worst arguments why games aren't art.

[mitchell271]

I'm actually doing a similar presentation for my Media Studies class. Plus, I'm borrowing the art style of Extra Credits (with written permission)!

1. This guy is a complete idiot. I have learned that if you have an opinion about something that you don't fully understand, you should just keep your mouth shut.

2. I've heard that game aren't art because they are "mindless violence and gratuitous nudity". Then I installed Portal on that person's computer (legit, of course) and changed their mind. Valve 1, Ignorant Bigots 0.

 

[Anarchemitis]

Arguing that games are not art because they depict fictional situations is like saying ballet can't be well choreographed because people can't sneeze with their eyes open. It's an entirely nonsensical statement that goes against all theory regarding narratology, let alone ludology.

 

[thedoclc]

just because it's art

Spoiler

doesn't mean it's really bad art. I shit you not this is a real modern art painting.

Source: [link]http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=20567&roomid=3669[/link]

EDIT: as for contributing towards this discussion, dude, wow, I don't know if I have ever heard something so retarded in my life. I guess mine would be when someone said it's not art because it's not a painting, which would mean he just has a very narrow perception of what is "art" and to him I would show this picture.

Sir or Madam, be sure to look up The Fountain.

Back on topic. The very worst argument seems to stem from the simple idea that no new media can truly be called art. There's a very weird prejudice about this in academia. This is (ironically) part of what early modern artists were rebelling against when they began producing art, and how artists try justifying very pretentious, very unenjoyable art produced today.

Maybe I'm too much of an old fashioned bastard, but when modern artists wax philosophical, I want to shove them nose-first into the books which asked and answered the same questions hundreds of years before the birth of modern art. When old guard intellectuals do not recognize games as art, I want to bring them to a modern art gallery.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

"Because they're just games, they're just for fun!"
"So... art isn't something that's supposed to be enjoyable?"
"..."

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Did I even mention Heavy Rain in my post?

But since you somehow brought that up, Heavy Rain is more "artistic" because it's trying to be anyway. The game tackles mature topics in a mature manner, whether or not it succeeds for you personally is not the issue. If Heavy Rain is not for you, it's not for you, but I for one appreciate a game that's trying to be different and mature compared to the pitiful attempts at storytelling that some games have.

And why does "challenge" need to be brought into this? Challenge has nothing to do with the "artistic" side, that's on the "fun" side which is totally fine. I'd say the challenge in Heavy Rain comes from the choices you have to make, and I have to say I struggled to make some while playing it. If you didn't, fine, to each his own.

Because challenge is the essential quality of games. Without it you can't have anything (besides a bad game.)

I Know you are thinking of heavy Rain (or Ico or SoTC or any othe game you might like for terrible reasons,) because I know you and by promoting those games as art you claim greater games as inferior. The criteria you are using to praise those games as art are as wrong as judging a basketball game by the fabulousness of the players outfits. Here's a good comparison I heard:

A bad game can't have good aesthetics because mechanics are part of the aesthetics of a video game, more than audiovisuals because it's the characteristic that distinguishes games from movies, music, and fly fishing. Does this BLOW YOUR MIND folks?

The art of fly fishing involves making a convincing fly out of feathers, fur, and string, a good roll casting technique, and moving your line though the water for the purposes of getting a fish to think your lure is delicious. Dressing the fisherman up like Divine from Pink Flamingos and having an electronic lure that looks like a space shuttle and emits retro chiptunes that scare away all the fish isn't an aestheticized version of fly fishing, as much as some talentless charlatan with glasses with thick black rims may try to convince you. As far as fly fishing is concerned, it's anti-aesthetic.

Moral of the story: Games are games not movies, just like birds aren't dogs, thus having unique criteria that go into determining value. You can't say a particular bird is beautiful, so to make a dog just as beautiful you need to glue a similar beak on his nose and paint him bright green. In summary, Super Mario World and Rocket Knight Adventures are the art platformers, not Braid. Dodonpachi is an art SHUMP not something Kenta Cho cooked up in Java in a week, and Gears of War is the art shooter not Killer 7, etc.

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?p=604455#p604455


Heavy Rain should not be praised. It is terrible and the people behind it should know that. You can appreciate it (I appreciate the craft in E.T. 2600 for instance)but to praise it is dragging games that focus on complexity, depth and challenge through the mud. Only the best games deserve to be called art not some narrative focused borefest.

Again, where did I mention Heavy Rain? (And conartists? Why is thatgamecompany, behind flOw, conartists?)

They made terrible games and tricked everyone into thinking they were good.

Are you seriously comparing Vanquish (a fast paced, shoot 'em up with lots 'o 'splosions and Russian terrorists (original!)) and Donkey Kong Country Returns (a return to the classic retro games of ole) to Inception (an intellectual, cerebral action film delving into the subconscious of a deranged man) and Black Swan (a ballerina who is tormented to go as far as she can for success or something)? And Heavy Rain (a dark, mature themed game about how far someone is willing to go for a loved one) to Twilight (a vampire film with sparkles)?

Look, if you didn't like Heavy Rain, that's fine, I don't blame you. I'm sure Vanquish and DKCR are a blast to play. But I don't seem to quite follow your examples here. I'm guessing you're judging their merits based on gameplay and "fun" factor, and that's not the discussion here.

They are the best and worst mainstream offerings of their industry right now, that's the extent of the comparison. And yes the games must be judged on their "gameplay." There is nothing else to judge. Just like a poem is judged by its poetry and a movie is judged by its [insert stupid jargon word here.]

You are under the impression that somehow games like Heavy Rain will become the norm and everyone will copy them, which is not true. Heavy Rain, as far as I can tell, is pretty much the first of it's kind or at least the first in a long while (I've heard it be compared to Shenmue). At this point, nobody is accepting "bad game design", they are accepting "good game concept".

which means it's already polluted the minds of consumers and people in the industry.

It's not that I fear games like heavy rain will become the norm. It's that every time a game like it gains a foothold then that's one inch of land we've lost.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

"Because they're just games, they're just for fun!"
"So... art isn't something that's supposed to be enjoyable?"
"..."

You should tell this to Jumpilion.

 

[Jumplion]

I Know you are thinking of heavy Rain (or Ico or SoTC or any othe game you might like for terrible reasons,) because I know you and by promoting those games as art you claim greater games as inferior. The criteria you are using to praise those games as art are as wrong as judging a basketball game by the fabulousness of the players outfits. Here's a good comparison I heard:

I never claimed that any games were "inferior", just that some games don't exactly "try" to be "art", and I remember stating that that's perfectly fine. MW2 isn't trying to "enrich" the "human experience" or whatever, and that's perfectly fine.

And I would love to know why you think SotC/ICO are "terrible" games, I honestly would. If the game's not for you, it's not for you

snip

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?p=604455#p604455

I'm not talking about aesthetics/graphics/visuals. I'm talking about storytelling, maturity, and mature subject matters/themes. Super Mario World, Gears of War, etc... aren't exactly the epitome of storytelling, and that's fine. In their own way, sure, they're art. Though, now that I think about it, I don't think we're arguing about that anymore anyway.

Heavy Rain should not be praised. It is terrible and the people behind it should know that. You can appreciate it (I appreciate the craft in E.T. 2600 for instance)but to praise it is dragging games that focus on complexity, depth and challenge through the mud. Only the best games deserve to be called art not some narrative focused borefest.

You have yet to explain why Heavy Rain is "terrible". Again, if it's not for you, it's not for you, and there's nothing wrong with that. But how on earth is Heavy Rain "dragging games" from complexity, depth, and challenge through the mud? Heavy Rain is pretty complex in the storytelling department, 10x more than many other games, with it's branching narrative and depth within it's storytelling. Through it's pure "gameplay", fine, it's not exactly the epitome of gameplay, but that in no way should downplay it's accomplishments.

As far as I'm concerned, Heavy Rain is a game just as much as any other game, it's just a different type of game. It's an experiment, a downright risky one at that, and it's uniqueness is what makes it stand apart. Maybe Heavy Rain's form of storytelling will bud into something deeper and complex, and make way for gameplay and storytelling coming together more cohesively. You've got to crawl before you walk after all.

They made terrible games and tricked everyone into thinking they were good.

Out of curiosity, have you played flOw or flOwer? I've played flOwer, and I gotta say, it touched me towards the end. Evidently, it has to many other people [http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/05/07/announcing-the-flower-essay-contest-winners/]. Once again, if it's not for you, it is not. for. you.

They are the best and worst mainstream offerings of their industry right now, that's the extent of the comparison. And yes the games must be judged on their "gameplay." There is nothing else to judge. Just like a poem is judged by its poetry and a movie is judged by its [insert stupid jargon word here.]

Games are judged more than just their gameplay. Know what comes before the word "Games"? "Video". So, in a sense, "Video Games" encompass a wide variety of mediums into one that can all be used in their own unique way to get their point across.

Quite frankly, I think it's a silly assumption that games must only be judged by their gameplay. Games are capable of so much more than that and we should demand much more than that. We need to be able to weave story through gameplay and gameplay through story

which means it's already polluted the minds of consumers and people in the industry.

What.

So it's bad to try new things?

It's not that I fear games like heavy rain will become the norm. It's that every time a game like it gains a foothold then that's one inch of land we've lost.

Please, do tell, who is this "we"? And what is this "land"? And how is it "lost"? Your constant spouting of doomsday is really getting old.

At this point, I really have no idea what you're trying to argue. All I've read is "Heavy Rain/SotC/ICO/flOw is terrible and everyone is terrible for praising them!" and I have yet to see a fully explained reason behind this. We aren't even on the original topic anymore, we've gone off into some other random territory that I don't even know where we've landed. We're really talking about two different things anyway.

"Because they're just games, they're just for fun!"
"So... art isn't something that's supposed to be enjoyable?"
"..."

You should tell this to Jumpilion.

Um, you do realize that's pretty much what I'm trying to say? Games don't have to be just "fun", and they can still be "art". I'm under the impression, however, that "entertaining" and "fun" is something that we need to differentiate. Many mature themed movies (Schindler's List comes to mind) aren't "fun" by any means, yet they're still "entertaining" and enriching in their own way. So to can games.

I'm detecting an air of hostility from you. You seem to be taking this discussion a bit too seriously for my taste.

 

[Tsaba]

Sir or Madam, be sure to look up The Fountain.

What the F.........

 

[Thaius]

Sigh...

Most reasons aren't reasons at all. Like those ones. They're just lame excuses to validate one's ignorance.

As for worst ones, I'll have to go with one of the ones I've heard most on this site: "Only some games are art." This is stupid. Only in video games would anyone think to say that only the good ones are art. Video games are an art form; any example of it is art. To say that only the exceptional ones are art is to say that there is no bad art, which is not true at all. There is good art and bad art; but if it's an example of a given art form, it is art, regardless of quality. Video games are an art form, thus all video games are art. Even the sucky ones.

Other than that, the subjectivist "art is what you think it is" is beginning to piss me off.

Ebert's arguments were well thought-out, but based on stupefying ignorance and a complete lack of experience. They were very easy to refute.

I have not yet seen an argument against video games as art that stands to criticism. At all. Not a single one.

 

[Tdc2182]

Jesus Christ guys.

Just let fucking MW2 die. It was a good enough game, now we are just beating a dead horse.

 

[Thaius]

"Because they're just games, they're just for fun!"
"So... art isn't something that's supposed to be enjoyable?"
"..."

You should tell this to Jumpilion.

Ah, Halo Fanboy. We meet again. Refresh my memory, you're the one who thinks that a work (be it a movie, game, animated film, whatever) should be judged not by the quality of what it does, but by how closely it conforms to the medium's strongest potential, right? That sticking with its strengths is more important than doing whatever it does right? Spongebob > Death Note, Transformers 2 > Casablanca, Star Wars prequels > Star Wars Trilogy? Or am I getting you mixed up with someone else?

EDIT: Also, having now read up, I would like to point out that Jumpillion is not saying games can't be fun. You're saying that games can only be fun.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

"Because they're just games, they're just for fun!"
"So... art isn't something that's supposed to be enjoyable?"
"..."

What he's saying is "art is supposed to be enjoyable." In other words the defining trait of good art is enjoyability. There isn't a fun side and an "art" side, they are both the same thing. Jumpilion your misreading of My and DuctTapeJedi's post is really frustrating.

I never claimed that any games were "inferior", just that some games don't exactly "try" to be "art", and I remember stating that that's perfectly fine. MW2 isn't trying to "enrich" the "human experience" or whatever, and that's perfectly fine.

I'm pretty sure that MW2 was trying to be as rich an experience as it could be, other better games are flooded with richness. Good luck convincing anyone they would all have a richer experience if they played Flower.
And you certainly did describe other games as inferior:

some people want more from their medium

What do you think "more" means?

And I would love to know why you think SotC/ICO are "terrible" games, I honestly would. If the game's not for you, it's not for you

I never said that.

I'm not talking about aesthetics/graphics/visuals. I'm talking about storytelling, maturity, and mature subject matters/themes.

Storytelling and theme are an aspect of aesthetics.

You have yet to explain why Heavy Rain is "terrible".

I explained it in my first response to you. Need more information: http://insomnia.ac/reviews/playstation3/heavyrain/

how on earth is Heavy Rain "dragging games" from complexity, depth, and challenge through the mud?

Praising it is.

Heavy Rain is pretty complex in the storytelling department, 10x more than many other games, with it's branching narrative and depth within it's storytelling. Through it's pure "gameplay", fine, it's not exactly the epitome of gameplay, but that in no way should downplay it's accomplishments.

You say that the branching narrative is "through pure gameplay" but then say that the game is subpar. The branching narrative is the "gameplay" and as you said, it sucks.

As far as I'm concerned Heavy Rain has no accomplishments. It failed in every conceivable category.

And since we both seem to understand that "enriching human experience" and "gameplay" are bullshit terms lets just drop them and stop wearing out our quotation mark keys.

Out of curiosity, have you played flOw or flOwer? I've played flOwer, and I gotta say, it touched me towards the end. Evidently, it has to many other people [http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/05/07/announcing-the-flower-essay-contest-winners/]. Once again, if it's not for you, it is not. for. you.

Played flOw on a web browser, and just looking at flower makes me too tired to play anything of it. Both are just impoverished 2D and 3D flight sim- collecthathons though.

Games are judged more than just their gameplay. Know what comes before the word "Games"? "Video". So, in a sense, "Video Games" encompass a wide variety of mediums into one that can all be used in their own unique way to get their point across.

"video" is an adjective modifying "games." Video games are a sub-category of general games. A sub-category can not have elements that don't exist in the whole category, a species of bird can not be part reptile. This like saying board games encompasses the art of carpentry, they both use boards!

Quite frankly, I think it's a silly assumption that games must only be judged by their gameplay. Games are capable of so much more than that and we should demand much more than that. We need to be able to weave story through gameplay and gameplay through story

You judge a book by the experience of reading, you judge a play by the experience of watching, you judge a game by the experience of playing. The game's play encompasses the entire experience.

which means it's already polluted the minds of consumers and people in the industry.

What.

So it's bad to try new things?

No. I already explained that playing bad games is pollution of the mind.

Please, do tell, who is this "we"? And what is this "land"? And how is it "lost"? Your constant spouting of doomsday is really getting old.

It's like if someone built a Burger King in the space where people were planning to build a hospital. Shelf space, consumer money, critical acclaim ect are all limited and I don't like seeing any of it get reserved for crap.

You seem to be taking this discussion a bit too seriously for my taste.

If someone doesn't take a conversation seriously then I don't think it's a conversation worth having.

 

[moretimethansense]

"Because they're just games, they're just for fun!"
"So... art isn't something that's supposed to be enjoyable?"
"..."

What he's saying is "art is supposed to be enjoyable." In other words the defining trait of good art is enjoyability. There isn't a fun side and an "art" side, they are both the same thing. Jumpilion your misreading of My and DuctTapeJedi's post is really frustrating.

I never claimed that any games were "inferior", just that some games don't exactly "try" to be "art", and I remember stating that that's perfectly fine. MW2 isn't trying to "enrich" the "human experience" or whatever, and that's perfectly fine.

I'm pretty sure that MW2 was trying to be as rich an experience as it could be, other better games are flooded with richness. Good luck convincing anyone they would all have a richer experience if they played Flower.
And you certainly did describe other games as inferior:

some people want more from their medium

What do you think "more" means?

And I would love to know why you think SotC/ICO are "terrible" games, I honestly would. If the game's not for you, it's not for you

I never said that.

I'm not talking about aesthetics/graphics/visuals. I'm talking about storytelling, maturity, and mature subject matters/themes.

Storytelling and theme are an aspect of aesthetics.

You have yet to explain why Heavy Rain is "terrible".

I explained it in my first response to you. Need more information: http://insomnia.ac/reviews/playstation3/heavyrain/

how on earth is Heavy Rain "dragging games" from complexity, depth, and challenge through the mud?

Praising it is.

Heavy Rain is pretty complex in the storytelling department, 10x more than many other games, with it's branching narrative and depth within it's storytelling. Through it's pure "gameplay", fine, it's not exactly the epitome of gameplay, but that in no way should downplay it's accomplishments.

You say that the branching narrative is "through pure gameplay" but then say that the game is subpar. The branching narrative is the "gameplay" and as you said, it sucks.

As far as I'm concerned Heavy Rain has no accomplishments. It failed in every conceivable category.

And since we both seem to understand that "enriching human experience" and "gameplay" are bullshit terms lets just drop them and stop wearing out our quotation mark keys.

Out of curiosity, have you played flOw or flOwer? I've played flOwer, and I gotta say, it touched me towards the end. Evidently, it has to many other people [http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/05/07/announcing-the-flower-essay-contest-winners/]. Once again, if it's not for you, it is not. for. you.

Played flOw on a web browser, and just looking at flower makes me too tired to play anything of it. Both are just impoverished 2D and 3D flight sim- collecthathons though.

Games are judged more than just their gameplay. Know what comes before the word "Games"? "Video". So, in a sense, "Video Games" encompass a wide variety of mediums into one that can all be used in their own unique way to get their point across.

"video" is an adjective modifying "games." Video games are a sub-category of general games. A sub-category can not have elements that don't exist in the whole category, a species of bird can not be part reptile. This like saying board games encompasses the art of carpentry, they both use boards!

Quite frankly, I think it's a silly assumption that games must only be judged by their gameplay. Games are capable of so much more than that and we should demand much more than that. We need to be able to weave story through gameplay and gameplay through story

You judge a book by the experience of reading, you judge a play by the experience of watching, you judge a game by the experience of playing. The game's play encompasses the entire experience.

which means it's already polluted the minds of consumers and people in the industry.

What.

So it's bad to try new things?

No. I already explained that playing bad games is pollution of the mind.

Please, do tell, who is this "we"? And what is this "land"? And how is it "lost"? Your constant spouting of doomsday is really getting old.

It's like if someone built a Burger King in the space where people were planning to build a hospital. Shelf space, consumer money, critical acclaim ect are all limited and I don't like seeing any of it get reserved for crap.

You seem to be taking this discussion a bit too seriously for my taste.

If someone doesn't take a conversation seriously then I don't think it's a conversation worth having.

I've been reading your posts in this thread and despite the mod wrath I am likely to receive for this it must be said;
You are an arrogant, stuck up, narrow minded **** that can't even for one second consider that other peoples opinion of what makes a game a worthwhile playing experience may be equally valid to your own.

I'm going to say right now that I am glad that such a small minded fool as yourself has no power to affect anything that will ever be developed in any way because if you did gaming would never be able to flourish as an artistic medium,
Games must be allowed to explore all possibilities and methods for artistic expression whether through narrative, art style, gameplay mechanics or even another way that we've yet to think of and claiming that only your way is correct is as monumentally arrogant as it is sbsurd.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

There's nothing particularly arrogant about having an opinion. Otherwise everyone would be arrogant. If you are saying I shouldn't talk about what I think makes things good or bad then you might as well be against critical thought.

 

[moretimethansense]

There's nothing particularly arrogant about having an opinion. Otherwise everyone would be arrogant. If you are saying I shouldn't talk about what I think makes things good or bad then you might as well be against critical thought.

What I claim is arrogant is your steadfast refusal to even consider that someone else's opinion is equally valid to your own,
I am of the opinion that the most important thing about games are the narrative and the emotional response it gives you, however I am aware that my opinion is not the only one that matters, nor would I ever suggest even as a joke that "pure gameplay" games should stop being made nor would I make such a ludacris claim that the praise directed at them is "dragging" games as a collective medium "through the mud" neither would I dismiss them as bad games by default.

In short basically every word that has fell through your keyboard to this thread smacks of arrogance, narcissism, elitism, flamebait and ignorant hatred.

Also "Pollution of the mind"? sereously man fuck you.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

If you care about something then you should care when people are attempting to bastardize it. I can respect other people's opinions but in order to respect my own opinion I must admit to my self that I find these games despicable.

Yes, I am trying to say someone's reasoning is inferior to my own. It can't be helped. It is the basis of all polemics.

 

[Maddeth]

I've been reading your posts in this thread and despite the mod wrath I am likely to receive for this it must be said;
You are an arrogant, stuck up, narrow minded c*** that can't even for one second consider that other peoples opinion of what makes a game a worthwhile playing experience may be equally valid to your own.

I'm going to say right now that I am glad that such a small minded fool as yourself has no power to affect anything that will ever be developed in any way because if you did gaming would never be able to flourish as an artistic medium,
Games must be allowed to explore all possibilities and methods for artistic expression whether through narrative, art style, gameplay mechanics or even another way that we've yet to think of and claiming that only your way is correct is as monumentally arrogant as it is sbsurd.

I have created an account after reading the same post as you. All I really want to do is +1 you... said everything I wanted to say in much fewer words that I would have had to use... thank god not everyone is as retarded as some of these posts actually make people seem.

 

[Thaius]

There's nothing particularly arrogant about having an opinion. Otherwise everyone would be arrogant. If you are saying I shouldn't talk about what I think makes things good or bad then you might as well be against critical thought.

Halo Fanboy, it's not a matter of having an opinion. You have to understand that your artistic theory is infuriating to... well, everyone. I have never met anyone who thinks like you do on the subject, and no one I've talked to about it since our first discussion has even begun to agree. I'm not saying you shouldn't have your opinion, but I am saying that you should be more tactful with it.

You're stating it as fact. You're never considering the validity of other peoples' ideas on the subject, you're simply disagreeing and stating yours as fact. You're not even bothering to argue your point, you're simply stating your artistic theory as if it were fact, and we're stupid for thinking otherwise. You can't argue for such an unpopular and infuriating viewpoint if you're simply going to state it as if it is an observable fact that we all should know. It's not; in fact, as far as I can tell, you stand completely and utterly alone in your assertion that exploration and expansion of an art form beyond its single defining trait is a bad thing. So you keep your opinion, and feel free to talk to people about it, but when you state it as you are right now, you come across as kind of a douche.

 

[moretimethansense]

If you care about something then you should care when people are attempting to bastardize it. I can respect other people's opinions but in order to respect my own opinion I must admit to my self that I find these games despicable.

Yes, I am trying to say someone's reasoning is inferior to my own. It can't be helped. It is the basis of all polemics.

Sorry but no the basic of a rational discussion is Actually respecting peoples opinions listening to their point of view then presenting a thought out counter-argument you
can't simply state that someone else's reasoning is inferior to your own it simply does not work that way you must present rational arguments to why their position is weaker than your own.

However I'm tired of this pointless argument since I can tell discussions that involve you would be the equivalent of trying to argue against the graffiti on a brick wall, I'm not going to make any difference in what is written there and those witnessing my efforts will think I'm insane for trying.

The sad thing is you will probably take this as a sign of you out arguing me, you haven't I just have better things to do with my time.

I've been reading your posts in this thread and despite the mod wrath I am likely to receive for this it must be said;
You are an arrogant, stuck up, narrow minded c*** that can't even for one second consider that other peoples opinion of what makes a game a worthwhile playing experience may be equally valid to your own.

I'm going to say right now that I am glad that such a small minded fool as yourself has no power to affect anything that will ever be developed in any way because if you did gaming would never be able to flourish as an artistic medium,
Games must be allowed to explore all possibilities and methods for artistic expression whether through narrative, art style, gameplay mechanics or even another way that we've yet to think of and claiming that only your way is correct is as monumentally arrogant as it is sbsurd.

I have created an account after reading the same post as you. All I really want to do is +1 you... said everything I wanted to say in much fewer words that I would have had to use... thank god not everyone is as retarded as some of these posts actually make people seem.

Thanks, welcome to the escapist stay out of the basement and please enjoy your stay.

 

[BaronVonBob]

a big part of books, movies, music, and paintings is to make money because if they don't make money the person doesn't eat and he can't make more books, movie, music or paintings money doesn't affect the meaning citizen kane was made they knew they needed to make money so they made what they thought people would enjoy a deep experience and making art compelling is a great thing because more people then can enjoy the message. would Beethoven have made his great music if he didn't get paid no because then he couldn't pay the musicians to be a individuals that makes an experience, would Shakespeare have made his plays if he didn't get paid no because how could he have made the sets and hire the actors to be part of a greater experience, would the developers of the original silent hill have done their jobs of their wasn't a pay check in it no because they needed to eat and needed the money to help craft the next great experience. all of these people had a meaning and message behind their work but they also did it to make money because guess what money makes the world go round but it doesn't make something have less of a meaning. Also by using the term real art you don't seem intellectual you just seem snobby.

Have you actually been reading my replies properly? Of course money plays a part in everything, but if the main intention of something is to make money, as it is with games, then people will be more concerned about what will make them money than about what will make a masterpiece. Many artists weren't famous in their own lifetimes, and if they didn't have an intention other than to make money they would have given up and tried something else. Of course Shakespeare wrote plays to make money, but I doubt many of the people who went to see them at the time actually saw how complex they are, I know I didn't until it was pointed out to me. So, why go to all that trouble when he could have just written a play and used his own fame as a way of selling it? Because he had a reason other than money to make them.
And I wasn't trying to appear intellectual. At all.