>>718143586
>One of these is not like the other. If the electronic/digital format disqualifies videogames from art, then movies and music are also disqualified.
People who argue in good faith that video games are not art don't use that as their main reasoning as to why it's not art. I rarely if ever see that argument. Actually, those who argue in good faith, tend to say that video games ARE actually art, but that it's BAD art. And they argue that it can't ever be good art. The main argument being the interactivity in video games which undermines the contemplative experience. The contemplative experience is essential to art.

Take Sony’s movie games for example, uou know the ones: the Last of Us, God of War etc. A lot of people here on /v/ criticize these types of games for focusing too much on narrative and not enough on gameplay. They often get dismissed as "cutscene fests" or " boring ass walking simulators." But ironically, it’s these games that might actually function better as art, precisely because they limit player control. By taking agencyaway, the creators are able to deliver a more focused, contemplative experience. Something closer to what a movie director or novelist might create.

So, here’s the question:
Do you remove player control in order to deliver a deeper artistic vision, even if it makes the game "worse" as a game? Or do you prioritize interactivity and gameplay, possibly at the expense of that emotional or artistic depth?

Can a video game do both well?