JP has been right throughout this whole arguement.. The painting analogy was perfect, that you credit the painter, not the companies that made the materials even though the materials are what's limiting the creation. Otherwise, nothing would be art, because everything that we create are limited by materials in some way or another. If we discredited the player from contributing to the storytelling of a game, we'd have to discredit the designers from making the game because they didn't make the tools, software, and materials themselves. But even then, you'd have to discredit the makers of the tools, software, and materials because THEY used someone else's tools, software, and materials. Eventually this would boil down to nothing being created by anyone because everything we've made came from the world around is, making the... true creator of ANYTHING/EVERYTHING the big bang.
So automatically, players already have been contributing to the storytelling of all games.. It's what makes them games (interactive entertainment). Unlike movies and novels, where you can experience them differently, it is not only due to perception, it is due to your interaction and how it literally shapes the story (and sometimes the climax of it). What Extra Credits said was that there can be more games that take advantage of this, which I totally agree with, why not take advantage of the 'interactive' part of interactive entertainment? If I wanted to play through a perfectly linear experience it wouldn't really be a game as much as a movie that you have to constantly hit the play button to keep watching.
As far as calling the player an artist for this, nobody should've ever even gotten into that. What is and isn't art has ALWAYS been up for debate (look up dadaism). Because of this, what I define as art, is anything that was intended to be art. It just makes it easier.
Finally, saying that tetris isn't about stacking boxes and that farmville isn't about actually farming has nothing to do with the arguement. Games aren't made to simulate real life, there'd be no need for them then. Games are about experiencing things that we could not (or don't want to) experience in the real world. For example, I wouldn't like being a terrorist/counter-terrorist in real life, because I'd risk being killed. I play counter strike so I can experience the FUN and THRILLING part of being in CT vs T combat. If games were meant to simulate reality, that would mean that after I die in counter strike, (or any game for that matter), I'd be dead for good.. I wouldn't ever be able to play the game again because my character is 'dead' and you don't come back to life after death..
So games are made to experience things we can't in real life, or to experience the fun part of things in real life without all the drag (like risking your life). Tetris is based off stacking boxes, but it's not supposed to be a reality simulator, it's supposed to simulate the fun part of it. If your game isn't fun it has nothing to do with what it's about.. ever.. It'd be because you don't know how to make fun games. TG's whole arguement was heavily flawed.
