'll eat my words if of the next few years culturally the word art gets redefined, but it seems nigh impossible to do so from my perspective. Every time this post comes up it's not even a discussion about art or video games it's a clusterfuck argument over the definition of words.

There's not a damn thing that you can use your tastes to base the objectivity of a statement on other than that you, yourself, don't like it. Please, spend a little less time on this board or pol or whatever so you can understand that "objective" used here is only used as "what should be consensus among our group". That's not what objective means.

It's fine for you to say you don't like something. You don't have to respect something because someone calls it art. You shouldn't respect something just because someone calls it art. But trying to posit your tastes as something objective is just a way of posturing your tastes to be worth more than they really are.

The brand is called Kool-aid, with a "k". Typos happen, but I'm willing to guess that your understanding of english has something to do with your misunderstanding of what objective means.

The entire purpose of many works of art in the past is to show how vague the label of art is. The only thing you can hope to discern from a label of art is that someone, somewhere, believes that it should be presented as such. It is a word with little meaning because of how flexible it is in our language.

For your first part, there are plenty of people who dissent. Many people try to share their artwork in circles where they don't have to deal with much outright disparagement of their work because of this - the proliferation of the internet has made such circles more accessible for anyone with a passing whimsy in creating art. For your second part, about getting paid, you're a fucking moron if you think that is a defining characteristic of our time.

OP stop posting. I got dubs here
You have to go back to cuckchan.

Please end this meme.

Art isn't something you consume is it? It's certainly a product, but toys are too.

I certainly don't want my hobby to be "art", rats and lizards use it for money laundering.

Quoted the wrong part there, meant to reply to

Correct, which is why I wouldn't ascribe this to left-right thinking. There's always idiots on either side of the fence who will embrace some rationale for why their perspective is so important and needs to be catered to, but they don't reflect the average person. The average person still wants good art and still thinks the modern art trend is a joke.

This guy is really handsome, but there's something evil in his eyes. I mean, something devilish.

He's the CEO of EA, of course he looks like an incarnation of Satan. His look is just of the "handsome devil" variety.

But they already do, /toy/fag

This is a stupid conclusion that would imply that almost all art is actually not art, including almost every movie, and every commissioned artwork, including the works of Michaelangelo and DaVinci.

some games are art and others are shit.
Also I don't give a shit about the opinion of faggots

Good taste in colossi, fam.

High Cheekbones, Crinked Eyebrows, suave Hairstyle.

He's got sharp features, coupled with the lighting and his position in society (CEO of a major company) makes you feel uneasy.

He's one speech about "ushering in a new era" short of being a James Bond villain.

"Movie games" are also a crutch, since they can dictate the cool effects and reduce pesky variables when everything's cinematic.

What makes games art is when they do things as a medium unique and plays into the interaction. Films struggled to break away from just being recorded plays and into something more when it tapped into techniques and attributes that the stage couldn't replicate. It's one of the reasons "cinematic experiences" come off so shallow for video games and movie adaptations of games lose a lot in the process (on top of, you know, generally sucking on a film level)

The best art for games is when it compliments the gameplay, even the fundamental design itself.

Games may or may not contain art. Games aren't art per se. This whole discussion about wether games are art or not is fucking retarded.

Art means good. Good job showing you know nothing about the topic at hand, dumbass.
Yes, it does matter, retard. So much for being against censorship and yet you are trying to remove the label that protects them from government censorship, you fucking subhuman.
I guess this one is the most valid "invalid" argument here. You just need to find an actual explanation.

Anyone wants to add more logical fallacies to the list? These threads are a fucking mine on "how not to debate" classes.

Calm your tits down son, no need to double post.

Actually there are two edits of him beign satan, an dthe other a Ventrue prince.

did you even read my fucking post?

to me it's something that has purposefully and meticulously crafted to stimulate one or more of the senses to cause an emotional reaction.

A bag of crisps isn't art.
A big fuck off platter of sizzling lobster cooked by the finest chef in the land is.
It's a hard subject to define, one could just well argue that art only pertains to visual mediums of the static kind such as sculptors or paintings.
But what about when literature is introduced such as comics or television or film?
When does the news become 12 Angry Men.
When does Dennis the Menace become The Watchmen

Furthermore we also get the imitation of art, artistic techniques and flavor.
The true question is, where is the line drawn between what and what isn't art.
How do we define that?
How technically good it is?
How it makes us feel or think?
The message it sends?
The medium its in and the tools used?

See for me an artistic game would be something technical like cuhrayzee or fighting games.
Players putting in effort to create something stylish.
At a high level or even hell medium investment, the games play like a movie. Not because the controls are simple and it's just press X to win but because you're being stylish as fuck.
Much like Martial Arts.
The moves in a martial art aren't artistic because they look nice when performed on air, no it's an art because of it's effectiveness and how it appears when hitting someone.

On the other hand we have "artsy" games. All about style with no user input.
Walking simulators for example, they want to get to the end result of art with no actual technical skill.
They want the air of modern day art culture about the game without the actual art itself

he cherry picks in that video

All art is meaningless anyway.
I considered art and expression to be the ultimate meaning of life unless you include religion/God which I don't personally believe in. Living to consume 'higher' media to find 'answers' and, maybe, create something into the world and live an imprint for after I die, immortalizing myself in this manner.
Now I suddenly understand the daunting realization that there is not really any point. You won't find any higher meaning or answers in art due to the simple fact that it's made by ordinary people just like you and not some kind of 'higher' authority.
That really strips the meaning of 'art' of all validity and instantly turns everything into 'entertainment' – something to waste your time on, something to make time go by while you are waiting for your inevitable demise. You won't find anything, no matter how hard you look, which makes it all inherently meaningless entertainment and merely a brain-teaser in the end. The percieved 'difference' really is only in the nuance of technique.
For that reason, all art is merely entertainment and there is no point in trying to elevate it from anything else, give it special definitions and, really, argue about it.

You're starting to make a point, but I doubt being stylish is a requirement to consider a game good. All it needs is deep and rich mechanics that let you discover new things you can do even after playing for days.

Being stylish is just the icing of the cake; what you are talking about is about the perfect combination between two different artistic dimensions. Basically, you are directly linking the gameplay aspect with the visual aspect, and it makes great gameplay feel even greater, but as you said, something stylish without substantial gameplay to back that up is just a shitty interactive movie.

Some examples of good mixing of gameplay and other dimensions could be most rhythm or music centric games (not Uncommon Time), but that's to be expected. What wasn't that expected was some of Undertale's beat paced fights, although I will admit Undertale's mechanics aren't that outstanding and just do the trick.

fun is an emotion

Art simply means something made with no practical purpose. Name one piece of art with practical purpose, and you'll see what I mean.

Art will never be video games.

artisitc porn

This. "Art" with a purpose is called craft, that's all.

thanks for the response user, yeah that's the gist of what my mind was reaching for.

it's funny, people rag on this site for being hateful and yet here we all are discussing the philosophy and critieria of art

Ah, you mean feminist porn. That's made with political motivation more than anything.

the postmodern cucks won because of you fags
I am writing a book about the art of gamepaly

Trolling is a art

*an art, retard

Oh good, this will be a 50+ post chain of old memes, pretending to be retarded to bait, someone getting baited, lol I trol u, you didn't fucking troll me asshole 0/10 shitty troll I'm not even mad, lol u mad, no u, wow great comeback kid smug_anime_grill_02.jpg, mailto:sage >>>/reddit/, mailto:sage VIDEO GAMES,>02 what's smug_anime_grill_01.jpg user?, mailto:sage ==AUTISM==, and 30+ posts of dubs until the thread dies.

Might as well jump straight to the end of this then.
Check em

true art is priceless and exists to glorify the artist and/or God.
consumer products exist to be sold to others for profit.
how is this hard to understand/an opinion at all?

We get a lot of flak for sounding rude because we don't really self-censor ourselves for fear of building bad rep/karma/downvotes. Places like Reddit or NeoFAG have consequences for being "rude" so people around there tend to put that fake smile and play along even if they enjoyed insulting people from time to time.

Anyway, most of use don't really mean it when insulting. I personally use faggot, retard and nigger more as buzzwords than as anything else because they are funny and help getting the point across. They may express some disdain for someone else's opinion, but I am not mad at them, nor actually trying to imply they are homosexual, clinically retarded or black.

If you ignore the "bad words", this place is fairly normal. We can talk things too, just not like "civilised people" would.

Namedropping philosophical buzzwords like "God" or "good" doesn't make your opinion any more valid around here, you know? You need to justify your arguments.

(nice)
Pretty much.

I'd say it depends on the game. I'd call Missile Command or Quake art, (I picked those because they're not obvious and they aren't moviegames like Half-Life and The Meme of Us) but not Pong or Madden.

Missile Command tells a story, you're part of the last humans desperately defending earth or something like that. There's an elaborate backstory in the manual and you act out the rest. You get a sense of that feeling of desperation the last humans had as you get to higher levels and the game gets faster. Quake is the same way, but there's also music and scenery that give you an image of the hellish dimension you've found yourself in. It's not just a story, but a world for you to explore. There's things to interpret, like that cathedral with the Christ statue. Why do interdimensional demon things have a statue of Christ? Does it represent a triumph over God or something? It's part of the story of the world.

Pong and Madden are just there for fun.

They probably haven't even heard of it. If it's not a moviegame or muhsoggyknees then it's not on their radar.

Sounds about right. In the current state of the vidya industry, searching for Riven (the sequel to one of the best-selling PC games of all time) brings up pages for a fucking LoL character just because they share a name. I don't even play that garbage and it still manages to encroach on what I enjoy.

bluh bluh

He looks like the lazy town guy