I.Muir said:
Okay, first off the vocal minority is something you will have to accept on the internet... a lot of people talk out their ass and want you to think it's the word of god. Don't take it all to heart.
Who said art can't be criticised? Art is CONSTANTLY being scrutinised, especially contemporary pieces... Music can be considered art, films can be considered art, BOTH are subject to criticism. As far as I can tell, the people you met are just diehards straining themselves to defend something of an obsession. Also what nonsense is this about pricing? I never heard anyone argue that the price is fixed because "ART"!.
Games can be compilations of artistic work. They are more a gallery for art, then in and of themselves art. That's not to say a game in it's entirety can't be seen as art (since a gallery can be part of the experience, not just the items on display, so too can a game be a piece of art) but due to the nature of gaming, that is being a medium of entertainment, a game can't be so subjective.
The issue cropping up at the moment is too many people trying to interject nonsense to this topic and not actually understanding what they are advocating. Art isn't an excuse for poor design, boredom or what not if a person is paying the full retail price for a game. That game should meet the minimum standards of other retail games. If you are putting it out as a product it needs to be scrutinised as a product by the market, not the subjective opinions of soft spoken men in french berets (stereotype... obviously a joke). Because of this most games sold on retail can never be consider art in their entirety, since they need to appeal to large markets and are subject to objective scrutiny, and not so much subjective opinion.
HOWEVER! Games can still incorporate art but it can't compromise the entertainment value especially if been sold at full retail price. People can and do make games in their own time and offer it for free or for a much lower price. These games offer more freedom to the author and enables them to offer unconventional experiences that can be seen as Artistic. Unfortunately games can never have a speculative business like traditional art, since the game is composed of data that is easily and indistinguishably copied, therefor a fixed pricing system is necessary. But the current pricing system for games is coming under immense flak across the industry.
Games aren't a straightforward platform... it's not just the industry. Games are a medium too and allow people to be expressive. Interaction is it's most distinguishing asset which means games can go places that other art forms can't. Art CAN be fun too. It can also be shit.
kingthrall said:
Why defend the purpose of art? I mean seriously people need to get it into their thick skull
There is a major difference between games and art.
Art is interpreted by no physical interaction, there is no reward other than expressing your feelings from the interpretation.
Games are by physical action and usually a reward is placed in front of you for archiveing a goal. the interpretation is already there
What's your background in art? Heck, what's your experience? Did you read about it in a book? At the very least I would guess you never heard of interactive art... you know, that art form that makes the interpreter a part of the piece via interaction... sort of like what games do. That sort of completely shits on your theory and blows your reasoning to pieces.