Games as art.

[Savagezion]

Even after all the threads on this topic...I still don't see why games need to be classified as art. Why can't we just enjoy games as games like we have for the past what? 30 years? Why does it need to be seen as art?

Why does it matter the other way around? Why does it need to avoid the topic? Games being seen as art recently granted them protection from content regulations. That is a pretty big reason to argue for them being art.

To me, it seems society has accepted art to be anything that instills passion or thought in someone enough to call it art. A blade of grass can be art should someone deem it so. Perhaps art is a idol for inspiration or emotions. That makes sense to me that "art" is a word we use on something that we feel is an idol for emotional or philosophical subjects. An idol for thoughts and feelings maybe. It would stand to reason why someone out there thinks a messy bed is art and I don't; or that games aren't art and I do. It really just makes tastes make sense as taste would inherently be based on your own personal experiences and perspective and your perspective is the reality you perceive to be true.

 

[DioWallachia]

Uff, i am finaly back to this forum..........and i see that nothing has changed.

Anyway, back on topic. The reason they are NOT art is because of a fucking technicallity. As presented by our best friend ever Roger Ebert. Here is a fragment that you will find in this link:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070721/COMMENTARY/70721001/

Barker: "I think that Roger Ebert's problem is that he thinks you can't have art if there is that amount of malleability in the narrative. In other words, Shakespeare could not have written 'Romeo and Juliet' as a game because it could have had a happy ending, you know? If only she hadn't taken the damn poison. If only he'd have gotten there quicker."

Ebert: He is right again about me. I believe art is created by an artist. If you change it, you become the artist. Would "Romeo and Juliet" have been better with a different ending? Rewritten versions of the play were actually produced with happy endings. "King Lear" was also subjected to rewrites; it's such a downer. At this point, taste comes into play. Which version of "Romeo and Juliet," Shakespeare's or Barker's, is superior, deeper, more moving, more "artistic"?

But that is one of maaaaaaaaaaaany stupid arguments of art in games. Right now we have the following:

---1)"Games cant be art because they are made by a shitton of people doing their work instead of being lead by a single mind/artist with a vision/message/artistic expresion."

Keep in mind that these kind of people who say it, DONT care if that art is shitty or ilogical even by the fictional world, if it was made by an "artist" then it counts as art. These people probably see Citizen Kane as art along with The Star Wars prequels by George Lucas,John Romero's Daikatana and Casey Hudson 15 minutes contribution in Mass Effect 3 ending.

If having a single mind behind a game is all it takes, then allow me to post 2 examples of games as art under this idea: The Metal Gear series by Hideo Kojima, Killer7 by Suda51 and IJI by Daniel Remar. That is what i can think right now at the top of my head.............and probably all the indie developers that are not making arcade throwbacks and have a story/message in them by a single guy. Probably, if it wasnt for the fact that he didnt make the engine, the guy that made The Stanley Parable is an artist with a message.

---2)"Games are not art because they have yet to make their "Citizen Kane." "

CK is not art for the plot (its a simple plot) or how many tears you dropped when you knew it was his sled, its about the visuals. NOT asthetics but the visual STORYTELLING.

CK is the Most Triumphant Example of Visual Media as an Art Form. Hence the Roger Ebert quote "Its not what the story is about but HOW is about". How you tell the story as opposed to what is it about.

So what do videogames have besides looking pretty as fuck? Interactivity. Art on videogames not only needs to tell a story with its visuals, but also needs to do something with the interactivity.

Art is in player choice, how the story reacts to the input of the audience. You shouldnt look for pretty games (like Dear Esther), you should look for games like Planescape Torment, Fallout 1 and 2 but UP TO ELEVEN.

Games that have branching storylines are the key for art.

Think how The Witcher 2 has a branching storyline, or how Mass Effect was SUPPOSED to branch out after the first game as result of your choices (in the end it didnt matter, they didnt do that because they were lazy as shit)

Games like Journey, Minecraft and Deus Ex are fine but are those "The Most Trimphant Examples of Interactive Media as an Art Form"?

Without the "game" part of the game then they are just movies that you have some limited control with. The art has to come from the thing that makes games unique.

What makes movies special compared to previous art forms ,like books? the visuals.

What makes games special compared to previous art forms ,including film? the interactivity.

Before Citizen Kane there were good movies (The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Metropolis comes to mind) but not enough to justify the "art" label.

I would say that ICO is more arty than the others because it manages to tell the character development of Yorda DURING gameplay (you know, the part that makes games BE games. The interaction) but still faaaaar away from what Deus Ex or IJI managed.

Since making a true interactive experience where every single action done by the player has concecuences in the work story is a coding nightmare, games are ultimately doomed by their own ambicion.

Thus "Games will never be art" was said. Because nobody has the balls of steel to try.

EDIT1: Keep in mind that i didnt say its the only thing that games NEEDS but the only thing it LACKS to be trully art. Otherwise, if CK had only visuals and no coherent plot, nor good acting, good pacing and characters, then it will be nothing (like Avatar).

Art is a sum of ALL its parts, you need all parts to work under a single vision. And games up to this point had all BUT the interactivity part fully fleshed out, which is the very thing that makes games unique. They have yet to perfect it to its logical conclusion.

EDIT2: For full disclosure, other mediums have ALSO tried the audience participation thing.

Mr. Sardonicus

Spoiler

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/MrSardonicus

is a horror film from the year 1961. It was directed by William Castle and stars Guy Rolfe as the eponymous Sardonicus. It was based on the short story Sardonicus by Ray Russell.

As with other William Castle films, the movie's main marketing gimmick was the audience's chance to decide the title character's fate by "penalty poll", the outcome of which supposedly affected the film's ending (even though only one was shot).

"Helena" exhibit by Danish artist, Marco Evaristti.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Evaristti
http://artelectronicmedia.com/artwork/helena-by-marco-evaristti

An example of successful shock art installation, similar in intent to Spec Ops in that it aims to incriminate the viewer. For Helena, Evaristti placed ten live goldfish in ten blenders, all quite visibly plugged into a power board and ready to go. There was no other incitement to press the button or not; everything was up to the viewer. The viewer had space to consider the work and the implications of the exhibit. What I found most interesting was that when someone finally pressed a button, (as far as I can tell, a button has only been pressed twice in the history of the exhibit) the people charged with animal cruelty were the artist and the gallery, not the person who pressed it. One wonders how Yager Studios can seek to lay blame on a player, considering the man-hours invested in the creation of Spec Ops compared to the average time it takes to complete the videogame.


-------------

OT: If you feel like the artist bullshit is all a conspiracy to discredit games just to be just toys for hedonistic fucktards, then feel free to become crazy with this:
http://metagearsolid.org/2011/07/video-games-in-the-master-plan/

 

[WoW Killer]

he thinks you can't have art if there is that amount of malleability in the narrative. In other words, Shakespeare could not have written 'Romeo and Juliet' as a game because it could have had a happy ending

What springs to mind here is John Cage's 4:33 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3]. Rather than the popular interpretation of it being a piece composed of silence, it's supposed to be the noises in the background which make up the piece, e.g. birds tweeting outside the concert hall, people coughing, cars driving by etc. So in that sense, the piece is different every time it is performed. Is that not art? I'm not much a fan of Cage myself, but it's the kind of stuff that seems to turn arty people on.

 

[DioWallachia]

he thinks you can't have art if there is that amount of malleability in the narrative. In other words, Shakespeare could not have written 'Romeo and Juliet' as a game because it could have had a happy ending

What springs to mind here is John Cage's 4:33 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3]. Rather than the popular interpretation of it being a piece composed of silence, it's supposed to be the noises in the background which make up the piece, e.g. birds tweeting outside the concert hall, people coughing, cars driving by etc. So in that sense, the piece is different every time it is performed. Is that not art? I'm not much a fan of Cage myself, but it's the kind of stuff that seems to turn arty people on.

And what the message behind such action? to ilustrate how all experiences are ultimately the same regardless in what order you experience them? I can SORT OFF see how that is similar to a videogame that we have today, in the sense that its slightly different everytime (like playing Fallout 3 with another set of skills or talking different to people) but ultimately it is still limited by what the developers have made avaliable. In fact, i am sure that in that recording you will never heard sounds of aliens invading Earth or a crazy guy with a chainsaw killing people. Just like games, it will be limited to the surroundings/setting itself, and you will still heard just variations of the concert hall, people coughing (and whispers and goship), cars driving (and maybe a crash every once in a while) and birds tweeting (and getting eating by a car or something)

 

[DioWallachia]

he thinks you can't have art if there is that amount of malleability in the narrative. In other words, Shakespeare could not have written 'Romeo and Juliet' as a game because it could have had a happy ending

What springs to mind here is John Cage's 4:33 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3]. Rather than the popular interpretation of it being a piece composed of silence, it's supposed to be the noises in the background which make up the piece, e.g. birds tweeting outside the concert hall, people coughing, cars driving by etc. So in that sense, the piece is different every time it is performed. Is that not art? I'm not much a fan of Cage myself, but it's the kind of stuff that seems to turn arty people on.

Forgot to mention, is Ebert against logic and possibility? Sure, the tragic ending is more potent and powerful, but can the setting and story demostrate that to the player/audience in a way that its belivable as soon we are given the power of alter the narrative? that isnt a problem of the medium per se, but a problem that the writer has to solve.

 

[Windcaler]

Even after all the threads on this topic...I still don't see why games need to be classified as art. Why can't we just enjoy games as games like we have for the past what? 30 years? Why does it need to be seen as art?

To explain why would require me to go over the entire history of art starting in medival times all the way up to the current day. Im not going to do that, so heres a shamefully simple explanation. Art as seen as today has moved beyond the means of definition and because the definition is so unstable many people seek to interpret things as art.

Games have to be refered to as art if they are to maintain their legal status as such and be free from censorship

IMO no other medium asks such hard questions or as effectively expresses intentions of developers (read: the artists) as games. So to me games are most certainly art

 

[DioWallachia]

Even after all the threads on this topic...I still don't see why games need to be classified as art. Why can't we just enjoy games as games like we have for the past what? 30 years? Why does it need to be seen as art?

To explain why would require me to go over the entire history of art starting in medival times all the way up to the current day. Im not going to do that, so heres a shamefully simple explanation. Art as seen as today has moved beyond the means of definition and because the definition is so unstable many people seek to interpret things as art.

Games have to be refered to as art if they are to maintain their legal status as such and be free from censorship

IMO no other medium asks such hard questions or as effectively expresses intentions of developers (read: the artists) as games.

Care to share how many "artists" are in the videogame industry? Acording to the "King in Yellow" Yahtzee, Silent Hill 2 is art, and yet it was made by several people doing their work rather than just a visionary.

 

[DioWallachia]

i take a very simple view of it.

look at chess. a game thats been around forever played by millions of people world wide and is taken completely seriously in its own right in the niche its carved for itself.

no one could acuse chess of being "art" but look at some chess sets, they amount of craftsman ship and beauty involved makes them a work of art. same with games. games dont have to be art, they can carve out their own path

I think that Roger Ebert even compared games to Chess at one point. That the reason they are not art is because you "win" a game, that they are like sports.

 

[Windcaler]

Even after all the threads on this topic...I still don't see why games need to be classified as art. Why can't we just enjoy games as games like we have for the past what? 30 years? Why does it need to be seen as art?

To explain why would require me to go over the entire history of art starting in medival times all the way up to the current day. Im not going to do that, so heres a shamefully simple explanation. Art as seen as today has moved beyond the means of definition and because the definition is so unstable many people seek to interpret things as art.

Games have to be refered to as art if they are to maintain their legal status as such and be free from censorship

IMO no other medium asks such hard questions or as effectively expresses intentions of developers (read: the artists) as games.

Care to share how many "artists" are in the videogame industry? Acording to the "King in Yellow" Yahtzee, Silent Hill 2 is art, and yet it was made by several people doing their work rather than just a visionary.

Considering I dont work in the industry I am not privy to numbers so its impossible to acurately answer that question but if you considered every team to be a group of artists creating a single work (similar to the concept of communal art) then I would say its a lot. Even more so if (and this is a big if) you would include testers, critics, and the general populace which may or may not have an effect on how the artistic project eventually takes shape

 

[144_v1legacy]

Art doesn't work this way. The way most people in the gaming sphere think it does, when they try to argue that it is art. Films never "became" art, nor are they primarily made to be art now. The ones that are, are usually bad. The ones that leave a lasting cultural legacy, are thought-provoking, spectacular, and test the talents of those involved in its production such that critics can compare the film to others and discuss them critically, are made to turn a profit. The same is true of music, paintings, and eventually video games. The longer these mediums have existed, the more there is to discuss from an artistic angle, and soon the monetary potential of the medium becomes related in part to its artistic value, and at that point the medium will have already become recognized as art, not as an event, but recognized as though it was an art all along (and it probably is, but time is required to show it). People are already recognizing "the classics" as art to some degree (pong, donkey kong, etc.).

Edit: I like the OP's last paragraph.

 

[144_v1legacy]

Care to share how many "artists" are in the videogame industry? Acording to the "King in Yellow" Yahtzee, Silent Hill 2 is art, and yet it was made by several people doing their work rather than just a visionary.

Suda51 is a good starting point. According to the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres (a French thing) Miyamoto is one (I'd agree). It's usually lead designers and such, as opposed to "the staff." Compare to star architects like Zaha Hadid or Frank Gehry, none of whom built those amazing "works of art" on their own. I've worked for some of these people, and I would never consider myself an artist for the project, but would consider the designer one, even though I was involved in its production.

 

[Tom_green_day]

Personally, I don't play games to watch a visual art, I play them to blow off steam and have fun. If I wanted to see/hear art, surprise surprise I'd watch/listen to some kind of art, be it film or music.
There have only rarely been moments in games where they've actually touched my inner emotions and stuff, like the end of Fallout 3, the beginning of Mass Effect 3 or any of the beautiful vistas in Skyrim, and those are less of what I am shown and more of what I feel from it, like the loneliness or sense of adventure which in turn encourages you to continue playing. At the end of the day games are a commercial business and it's more important for everyone that they break even than be awe-inspiring.
Also, some of the games that are meant to be like 'art' in my opinion look kinda boring. Unfinished Swan, Journey, they all look like they could be interesting but I just want to relax and have fun, I don't want to come home from a hard day and then be mentally challenged even more.

 

[DioWallachia]

Considering I dont work in the industry I am not privy to numbers so its impossible to acurately answer that question but if you considered every team to be a group of artists creating a single work (similar to the concept of communal art) then I would say its a lot. Even more so if (and this is a big if) you would include testers, critics, and the general populace which may or may not have an effect on how the artistic project eventually takes shape

I am just asking because apparently people forget that MOVIES also had a shitload of people in their production and they are still considered art. However, the artist (most of the time) is considered the director, rather than the writer who made the world itself. The idea is that if there isnt a single mind controlling everyone else for a SINGLE purpose/message/whatever then it ISNT art. Having a bunch of dudes making their best as profesionals in their area doesnt cut it.

There was an exception however:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SixDaysInFallujah

Apparently the team behind making the game had a GROUP of soldiers that were the "artists" (so to speak) behind making the game as real and terrifing as possible to simulate how horrible were the acts done in Fallujah. THAT would have counted as art in the first place...........if it wasnt for the massive censorship that the mainstream media caused:


So if games are never art, its because non gamers dont want them to be art. They are "toys" after all, AMARIGHT?

 

[Windcaler]

Personally, I don't play games to watch a visual art, I play them to blow off steam and have fun. If I wanted to see/hear art, surprise surprise I'd watch/listen to some kind of art, be it film or music.
There have only rarely been moments in games where they've actually touched my inner emotions and stuff, like the end of Fallout 3, the beginning of Mass Effect 3 or any of the beautiful vistas in Skyrim, and those are less of what I am shown and more of what I feel from it, like the loneliness or sense of adventure which in turn encourages you to continue playing. At the end of the day games are a commercial business and it's more important for everyone that they break even than be awe-inspiring.
Also, some of the games that are meant to be like 'art' in my opinion look kinda boring. Unfinished Swan, Journey, they all look like they could be interesting but I just want to relax and have fun, I don't want to come home from a hard day and then be mentally challenged even more.

The issue I see in your argument is you dont have to sit there and study and entire game to think of it as art. Sometimes it is just that one moment that makes you think or feel that a game is a work of art. To find the art in some games like Dark souls I agree you do have to sit there and really think about it before you begin to see the patterns but thats not true for all games and its not true for other artistic mediums either.

Basicly some kinds of art like abstracts do require a great deal of thought and examination to appreciate them as art, others like the chorus of a song or the scene of a movie dont require that careful and long examination you just know they are art

 

[DioWallachia]

Care to share how many "artists" are in the videogame industry? Acording to the "King in Yellow" Yahtzee, Silent Hill 2 is art, and yet it was made by several people doing their work rather than just a visionary.

Suda51 is a good starting point. According to the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres (a French thing) Miyamoto is one (I'd agree). It's usually lead designers and such, as opposed to "the staff." Compare to star architects like Zaha Hadid or Frank Gehry, none of whom built those amazing "works of art" on their own. I've worked for some of these people, and I would never consider myself an artist for the project, but would consider the designer one, even though I was involved in its production.

So that means that the writers of Alien or Prometheus will be overshadowed by Ridley Scott? What if Ridley had other vision in mind but the script by the writer made was so good that he followed HIS instructions? Would Ridley be considered an artist still?

Lets take it UP TO 11. Would Casey Hudson be considered an artist just for working 10 minutes on the ending? what would happen to the other writers that made the rest of the game so enjoyable and that werent consulted in the making of the ending?? They no longer count as artists? didnt the game had a workable theme/message before the ending? is it possible that a message can be inferior to another ONLY because it wasnt made by the artist/executive producer in question?

I think that Harlan Ellision makes my point very clearly (from a certain point of view):

 

[Windcaler]

So that means that the writers of Alien or Prometheus will be overshadowed by Ridley Scott? What if Ridley had other vision in mind but the script by the writer made was so good that he followed HIS instructions? Would Ridley be considered an artist still?

Lets take it UP TO 11. Would Casey Hudson be considered an artist just for working 10 minutes on the ending? what would happen to the other writers that made the rest of the game so enjoyable and that werent consulted in the making of the ending?? They no longer count as artists? didnt the game had a workable theme/message before the ending? is it possible that a message can be inferior to another ONLY because it wasnt made by the artist/executive producer in question?

I think that Harlan Ellision makes my point very clearly (from a certain point of view):

Im not sure I understand what you're trying to say. At face value it looks like a strawman argument but maybe Im just not seeing the merit behind the question

 

[144_v1legacy]

Care to share how many "artists" are in the videogame industry? Acording to the "King in Yellow" Yahtzee, Silent Hill 2 is art, and yet it was made by several people doing their work rather than just a visionary.

Suda51 is a good starting point. According to the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres (a French thing) Miyamoto is one (I'd agree). It's usually lead designers and such, as opposed to "the staff." Compare to star architects like Zaha Hadid or Frank Gehry, none of whom built those amazing "works of art" on their own. I've worked for some of these people, and I would never consider myself an artist for the project, but would consider the designer one, even though I was involved in its production.

So that means that the writers of Alien or Prometheus will be overshadowed by Ridley Scott? What if Ridley had other vision in mind but the script by the writer made was so good that he followed HIS instructions? Would Ridley be considered an artist still?

Lets take it UP TO 11. Would Casey Hudson be considered an artist just for working 10 minutes on the ending? what would happen to the other writers that made the rest of the game so enjoyable and that werent consulted in the making of the ending?? They no longer count as artists? didnt the game had a workable theme/message before the ending? is it possible that a message can be inferior to another ONLY because it wasnt made by the artist/executive producer in question?

I think that Harlan Ellision makes my point very clearly (from a certain point of view):

Obviously there are exceptions to most everything, and I don't think your examples really "take it up to 11." I will continue to use architecture as an example here, because I know a bit about it. A lot of people who are famous architects now worked for other ones before, and may have done a lot of the designing themselves while earning no credit. However, sometimes they will work on a "breakout project," for which their involvement in the design of a project led by a more famous designer get recognized and they gain "designer" status. Before or after this, an architect desiring to make his creations known (and his name by association) will have to lead his own studio, which is risky and difficult, and only occasionally rewarding.

I'd say that those people who aren't famous still get to consider themselves artists if they want, (like thousands of painters today) but that doesn't mean they get to claim credit for projects even if they applied the most art to them.

Furthermore, if people know that something wasn't primarily the work of the lead designer, then the other "artists" have managed to make their stamp on the work known, as in your examples above. Although your Alien and Prometheus examples are mostly hypothetical.

Edit: as Windcaler says, the Strawman argument has run rampant here.

 

[Something Amyss]

To be honest I'm not looking to start a discussion here. Instead merely to put to words my thoughts on the matter.

And you're going to get a response.

Critics of course say games are not art because they cannot deliver emotion like films.

Which is just an excuse, because they can. People just wish to trivialise this.

Why must we use the merits of a different art form like film and apply them to gaming? A very different medium. Would we compare Films to Paintings? . Or consider only those games that are being a bit different/experimental?

Film and gaming are far more similar than film and paintings. There are some strong ties and valid comparisons. That's probably why.

I say that the games that should be considered art are the ones that we individually think are the best gaming experience. For example I would consider Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Metroid, Final Fantasy 6 and 7, hell even Gears of War to be art. Games that we personally find are the pinnacle of gaming. Therefore they should be considered art. Because games should be judged on the merits of their own medium.

Enjoyment and art are not necessarily the same thing. And then there's the pinnacle thing, but I'm trying not to question Gears being up there.

Even after all the threads on this topic...I still don't see why games need to be classified as art. Why can't we just enjoy games as games like we have for the past what? 30 years? Why does it need to be seen as art?

Well, there's the legal question of protection under the law (and US Constitution), but we have that. There's also a tendency of people wanting their hobby to be accepted like everyone else's. I understand that, but I don't feel the same. I am a gamer and a pro wrestling fan and I don't care if either are accepted. Others do, however.

I play games for fairly different reasons than I choose to experience other media. I think a lot of people do.

People have been trying to define art for centuries. I'm not convinced we'll ever find an answer everyone is happy with >.>

Honestly though, isn't it better that way? The minute they can objectively define art, art has lost a lot of its value.

Rewritten versions of the play were actually produced with happy endings. "King Lear" was also subjected to rewrites; it's such a downer. At this point, taste comes into play. Which version of "Romeo and Juliet," Shakespeare's or Barker's, is superior, deeper, more moving, more "artistic"?

I think Roger Ebert misses some of the point here, too. Shakespeare wrote disposable entertainment, and could in many ways be considered the Michael Bay of his time (at the time). We decided his plays were art retroactively, but not necessarily for artistic integrity. Shakespeare was known to rewrite plays as he was a businessman. Does that preclude his work as art? Does that make him an inferior artist? I bet Roger would say no. But somehow, this is different. In fact, I know how it's different. It's different because ponies.

 

[DioWallachia]

Rewritten versions of the play were actually produced with happy endings. "King Lear" was also subjected to rewrites; it's such a downer. At this point, taste comes into play. Which version of "Romeo and Juliet," Shakespeare's or Barker's, is superior, deeper, more moving, more "artistic"?

I think Roger Ebert misses some of the point here, too. Shakespeare wrote disposable entertainment, and could in many ways be considered the Michael Bay of his time (at the time). We decided his plays were art retroactively, but not necessarily for artistic integrity. Shakespeare was known to rewrite plays as he was a businessman. Does that preclude his work as art? Does that make him an inferior artist? I bet Roger would say no. But somehow, this is different. In fact, I know how it's different. It's different because ponies.

Huh............then why Shakespeare got the luxury alone (post-mortem i suppose) of having HIS stuff being art and not whoever else was available back then? Why was so important for the snobs of art to make his works retroactively art? Oh wait, the answer is also ponies too, isnt it?

This art thing is so nebulous that people are bound to jump to conspiracy theories at this point because they cant find any rational explanation. Hell, film was considered art in less than 20-30 years after its apparence and back then there wasnt the fucking Internet to let everyone know. But today, in the Age of Instant Information no less, we STILL cant decide if games are art or what the fuck art even is that its insulting really.

We may as well start from somewhere:


Then again, most of the arguments and discusions just end out of lazyness rather than lack of material (how can one be out of material with The Library of Babylon know as the Internet?) so i guess we all suck at defending games.

 

[NightmareExpress]

The thing that keeps them from being art in my eyes is the player interaction.
With pretty much all other mediums, something is put up for subjective interpretation by the masses.
Something that the viewer can't really directly influence. But with a game, you can run around in circles for forty minutes in the same spot before advancing the plot. Really runs the question of; if you are influencing everything, wouldn't that make you the artist rather than the appreciator? You playing a game won't be art, but recording the gameplay footage will technically be a piece of art because different actions during playthroughs of the same segment will evoke different feelings in different people much like paintings or films.

So I think games have staggering amount of art within them, but can't be called art themselves.
They are kind of like bursts of art that are then bridged by segments of you being a meta-artist.
...If that makes any sense.