>>712585251
It's more about intent than anything. When I play a CoD game I don't see it as art, same as watching a Marvel movie. It's entertainment. There is a difference because one is purely math and the other is emotive. There are games that are mathematically bad, yet still good art. Mass Effect (only the first one) has poor mechanics. The button to snap into cover doesn't always work, your gun doesn't always aim where you pointed it, sometimes the graphics glitch and you see through the walls, yet it is art because it's more than the sum of its parts, despite being mechanically flawed. It doesn't appeal to everyone, but different people have different tastes in what art pieces they do or don't like. Mass Effect 2 on the other hand is mechanically polished. It works like a dream. You aren't going to be experiencing half as many glitches as you would playing the first game, yet Mass Effect 2 is a paint-by-numbers experience that doesn't have the same appeal as the first game. It's action movie schlock, made specifically that way to appeal to the numbers. It's made to attract a larger audience, purely math and devoid of any passion, a hollow experience. I enjoyed both games for different reasons, though it cheapened the entire series by not committing to a tone.
A mechanically bad game can still be an emotionally moving, innovative, or technically impressive work, despite it's medium. It can elevate itself to the level of art. A mechanically good game can be derivative, boring, and made by a crack team of the top psychologists in the world to drain your wallet and still be a dry, lifeless, forgettable experience. It is just an entertaining toy or a diversion.
I enjoyed Silent Hill 1 but I didn't enjoy Silent Hill 2, though they're both art. My tastes are different than others in that regard.
It's rare that a video game can both be art and solid entertainment, that's the nature of the medium.
Fortnite is not art, but its fun.
tldr; soul vs soulless
