Thread 724933602

The reason why videogames can never be art and thus can never be good is because they're a 21st century medium. The 21st century is a perverse, soulless continuation of the depraved and destructive 20th century. While film still had the chance to have real people with real thoughts influence it (the remainders of the 19th century), therefore leading it to maintain at least some sense of gravitas and a sense of culture. Since videogames did not exist for most of the 20th century, by the time the technology finally allowed them to be something more than primitive beeps and boops it was already too late. The 21st century had begun, and soul and culture have already been destroyed. If film and literature can at least use their history as medium to look back and rebuild themselves, videogames don't have that. They don't have a history of highly cultured, highly artistic discipline. It was always a commercial software product made by salaried workers, not a work of an auteur. And this is why nobody will ever take videogames seriously as a hobby. If my statements make you seethe, you're only further proving my point.

>>724933602 (OP)
games have been around since the middle of the 20th century, retard

>>724933602 (OP)
well, that's just a retarded argument

>>724933715
Hardly anyone cares about film during the 19th century, even though it technically existed. The same is true for games. Nobody cares that a few scientists could play pong on radar control machines in the 50s or 60s. Gaming only really "started" in the 70s and even then it was too basic to be of note. It's not until the 90s where you can truly start to attempt to understand games as an artistic medium, and they were failing at that back then already.

Define Art

or Kill Yourself.

>>724933602 (OP)
The cutoff point for film is already in the sometime in the 1910s-1930s due to self-censorship institutions like the Hays Code and other legal condemnations that ruled that film wasn't protected by free speech and freedom of the press.
Copyright and various other government licensing scams for censorship, grift and consolidation of publishers also predate the 20th century even though they became immeasurably more draconian and widespread during the 20th century.
Even books were being censored by large publishers in the post-WW2 period at the behest of commie government infiltrators, so it's clear that no theoretical ideal from the 19th century survived that far past the beginning of the 20th.

Come to that, the fact of the matter is that most people's modern conception of art is tainted irrevocably by the 20th century's indulgence in caving to censorship, so in effect nothing is art.

>>724933602 (OP)
tl;dr you're dead, fossil, seethe more about the future

>>724934414
A piece of human culture that evokes a strong sense of meaning, emotion, and has something to say. It also has to contain a unique (personal) perspective on something and be an auteur work.
Films, despite their massive scale, can be easily dictated by a single auteur, therefore making them art.
Games can't. But they don't even have ANYTHING to say most of the time anyway, so it wouldn't matter if there was an auteur at the helm.

>>724933602 (OP)
>this drivel again

some of the most beautiful works of art in human history were just commissioned by others and created purely for economic reasons, shut the fuck up with the 'if anyone got paid while making it doesnt count as art' nonsense

>>724934984
Just because your boomer brain is too senile to comprehend an interactive medium such as games, doesn't make them any less valuable as art. Riven alone is more art than any fag film released in the last decade.

games 100% can be art no matter what some film critic said

>>724933602 (OP)
God took Roger Ebert's jaw because even He didn't want to listen to any more of his bullshit.

>>724934992
>some
But not all.

>>724934984
Shit definition, kys anyway

If shit like Jack & Jill or Twilight get to be considered art purely because of the medium they exist as, then maybe I don't want videogames to be considered art at all

>>724935196
Today on formal logic 101...

>>724933602 (OP)
Did this guy even play a single game in his life? Or was he just going with the typical boomer "games are le bad" narrative while his only exposure to the medium was seeing his grandkids play bing bing wahoo?

>>724935142
>Riven alone is more art than any fag film released in the last decade.
If that's the case surely you can elaborate why. Surely you can actually explore the work's thematic and emotional meaning if there is any.

>>724935389
You're so confident that he can't lmao
You're actually taking the angle that games have bo thematic or emotional meaning

>>724935389
Not gonna bother writing you a whole ass essay just because you're too ignorant to play or even research the game yourself, gramps.

>>724935453
>>724935520
>ad hominem, no response
Once again I was proven right. /v/ lost once again.

Name one benefit of games being recognized as art.

>>724935603
No social stigma about you being a gamer.
More good games can be made because then you can easily get a grant to fund your own game development.

>>724934984
>A piece of human culture that evokes a strong sense of meaning, emotion, and has something to say. It also has to contain a unique (personal) perspective on something and be an auteur work.
Literally every game made.
Reminder that books, movies, painting, and music is NOT art.

There's nothing artistic about literature, either

>>724935713
>No social stigma about you being a gamer.
That's actually bad. We need to get insecure people out of gaming and leave only the passionate ones.

>More good games can be made
More fartsy games like Gone Homo and Sunset. Not good ones.

>then you can easily get a grant
Already a thing in many european countries and even Cucknada if I'm not mistaken/

>>724935603
If you, yourself, recognise art, it is simply an unavoidable conclusion. You may as well ask a chef what the benefits are of "recognising" certain things as food. Maybe you're uneducated; maybe you're ideologically opposed to it. But the chef knows what's edible, how it can be prepared, and how it tastes.

>>724935808
Prove how games are art.
Prove how everything else isn't.
By actually explaining it according to the definition.
I'm going to preemptively shut down your retardation by saying if you avoid that in any way, you're a subhuman who is just mad that his toys aren't taken seriously.

>>724935859
Semanthics. Don't take things out of context. We're talking about games being given some sort of social pass, a title even. For what? Why? Because all of you so insecure about gaming as a hobby? Find a new one instead of dragging this one down.

the way faker plays league is art
the way a peak olympian moves their body is art
the way my penis fucks your mom is art

>>724936012
You want to avoid semantics in a discussion about definitions?
I'll repeat: it's not "for" anything. It simply is. *You* appear to have your own baggage surrounding the word, but that doesn't detract from games being art.

The problem with art as a whole is that you have basically 3 camps
1. The cool weed guys that go
>it's different so it's cool
2. Perfectionists that go
>but this is better, so this sucks
3. Artso fartsos that go
>this is different but in a very super specific hyper niche way which is why it's good

And basically all artists oscialate between those 3 states constantly shitting themselves

Source: I am an artist.

I personally hate the third kind. If you think silksong/dark souls/flavor of the week/oot is good then you are automatically not type 2, but you also shit on everything else so you are not type 1.

>>724936095
Ad hominem once again.
Explain why is it matter so much to YOU that a hobby that enjoy gets some fancy word attached to it. Don't you see the irony of claiming that I have special relationship with the word "art" when it's you who gets touchy about this topic?

>>724935562
You failed to produce even a single example. You have lost before this "discussion" has even begun.

This game contains more heart and soul and understanding than 99.9% of the accumulated human cultural output.

>>724936521
this game is also intentionally simulatory of unfairness just like pathalogic and some other stuff. Which some people can find fun while some prefer the magician type games which constantly lie and cheat for smoother experience.

>>724936521
>This game contains more heart and soul and understanding than 99.9% of the accumulated human cultural output.
Elaborate.

>>724936449
The onus of proving that games are more artistic than literature, or cinema, or art is on you. I've substantiated my claim with logical reasoning. You, so far, have only been throwing a temper tantrum because I do not conform to your beliefs.

>>724936249
Art is often an effective defense against censorship, because there are constant attempts by groups to tear down anything that doesn't align with their political leanings.

>>724933602 (OP)
I'm not reading all that

>>724936249
>Ad hominem once again
Ironic, consider you want this to be about my alleged "insecurities" rather than intrinsic properties of art and games.
>Don't you see the irony of claiming that I have special relationship with the word "art" when it's you who gets touchy about this topic?
I see the irony of you saying this after accusing me of "dragging down the hobby" by simply recognising it for what it is. To me, it's a neutral descriptor, and I'm not getting "touchy", I'm explaining the facts of the world as one might explain that the Earth orbits the Sun to a child. To you, it clearly matters a great deal, to the point that you'll deny the obvious.

>>724936738
You're either a pretentious retard or clearly baiting. Either way, you're not really worth anyone's time, effort or respect to solicit a more detailed answer, especially on a topic that's been discussed here a thousand times before. People have given you more than enough examples and explanations to demonstrate how wrong you are but you have dismissed everything so far. Why would anyone bother wasting any more time on you?

>>724936679
No. I won't play your semantic pingpong. You must experience it.

>>724936738
>The onus of proving that games are more artistic than literature, or cinema, or art is on you
No, it's actually on YOU. You're the fag who prances in a VIDEO GAME board with outrageous and ridiculous claims and doesn't elaborate further.
So go on, explain how the latest marvel slop movie is "art" while games aren't.

>>724936956
>People have given you more than enough examples and explanations
Such as? All I see is "UHM, NO, CHUD, THIS GAME IS ACTUALLY BETTER THAN ALL MEDIA COMBINED!!"
All I do is ask "why" and in return I get incomprehensible schizo seething.

>>724937216
The fact that the first thing you think of when you hear "movie" is marvelslop is probably telling just how uncultured you are. I wouldn't say that marvel movies are very artistic but they still are more artistic than games by a long shot simply because a lot more personal work HAS to go into the production of a film than of a game.

>>724937261
Maybe stop acting like a tantric child and people will bother giving you an actual response.

>>724937335
>tantric child

>>724937329
It tracks that you share Ebert's opinion on video games because you know just as little about them as he does.
I will not elaborate. Lurk moar.

>>724934414
Something made by a person for purpose of expression, as opposed to function or necessity.

>>724937329
>I wouldn't say that marvel movies are very artistic but they still are more artistic than games by a long shot simply because a lot more personal work HAS to go into the production of a film than of a game.
You're obviously completely clueless on both the video game and movie production process. As such, you have zero capacity to talk about either. Go back to redd*t with your dumbass bait thread.

>>724937521
Malding.

>>724937329
>I wouldn't say that marvel movies are very artistic but they still are more artistic than—

They are the avatar of corporate soullessness. They contain no inkling of sincerity. I would put them into the same category as nu-Call of Duty. You know, deep down, that there are artistic games and there are unartistic paintings. Art is not limited to a particular medium. Even a child knows this.

So we've established that the only people who fail to recognise games as art don't know shit about games, good thread

>>724935713
the stigma was good because it meant games were made by and marketed for people who liked video games instead of being dumbed down to the "wider audience"

>>724933602 (OP)
didn't read

>>724938056
Art games are a narrower niche and require greater appreciation for the medium than "bang bang guns 'n titties" AAA blockbusters

>>724933602 (OP)
Movies aren’t art either

>>724938310
You're just as retarded as OP.

>>724933602 (OP)
lmao

>>724933602 (OP)
"Gamers" obsessed with the question of vidya being an art form are just casuals and normies who don't want to be associated with the nerd stigma that comes with the medium that in it's truest essence is a toy meant for fun
That (and many other reasons) are why movie games with very frequently mediocre gameplay are so prevalent.
It doesn't matter if it's art or not, the real question that gets buried under piles of meme bullshit is and should be, is it fun?

>>724933602 (OP)
compulsory Cosmology of Kyoto mention

>>724934414
See >>724937471

A toilet is not art.
A toilet with a banana in it is art.

>>724938636
this but unironically

>>724938636
What if I keep my bananas in my toilet out of function or necessity?

>>724933602 (OP)
Get the absolute fuck out of here you germ

>>724933602 (OP)
>“The Thing” is basically, then, just a geek show, a gross-out movie in which teenagers can dare one another to watch the screen. There’s nothing wrong with that; I like being scared and I was scared by many scenes in “The Thing.” But it seems clear that Carpenter made his choice early on to concentrate on the special effects and the technology and to allow the story and people to become secondary.

Roger Ebert on one the greatest movies ever filmed btw. :)

>>724937471
This makes art a form of play
Art is games

Funny how a retarded reviewer could gain this much traction back in the day, internet basically killed those guys, even vidya journalists/reviewers dont get much attention these days.

>>724933602 (OP)
No anon, you're just retarded, sorry.

>>724940201
He was a better writer than most. Very exact style of prose. There's a reason he found acclaim.

>>724934984
>games can't be dictated by a solo auteur developer
Here's your (You), your room-temperature-iq brain seems to enjoy them.
Also good job failing to answer a simple question.