Games AREN'T Art

[SonicKoala]

Can games move you? Can games have a distinct, emotional affect on an individual who plays and experiences them? Then they're art.

In my opinion, one of the only definite characteristics that we can apply to all things considered art - painting, architecture, film, music, literature - is that they are considered art because of the impact they have on the people that consume them. These works stay with their audience, one of the central reasons people write about, discuss, and praise them. I'm sure that every single person on this website has played a video game which has really "stuck with them", or really moved them in some way. That is affect, and affect is what good art is all about.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Ya, let's try reopening this can of worms.

Let's not and say that we did.

Define "games" and "art" first, then we'll talk.

Argument destroying point destroys arguments. And in a record-breaking one sentence.

Someone please tell the OP to read this and think. Carefully.

 

[J_Monsterface]

Ya, let's try reopening this can of worms.

Its my belief that video games are by definition not art. Plenty of artistic elements certainly, and perhaps even the potential to evolve into some kind of interactive art form, but not art. The reason why video games aren't art is because they are games. Even though the purpose of both art and games are entertainment, they achieve this end through very different means. Games are goal oriented, the purpose is to win. Art appeals to some aesthetic which really isn't based upon this dichotomy of win/lose. Think of how bizarre the statement "I won at art meuseum!" is.

As I said, I believe that video games could eventually become some sort of art form, but at that point I don't think it will be proper to call them games.

Edit: People keep bringing up games like minecraft as an example of a 'game' that doesn't have a definitegoal of winning or losing connected to it. This is PRECISELY the example I would point to to say that games could evolve into something that is art. They won't be games at this point anymore. As far as minecraft itself goes, I'm not sure I would call it art. More like a tool of art. Would you call a paintbrush art?

Edit 2: People keep bringing up the amount of artistic materials like music, voice acting etc. used in games. I don't think this makes the game itself art though. If you see a political campaign which has various drawings being used to further its agenda, would you call that art? The drawings might be artistic, but their purpose is just to illustrate some political slogan or end.

oh boy

fist of all you have failed to even give your personal definition of the phrase "art", so no one could possibly comment as to whether or not your argument is logically founded

and certainly, no one could claim to know first-hand about the validity of your claims, because, as they say, art is subjective

that does not mean everyone's personal opinion of art is valid, it means that the concept of "art" does not have any one specific meaning

it is as abstract a concept as love, reality, or purpose

in my opinion its more of a phenomenon wherein a living being, experiencing life from a subjective isolated viewpoint, experiences the lingering impression of another lifeforms existence by investing the concept of their own being into the arrangement of nonliving forms and choosing- based on the experience- to "believe" or at least emotionally invest in the notion that they are not the only living things besides god or the void or whatever, and some part of the reality they experience is mutually experienced by some "other"

another way id put it is:

art is the big piles of objects, and the big holes in the earth that we make. art is also everything written on bathroom, bedroom, and prison walls. art is the endless highways of pavement that have been painted across all of the land. art is most definitely the image of a human smeared onto a thinly pressed sheet of dried tree pulp with a stick of charcoal.

art is a painting, but sometimes its the frame, and sometimes its the room its in, and sometimes its the way you throw it into a river. sometimes its the way an arm has to move to make a painting, sometimes its the weight of the scissors you use to cut off a piece of yoko ono's shirt

art is the topographical layout of the mountain of dead bodies you walk upon

art is communication

the concept of winning is art, and so is the concept of aesthetic

and so is a paintbrush

art is every single choice made by a human that isnt sex, food, or any other metaphor for survival (the implication of this is, of course, that its existence, in a literal rational form, is unprovable and highly debatable)

everything in life is a metaphor for life, all parts contain the whole that contains them

everything that life has, art has, and everything that life has, art has

arguing about the use of idioms is a wonderful thing in a way, but id feel better (in my soul) if i played a videogame instead

when you rip off the skin, art is the screaming marble alien underneath

 

[beniki]

Ya, let's try reopening this can of worms.

Its my belief that video games are by definition not art. Plenty of artistic elements certainly, and perhaps even the potential to evolve into some kind of interactive art form, but not art. The reason why video games aren't art is because they are games. Even though the purpose of both art and games are entertainment, they achieve this end through very different means. Games are goal oriented, the purpose is to win. Art appeals to some aesthetic which really isn't based upon this dichotomy of win/lose. Think of how bizarre the statement "I won at art meuseum!" is.

As I said, I believe that video games could eventually become some sort of art form, but at that point I don't think it will be proper to call them games.

Battle of the bands, Art Competitions, local landmark bids, film awards, auction houses... there is a long list of art forms where people have the sole intent of winning.

You're using the argument that art should have no purpose other than itself. Which if you think about it, fits games entirely. Games are designed to be games, to use mechanics and a host of other disciplines to create an illusion. Sometimes it's a high minded one like Rez, or a silly one, like Angry Birds.

The win/lose dichotomy is just another mechanic to help the illusion. Claiming that one part of the game is it's entire purpose is like calling Star Wars a symphony because it happens to have really good music.

But that's only if you have the mistaken belief that art is restrictive to magical fairies with paint brushes. Everything is art. The only difference between the Mona Lisa and that cartoon on your coaster is the price people will pay for it.

 

[AdamRBi]

Alright, friend, here's the deal with Video Games as an Artform.

There are films out there called documentaries; They are films that seek to educate, they are what many would say is not art much like a text book is not art. Films, however, are an art form. So, unartistic forms of something artistic can be made.

Legos are not Art, they are a toy much as Video Games were when they were first invented. However we see everyday poeople using them to create works of art that would make Ole Kirk Christiansen's heart explode. One was even on the front page of this site when I logged on. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/113393-Engineers-Construct-Lego-Ford-Explorer] So, unartistic mediums and common place objects can be used for artistic means and to create art.

That being said, saying video games have potential to be art is an understatement. Saying they aren't is a flat-out-lie. Though the means of expression is sectioned off by moments of goal-oriented tasks those don't diminish the game's artistic value. Games that are nothing but goal oriented titles, like most puzzle, sport, and online shooters, do fall under the category of not being art; but filing all other games as non-art ignores generations of story-based games and games using the interactive element to make it's message stronger then if it was just handled as a movie, comic, or novel.

Its my belief that video games are by definition not art. Plenty of artistic elements certainly, and perhaps even the potential to evolve into some kind of interactive art form, but not art. The reason why video games aren't art is because they are games. Even though the purpose of both art and games are entertainment, they achieve this end through very different means. Games are goal oriented, the purpose is to win. Art appeals to some aesthetic which really isn't based upon this dichotomy of win/lose. Think of how bizarre the statement "I won at art meuseum!" is.

Well I wouldn't say an Art Museum is art now would I? A more suitable example would be say "I won at Toy Story 3." Then again, saying "I won at Super Mario Galaxy" sounds weird too. I can say "I finished Toy Story 3," but then I can also say "I finished Super Mario Galaxy" and it works just the same.

I never felt obligated to win at games like Super Mario Galaxy or Half-Life 2. Sure it was peppered with obstacles I had to beat in order to advance, but that's just giving me control over what movie characters would otherwise have to do themselves. The object was never to win the movie or game, just to finish.

Oh course, being goal oriented doesn't automatically deter a game from being considered art ether. There was an art project, it was a Self-Auctioning Black Box [http://consumerist.com/2010/02/self-auctioning-black-box-will-set-you-back-6858.html] who's sole purpose was to sell itself off once you connected it to the internet. That was it, that was it's goal. So in a way this piece of art was goal oriented, even though it was a self-fulfilling goal that only relied on the player to plug it in to an ethernet cable.

As I said, I believe that video games could eventually become some sort of art form, but at that point I don't think it will be proper to call them games.

This is like the Comic/Graphic Novel name game. While it certainly does help simple naming something something different doesn't give it rank above it's equal in terms of artistic merit. A graphic novel isn't necessarily more artistic then a comic book. It just sounds nicer, a rose by any other name.

Edit: People keep bringing up games like minecraft as an example of a 'game' that doesn't have a definite goal of winning or losing connected to it. This is PRECISELY the example I would point to to say that games could evolve into something that is art. They won't be games at this point anymore. As far as minecraft itself goes, I'm not sure I would call it art. More like a tool of art. Would you call a paintbrush art?

I wouldn't, but would you call a painting art? So when someone uses a tool like minecraft, or for better example the Valve Source Engine (both tools for creating things in a digital game), to make something like the Stanley Parable or Half-Life 2 aren't they using a tool in a medium to create something just as the painter uses a brush?

Edit 2: People keep bringing up the amount of artistic materials like music, voice acting etc. used in games. I don't think this makes the game itself art though. If you see a political campaign which has various drawings being used to further its agenda, would you call that art? The drawings might be artistic, but their purpose is just to illustrate some political slogan or end.

You're right, but games aren't Political Campaigns. It goes back to Movies and Documentaries; both are films and have teams of artists working on them yet one is art and the other isn't, but just because documentaries aren't art doesn't mean that films aren't. It depends on the goal of the project; if there was a political campaign that was started by an artist for a means of artistic expression (which I'm sure is possible though I"ve never seen it) then yeah I'd consider it art.

Basically Art can exist in any medium, yet some are more suited for the task so we call those artistic mediums; Video Games included.

 

[Darth_Murmeltier]

Yawn, obvious troll is obvious. I think the comments before mine have already nailed it.

 

[Juk3n]

Ya, let's try reopening this can of worms.

The reason why video games aren't art is because they are games. Even though the purpose of both art and games are entertainment, they achieve this end through very different means. Games are goal oriented, the purpose is to win.

That doesn't make games 'not art'. You're opinon is wrong. Inception is art. So is Terry Pratchetts Discworld book series, and so is Skies of Arcadia, all art along with John William Waterhouse' Lady of Shalott.

 

[lovestomooch]

Games aren't to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power though. They are to be appreciated primarily as games, as a closed system with rules that you try to win at.

Wait what? What if ones primary interest is one of experiencing the story? The narrative? The characters? The atmosphere? These are expressions of beauty and/or emotinoal power, thats what drives the creation of memorable characters and emotional attachments drive stories which in turn drives good gameplay.

Hmm, well that was really the entire point II was getting at. I should have reworded my argument to make that more prominent, porobably would have cut flame significantly. As Video games become art, they begin to become not-games.

I disagree again. 'Game' is a form of play and 'Play' is engagement in activity for enjoyment and recreation to go by the standard definition. Touring a museum is an activity, just like watching a movie or reading a book. All are forms of play. A game is simply an extension of these same activities the only difference being they require interaction something which all games do.

Games are most definitely not art. Maybe we would like to believe they are, but to call games art means we dilute one form of expression in order to strengthen another, and by doing that we ADD nothing.

Art is something that could not possibly anything else. Games are therefore games (which could be made by artists), and art is art.

Two points here, the first: if we call games art we dilute one form of expression? How so, how is one form diminished by another? How can two independent objects directly interact? Though saying all video games add nothing of value is fairly hilarious.

Second: Art is something that could not possibly 'be' anything else? So film is not art? Painting is not art? Painting is painting and film is film.

I see where you are coming from. So let me be clearer as I may have muddled my meaning. Games are not art, they are games. They look pretty, can make you cry or laugh and be damn fun to play, but they are games, that's it.

In explanation, your second point (first): If everything on this blue earth that was made by human hands is Art (as you suggest when mentioning film, painting and I assume many others) then what is the point of art? Art isn't just making something pretty that can tug on the ol' heartstrings. As everything that is made by human hands is viewed subjectively, then everything can be considered art? It's like giving the losing team medals for taking part. Sure, its a nice thing to do but you don't gain from it, you dumb down. If you're thinking of games like Portal and Limbo, they are good games, not good art. It's a fundamental misunderstanding, and it doesn't mean they don't contribute culturally, which they do. If you don't set out to make art, then you won't make art when it's finished. C'mon, Simpsons did an episode on this, Homer's barbeque?

Now your first point: Not once have I said games offer nothing of value. My OP said "Games can be well designed, richly animated emotive slices of wonder that tug on us in ways we forgot things could" you misquoted me (I forgive you, (okay sorry thats trollish)). Secondly, if you say games are art, then its clear you wish to give games cultural impetus by association, which in turn implies that they have no cultural impetus of their own. This gives what credit a well designed game should have to the art world (which doesn't need it)

Lastly, I love games. I have enjoyed them for years and I actually LIKE it when people say they are art as it does imply value, even when in reality it takes it away.

 

[lovestomooch]

but dont let this mistake post take away from my other argument, yeah, that's right. :/

 

[lovestomooch]

I completely agree with you. Games are most definitely not art. Maybe we would like to believe they are, but to call games art means we dilute one form of expression in order to strengthen another, and by doing that we ADD nothing.
I think nearly everyone here has missed a trick. Games can be well designed, richly animated emotive slices of wonder that tug on us in ways we forgot things could, but to call them art implies that they are not games. Art is something that could not possibly anything else. Games are therefore games (which could be made by artists), and art is art.

Well done OP, for choosing to discuss something most would disagree with and defend games and not art.

Either I absolutely disagree, or you broke my sarcasmometer.

Well I do like breaking things, but that would be fibbing I'm afraid.

 

[kingcom]

In explanation, your second point (first): If everything on this blue earth that was made by human hands is Art (as you suggest when mentioning film, painting and I assume many others) then what is the point of art? Art isn't just making something pretty that can tug on the ol' heartstrings. As everything that is made by human hands is viewed subjectively, then everything can be considered art? It's like giving the losing team medals for taking part. Sure, its a nice thing to do but you don't gain from it, you dumb down. If you're thinking of games like Portal and Limbo, they are good games, not good art. It's a fundamental misunderstanding, and it doesn't mean they don't contribute culturally, which they do. If you don't set out to make art, then you won't make art when it's finished. C'mon, Simpsons did an episode on this, Homer's barbeque?

I think games that have well crafted narratives or complex characters that can reflect or examine issues and ideologies present in our own world. This I see results in an examination of our own beliefs and what I see as the ultimate goal of art: introspection.

Though I disagree that you must try to make art to create it. That implies Shakespeare isn't an artist because his work was designed to entertain crowds so he earn a living.

Now your first point: Not once have I said games offer nothing of value. My OP said "Games can be well designed, richly animated emotive slices of wonder that tug on us in ways we forgot things could" you misquoted me (I forgive you, (okay sorry thats trollish)). Secondly, if you say games are art, then its clear you wish to give games cultural impetus by association, which in turn implies that they have no cultural impetus of their own. This gives what credit a well designed game should have to the art world (which doesn't need it)

Lastly, I love games. I have enjoyed them for years and I actually LIKE it when people say they are art as it does imply value, even when in reality it takes it away.

No I say games are art because they are defined that way. Your statement doesn't make sense, desire for social progression does not mean that it originally had none. Those are two seperate statements that are not mutually exclusive.

I have little to no interest on how they are viewed, the more socially acceptable it becomes the less the industry will care enough about my own desires. Its in my best interest to keep games as a social stigma but thats again another issue.

 

[Beliyal]

snip

oh boy

fist of all you have failed to even give your personal definition of the phrase "art", so no one could possibly comment as to whether or not your argument is logically founded

and certainly, no one could claim to know first-hand about the validity of your claims, because, as they say, art is subjective

that does not mean everyone's personal opinion of art is valid, it means that the concept of "art" does not have any one specific meaning

it is as abstract a concept as love, reality, or purpose

in my opinion its more of a phenomenon wherein a living being, experiencing life from a subjective isolated viewpoint, experiences the lingering impression of another lifeforms existence by investing the concept of their own being into the arrangement of nonliving forms and choosing- based on the experience- to "believe" or at least emotionally invest in the notion that they are not the only living things besides god or the void or whatever, and some part of the reality they experience is mutually experienced by some "other"

another way id put it is:

art is the big piles of objects, and the big holes in the earth that we make. art is also everything written on bathroom, bedroom, and prison walls. art is the endless highways of pavement that have been painted across all of the land. art is most definitely the image of a human smeared onto a thinly pressed sheet of dried tree pulp with a stick of charcoal.

art is a painting, but sometimes its the frame, and sometimes its the room its in, and sometimes its the way you throw it into a river. sometimes its the way an arm has to move to make a painting, sometimes its the weight of the scissors you use to cut off a piece of yoko ono's shirt

art is the topographical layout of the mountain of dead bodies you walk upon

art is communication

the concept of winning is art, and so is the concept of aesthetic

and so is a paintbrush

art is every single choice made by a human that isnt sex, food, or any other metaphor for survival (the implication of this is, of course, that its existence, in a literal rational form, is unprovable and highly debatable)

everything in life is a metaphor for life, all parts contain the whole that contains them

everything that life has, art has, and everything that life has, art has

arguing about the use of idioms is a wonderful thing in a way, but id feel better (in my soul) if i played a videogame instead

when you rip off the skin, art is the screaming marble alien underneath

Your post is beautiful (and it's art).

OT: Why are games measured only by their "concept of winning"? Is that really why every game is made and why everyone plays every game? Of course not. There is nothing wrong with playing games to win, just as there is nothing wrong with watching only low-budget straight-to-dvd action movies, listening to cheap music or admiring kitsch. All of those are also considered to be art, so why shouldn't games be considered art as well? They are a huge medium, consisting of hundreds of genres, aiming at thousands of types of people, entertaining millions of people around the world, making them think, learn, ask questions, indulge in what they love, broaden their horizons, test their abilities, giving them a chance to explore things they can't explore otherwise, they tell stories, they give us characters that we love or hate; they do everything other mediums do and they also provide us with something other mediums can't do. I love books and movies, but I can't do certain things in books and movies; I can in video games. It is a positive trait, the concept of participating in the story and setting personally. Technology allowed us to involve other concepts in our art; it allowed us to be a part of it, to guide characters, to role-play them, to make their responsibility our own, to become a part of a certain world in a way that books and movies could allow us to.

The point of games is not to win (at least it's not the point in all of them). The point is to explore the story and the world it presents, as well as mechanics and gameplay, to go from the beginning to the middle, to climax and eventually to come to an end. They give us the unique possibility to create our own way of dealing with stories, of interacting with the environment and with characters. Sure, there are games for relaxing and games designed for competition; there are that type of movies, books and other art as well (did you know that back in the ancient Greece they held competitions in sculpturing? Many famous sculptors would come to the competition and they got a task, to make a certain statue. Later, one among them would be proclaimed as victor and his statue being the best. The most famous example of this is the competition was for the statue The Wounded Amazon, and five (recorded) famous Greek sculptors participated; Phidias, Kresilas, Polycletus (he won), Phradmon and Kydon. I won't even go into how sports (the epitome of competition) inspired practically half of the art from antiquity). Not all art is here to be aesthetically pleasing or to tell deep and meaningful stuff. As long as people explore their creativity, as long as they enjoy in their medium, as long as humanity has a need to push the boundaries of possible art forms, there will be art and new things will be considered art. No need to cling onto how thing were decades or hundreds of years ago. The definition changed, just as definitions of many other things changed as well (free will, human rights, animal welfare, the definition of marriage, the definition of a family and so on. It was all, at one point in time, different or non-existent). I'm sure in times to come, we'll change the definition of life and sapience as well, and here we are, on the internet, arguing over whether the definition of "art" should change to include games or whether the definition of "games" should change to be considered art, while art itself was ever-changing since the beginning of humanity's ability to comprehend it.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

When you stop regurgitating Roger Ebert's argument, I might be willing to debate this, although the collective community seemed to have ammassed all of the flaws in your post.

 

[emeraldrafael]

So if a game is not goal oriented then its art?

Which is silly, because we have other art with direction.

It does seem to be the gist here, though. The "Games Aren't Art" argument has always struck me as similar to a line from a George Carlin routine, where he discounts gymnastics as a sport because it's "something Romanians are good at."

Except, being George Carlin, it was a joke.

This is like saying "Music isn't art because you can also dance to it."

...

I wasnt really saying I agree with that opinion, just according to the OP thats what they define as a game being able to be art.

 

[Thamous]

Why does it matter if they're art?
I feel like gamers as a whole are so dead set on getting their favorite passed time classified and accepted as an "art" so they can justify their enjoyment of it.
Why? Stop giving a shit what other people think and just enjoy what you enjoy.

I would like to think this viewpoint ceased to exist when all of the creative freedom of the medium in the entire United States hinged on video games being recognized for their artistic merit. Apparently not.

What does their artistic merit have to do with their creative freedom being protected? No when in the U.S. constitution does it say things are guaranteed protection if they are art. Games are guaranteed creative freedom based on the fact that it can't be taken away. Their protected for the same reason newspapers and protest are protected. Being art has nothing to do with this.
If games we officially and legally considered "art" in the U.S. nothing would change, people like Jack Thompson would still try and get them censured and limited and they would still fail as miserably as they have now at achieving their goal. All the attempts to have legal regulations put in place on video games have failed simply because their unconstitutional. They would fail equally as hard if they were "art".

 

[Thaius]

Why does it matter if they're art?
I feel like gamers as a whole are so dead set on getting their favorite passed time classified and accepted as an "art" so they can justify their enjoyment of it.
Why? Stop giving a shit what other people think and just enjoy what you enjoy.

I would like to think this viewpoint ceased to exist when all of the creative freedom of the medium in the entire United States hinged on video games being recognized for their artistic merit. Apparently not.

What does their artistic merit have to do with their creative freedom being protected? No when in the U.S. constitution does it say things are guaranteed protection if they are art. Games are guaranteed creative freedom based on the fact that it can't be taken away. Their protected for the same reason newspapers and protest are protected. Being art has nothing to do with this.
If games we officially and legally considered "art" in the U.S. nothing would change, people like Jack Thompson would still try and get them censured and limited and they would still fail as miserably as they have now at achieving their goal. All the attempts to have legal regulations put in place on video games have failed simply because their unconstitutional. They would fail equally as hard if they were "art".

Not quite.

Video games are either one of two things or a combination of both: toys and/or art. If they are toys, they simply don't fall under the first amendment as "creative speech." Toys that are oriented toward adults and inappropriate for children are hardly given creative freedom. Art, on the other hand, is, even if it can also be considered a toy. That's why, if you read anything regarding that court case, even the official transcripts, the entire discussion is based around artistic and creative merit, because if games were devoid of those things, they would deserve no protection.

These two things have two very different societal meanings. Fact is, despite the artistic merit video games have, many people do not benefit from it or even see it simply because they do not understand that mindset. They can go into a book and analyze it, gain meaning from it, and be inspired by it, but they can play a video game with the same potential and come away talking about nothing more than that awesome headshot they got. I once even talked to someone online who had never so much as considered that video games could be a storytelling medium, and their favorite game was Red Dead Redemption. This is the same kind of gross misunderstanding that killed Six Days in Fallujah; as long as video games are not culturally recognized as art, they will be able to do no cultural good as art.

I see that as important.

 

[Something Amyss]

I wasnt really saying I agree with that opinion, just according to the OP thats what they define as a game being able to be art.

I explicitly said that seemed to be the argument, not that you agreed with them.

 

[drummond13]

By your definition of art, they aren't.

By my definition of art, they are, though currently a rather avant garde branch of art.

Nobody's going to your mind about this because your definition is set. There's nothing wrong with this: we all have our own personal feelings on what "art" is. But there's absolutely no point in debating the matter because we're each holding games to a totally different interpretation of the word "art". I don't see how the concept of winning and losing suddenly makes games any less an art form than movies but hey, as I said, that's based on my definition not yours.

As much as I respect you respecting my opinion, the entire point of me opening up this thread is for you to try and convince me otherwise. A good definition will include all the commonly viewed paradigm examples of that category; No one would try to create a definition of science that didn't include biology or chemistry. I want you to tell me what makes video games such a paradigm example of art that not including them in my definition would be foolish.

Hmm. Okay. Well, I consider films art, even though many if not most of them are made for entertainment purposes. I consider games art for the same reason; they're experiences designed to evoke some form of response. If a game is purely about gameplay, with no story elements or message that it's trying to convey (like a multiplayer game, for example) then I feel the game stops being art and becomes craft. However, most games have some form of story or message behind them and storytelling is an art, at least in my opinion it is.

The fact that you can "win" or "lose" games doesn't nullify this inclusion in my definition of art at all, especially because these days it's almost impossible to "lose" a game. My fiancee always asks me if I'm "winning" when I'm playing a game. But what does winning even mean when the only penalty to losing is reloading a recent save? How many people out there have "lost" Mass Effect, for example? Or "lost" Braid?

That all being said, I would argue that most games are Bad art, with little attention paid to the time-honored techniques of character building and storytelling that make the art successful. Only a few moments have really evoked a response in me on the level of other mediums. These few include the game Braid, the final "mission" of the marine in Modern Warfare 1, and the first hour and a half of Bioshock. All of these brought up the same feelings of wonder and thought provoking discussions afterwards that I have gotten from truly great movies or books or other formats of the art of storytelling. Just because there's only a few examples of truly GREAT art in the medium of videogames doesn't mean it isn't an art form. It just means it isn't an art form that has nearly reached its true potential yet.