/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17017043]

Could videogames be considered art?

[Anonymous No.17017048]

yeah but it's the cringiest one

[Anonymous No.17017064]

>>17017043
It's kinda of the jack of all trades but a master of none type of art. It has some writing, but it's not the best. It has some music, but it's not the greatest. It has some visual art, but it's not the fanciest. It has some acting, but it's mediocre...

[Anonymous No.17017069]

>>17017043
Based Kreia aka Darth Traya. Most philosophically interesting of all the Jedi. The fact that she saw the Force itself as evil and sought to escape from or extinguish it gives her a Gnostic aspect.

[Anonymous No.17017095]

>>17017069
she is garbage and only pseuds think she is the best character just because of "muh 'philosophical' dialogues"
>>17017064
Then it could play a similar rol to art to the one that sciencific divultagion does for science?

[Anonymous No.17017098]

Yes but only some games

[Anonymous No.17017121]

>>17017098
What would be the criteria? Correspondence to some canonical values of the creative elements it incorporates?

[Anonymous No.17017129]

>>17017121
Thinks that are meta changing are the canon, doesn’t mean the art is on par with any of the others

[Anonymous No.17017134]

>>17017064
Couldnt this also apply to cinema except for the acting?

[Anonymous No.17017136]

>>17017121
the game has to be intended to be art in the first place I guess. You surely couldn't call all movies, written works or designs art

[Anonymous No.17017143]

>>17017129
I dont understand what you mean

[Anonymous No.17017150]

>>17017134
No. Visual arts are best in cinema, acting is best in theatre.

[Anonymous No.17017153]

>>17017143
>>17017129
*things not thinks
>>17017136
Art isn’t intended to be art; that’s the arbitrary umbrella name we give to things pertaining to a creative aspect thus most things can and have been perceived of art or with artistic qualities which have influenced or been assumed art

[Anonymous No.17017156]

>>17017043
I was just playing this recently. This bitch tries to make a lot of stupid fucking points. She doesn't know they meaning of life but acts like she does. You are allowed to help people out in life without expecting anything in return, it's not weakness, it's virtue.

[Anonymous No.17017158]

>>17017043
>/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17017159]

>>17017136
What would count as intending it to be art?

[Anonymous No.17017165]

>>17017043
Yes. The issue is that people consider ‘art’ to be some denotation of quality or a mark of approval or something. Video games are or can be art, yes. But they’re pretty much all very shitty art.

[Anonymous No.17017177]

>>17017150
How could visual art be at its best in cinema instead of painting

[Anonymous No.17017184]

>>17017177
because in cinema the pictures move, giving them another dimension

[Anonymous No.17017192]

>>17017158
Sorry but I dont know where to discuss aesthetics anywhere but this board
Surely I wouldnt try on the disgusting videogames boards

[Anonymous No.17017200]

>>17017184
But is movement constitutive to the value of visual art?

[Anonymous No.17017205]

>>17017043
This is the best opinion I have read on the subject:
https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/video-games-can-never-be-art

In short, games can't be art because they have goals and rules. Do books, movies music, etc have goals and rules within them? No. Games just incorporate different art forms but at its core, they aren't art.

[Anonymous No.17017211]

>>17017200
yes

[Anonymous No.17017223]

>>17017165
>The issue is that people consider ‘art’ to be some denotation of quality or a mark of approval or something.

This. It really muddies what constitutes art because it hinges on if it appeals to you -- nevermind that, that can be categorized as "good/bad art" and not just thrown away entirely.

[Anonymous No.17017233]

>>17017205
lol

[Anonymous No.17017235]

>>17017043
they already are "considered art". there are exhibitions and so on about them in major museums.
at the exhibition at the v&a a couple of years ago, they held up the game kentucky route zero (never heard of it myself) as clearly having artistic leanings. example, pic related, a screenshot of the game next to magritte's painting le blanc-seing.

[Anonymous No.17017240]

>>17017211
How so?

[Anonymous No.17017251]

>>17017233
What's funny

[Anonymous No.17017269]

>>17017235
But that is just appealing to the visual aspects of videogames which isnt their distintive quality, its narrative too and has an inherent interactive element which isnt found on every other medium
It is like justifying cinema just because it can be similar to painting

[Anonymous No.17017271]

You faggots hating on Kreia can't name a single character in that dead franchise that's even close to being as interesting as her.
Well maybe Sheev himself but his character has been assassinated for good by the sequels.

>Could videogames be considered art?
I'd say so yes. If they embrace having a gameplay aspect instead of making it a walking sim with shitty monologues on top.

[Anonymous No.17017293]

I'd say journey counts.

[Anonymous No.17017294]

>>17017271
the "gameplay" aspect its worthless without the visual, narrative and musical elements
This is why dumb youtuber content like vlogs are not something you would compare to cinema

[Anonymous No.17017302]

>>17017192
/his/ would be better but it'll get deleted there too

[Anonymous No.17017306]

>>17017293
I spent over 100h on this game. It's not a game, it's more of a social experience. Games and art are mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.17017308]

>>17017293
"muh pretty visuals" games are the type of games that are just an inferior version of visual art

[Anonymous No.17017335]

>>17017294
>the "gameplay" aspect its worthless without the visual, narrative and musical elements
Sure but without gameplay it's just a shitty movie that goes on too long. If it's not interactive and lacks a "game" characteristic then it's just a waste.

>>17017306
>Games and art are mutually exclusive.
Sate your reason.

[Anonymous No.17017351]

>>17017251
You have never read actual aesthetics if you think art its free from goals and rules
The fact that you are disregarding as art an entire creative media means you have set goals and rules for something to be art

[Anonymous No.17017390]

>>17017335
Games are competitive in nature because they have defined goals and rules. It's not different from chess.
If you remove the competition and rules out of a game then it ceases to be a game. You need to remove the competition and rules out of it if you want your "game" to be art though because no art has competition, goals and rules. It's just simply meant to be experienced and enjoyed.
I don't get why people consider games to be art just because it incorporates music and cutscenes. In chess you can have very pretty pieces crafted out of the finest wood but that doesn't make chess art.

[Anonymous No.17017411]

>>17017351
Then tell me what goals and rules are present in art. I doubt these goals and rules are the same as capturing the flag in 10 minutes or your team loses.

[Anonymous No.17017420]

Yes, but not Avellone's

[Anonymous No.17017426]

>>17017293
Something like Halo is more artistic than this, for the defining quality of games is gameplay.

[Anonymous No.17017458]

>>17017390
>You need to remove the competition and rules out of it if you want your "game" to be art though because no art has competition, goals and rules.
Embarassing take, read Gombrich and come back.

[Anonymous No.17017460]

>>17017426
no, it's interactivity. seeing as halo is mostly cutscenes and corridor shooting, it isn't very interactive is it?

[Anonymous No.17017482]

Most triple-A video games today are basically just a very long cinematic, so they can be considered as much of an art as any shitty blockbuster is

[Anonymous No.17017485]

>>17017390
>It's just simply meant to be experienced and enjoyed.
You can actually just "experience and enjoy" the competitive aspect
You are just rejecting the interactive aspect and starting your position from a fixed art theory instead of actually having in count the diverse historical positions on aesthetics and their changes and the influence of the introduction of new mediums
>>17017411
it doesnt matter what I think the goals and rules are, you can actually go and read Aristotle's Poetics or Kant's critique of judgement and see examples of theories about art and its rules and goals
Now fuck off

[Anonymous No.17017559]

>>17017043
Like Talos principle,Deus ex,soma,mgs series (till revengence)? Then yes

[Anonymous No.17017580]

>>17017390
Hmm, yes, games are certainly an aesthetic experience, but wanting them to be "art" just seems like a cope

[Anonymous No.17017586]

>>17017043
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jIYBod0ge3Y
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PZojlidqhcM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QKyI64rNVqk&list=PLQHEs6MQYKIt70cKFLk344a_VcC_eoVR5

[Anonymous No.17017608]

>>17017064
>music
Video games have top tier music. The great thing about music is it doesn't need any high monetary usage to make it great. Everything else in a videogame is expensive side from maybe writing, but writing in videogames is almost always lame. Metal Gear Solid has a unique way of writing amd story telling that no ither game utilizes, which I think is the most effevtive way of telling a story in a game.

[Anonymous No.17017621]

>>17017460
>never played Halo

[Anonymous No.17017636]

>>17017608
fuck off Kojimbo

[Anonymous No.17017639]

>>17017608
Morrowind was the only game I played that I felt had really great writing, and they created the narrative without using heavy handed cutscenes. FF7 did have a very engaging story and characters, but it had much less freedom than Morrowind, so it was more like a good movie than great writing. Weird that both of those games are within 5 years of each other.

[Anonymous No.17017722]

>>17017458
If you read him you can tell it yourself.

>>17017485
Aesthetics is just interpretation of what's pretty and ugly. It's all a bunch of subjective bullshit too that could certainly favour from more objectivity.
Interactive aspect? I can interact with so many things both physically and sensorially that make me feel things but it doesn't mean they are art. Like is my dog art?
>it doesnt matter what I think the goals and rules are, you can actually go and read Aristotle's Poetics or Kant's critique of judgement and see examples of theories about art and its rules and goals
Quite literally no argument. Also none of those rules and goals are the same well defined rules and goals present in games and that make "games" games.

[Anonymous No.17017728]

>>17017043
Yes but only mine and the ones I like

[Anonymous No.17017733]

>>17017621
I'm not him but he's not wrong regarding the first 3 games at least. The first one specially is a notorious corridor shooter. The level where you shoot those zombies in the library especially was the most boring shit I ever did in a game.

[Anonymous No.17017738]

>>17017636
Dude,I think u really didn't know the context of when mgs2 was released.First off the year "2001",then the hype about cool ass assassin missions u get to play as "snake" just like mgs1 which was released 3 years before mgs2,third the game was released the year after Deus ex and fourth the big disappointment mgs fans received when they only got to play as snake for the first few missions and had to play as some femboy for the rest of the game.

[Anonymous No.17017759]

>>17017722
>If you read him you can tell it yourself.
I shouldn't need to remind you something as simple as photography contests, flemish painters, the practice of patrons or simply how any artisan makes a living to this day, you fucking clueless retard.
Any form of art has, and always will have competition, rules AND goals, stop peddling your neoromanticist lie of "art for the sake of art", it has NEVER been like that throughout human history.

It's honestly appalling people like you even pretend to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.17017790]

>>17017636
Mg rising revengence:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wRnIeckoF5A
Mgs 2:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ-e0f0dafU

[Anonymous No.17017797]

>>17017043
Yes, but it's a shit artform for and by plebs.

[Anonymous No.17017802]

>>17017460
corridor shooting is interactive

[Anonymous No.17017845]

>>17017043
Right now there's nothing video games can do that can't be done in another medium. The biggest thing they have to offer is a sense of interactivity, but right now the technology isn't good enough to duplicate the level of interactivity you would get from a real-life performance with human actors. "Interactive storytelling" in games is really just picking different paths down a pre-determined flowchart. The only difference between that and reading a book is the order in which the audience experiences events, and unless the game programmer is determined to prevent their players from playing the game more than once the audience will eventually go down every path of the flowchart and experience everything, at which point the sense of interactivity is completely lost. The other option is to do some kind of interactive art performance in an online multiplayer game, but I honestly don't know how that would work or what advantage it would have over a performance in real life.
There are some well-written games out there made by smart people, but there's nothing in them that wouldn't work just as well in a book or something similar. I love Pathologic, as do a lot of people on this site, but the reason it's so good is because the creator originally came up with the concept without a medium in mind and only made the game after adapting it as a story, a roleplaying game setting, and a play. Same goes for other games people like for artistic reasons. MGS could have been an action movie without losing anything, Planescape could have been a fantasy book, etc. Some people argue that having to "live through" the experience of a character by playing them in a game is a key part of the experience, but to me that just sounds like window dressing. A good writer can create the same feeling with words alone.
In the end the best games out there, from an artistic point of view, are good despite their being games. I'm pretty sympathetic to games, but the more I think about it the more I feel that they're an artistic dead end and that the medium doesn't have much potential in its current state. There's no real reason for an artist to make a game rather than a movie or a book.

The counterpoint to all of this would be to think of video game design as architecture rather than literary art. I haven't really thought about this, but it seems like a more productive comparison. A lot of maps for FPS games are architecturally interesting in the way they're designed to make the player go a certain direction or focus on one thing in particular. It's also kind of interesting to see what kind of buildings and structures kids who would never have the resources to building anything in real life can come up with.

[Anonymous No.17017865]

>>17017845
>A lot of maps for FPS games are architecturally interesting
Eh not really. They're all the same exact game with the same repetitive gameplay loop.

[Anonymous No.17017887]

>>17017759
Buddy, I'm talking about experiencing the art, not making art. There's no competition, rules and goals involved while reading a book. There might arbitrary rules and goals stablished by a group people such as speed reading a book in 1 week but it's not what necessary to do that to experience the book.
Btw here are rules for an old photography contest:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/countryfile/photorules.shtml
No rule really tells you how to make your photo and there isn't a defined guideline on what constitutes a winning photo.

[Anonymous No.17017888]

>>17017043
Fk you just reminded me of my corrupted kotor2 save. I have to start from 0 all over again. I can't open doors. If you know how to fix that let me know

[Anonymous No.17017897]

>>17017845
>Right now there's nothing video games can do that can't be done in another medium.
They can more directly provide a lot of experiences. The experience of reading about or seeing a military commander's conquests is a lot different from planning and executing them yourself in a 4X game, for example.

[Anonymous No.17017909]

>>17017845
>Right now there's nothing video games can do that can't be done in another medium.
If you take each single element on its own, perhaps.
But then you could argue that the same is true for movies, and nobody in their right mind would argue that movies aren't art because you can look at pretty pictures, read books and listen to music, the fact that you can do all of those activities on their own doesn't discredit movies being all of that and more.
The sum of the parts is what makes this kind of media work, not the single parts on their own, it's precisely why what videogames do can't be done in another medium because they encompass so many different ways to experience things at the same time, in a (hopefully) organic way too.
And when you think about, the simple fact that people out there came up and built entire small virtual worlds and stories like that is already pretty damn impressive.
>>17017887
>No rule really tells you how to make your photo and there isn't a defined guideline on what constitutes a winning photo.
If you're seriously arguing there are no rules or guidelines in photography you're a clueless imbecile.

[Anonymous No.17017911]

>>17017586
>The most profound moment in gaming is a low rent rip off of Baudrillard.

[Anonymous No.17017912]

>>17017845
>>17017865
>>17017887
>>17017897
Play StarCraft, league of legends or for that matter some board like chess,go to see almost infinite complexity popping up

[Anonymous No.17017916]

>>17017897
>They can more directly provide a lot of experiences.
It's just a simulacrum of experiences.
>The experience of reading about or seeing a military commander's conquests is a lot different from planning and executing them yourself in a 4X game, for example.
Those games are so far removed from actual military planning that you may as well not even compare the two because they simple appeal to a novelty a certain kind of gamer craves (i.e. excess detail and depth)

[Anonymous No.17017926]

>>17017912
No one cares, bugman.

[Anonymous No.17017933]

>>17017916
>It's just a simulacrum of experiences.
So is art in general.

[Anonymous No.17017934]

>>17017916
>It's just a simulacrum of experiences.
How so?
>Those games are so far removed from actual military planning that you may as well not even compare the two
There is much more to them than military planning, sure. Nonetheless, it provides an experience more directly than other mediums can, and there can be games that provide a more direct experience for deep military planning, trench warfare, and so on.

[Anonymous No.17017980]

>>17017909
By guidelines I don't mean advice on how improve your skill in an art but a guideline specifically to the competition, like a rule. Like you must include at least one cow in your photo for the countryside competition. It still wouldn't change anything about experiencing the art.
Anyway, it seems you just can insult but not argue. Maybe drop your manchild toys and pick a real art like a book?

[Anonymous No.17017990]

>>17017933
>So is art in general.
Art and Simulacrum are not mutually inclusive, where did you get this idea from? Simulacrum is an inferior imitation of the "real" thing, while high art IS real in its own right. The anon above me makes a good point about how franchises such as MGS are inferior copies of the action and espionage movies it shamelessly copies, or how Planescape would be better off as fantasy genre fiction. Not all games are simulacrum (like the aforementioned Pathologic) but a lot of them are.
>>17017934
>Nonetheless, it provides an experience more directly than other mediums can, and there can be games that provide a more direct experience for deep military planning, trench warfare, and so on.
How is larping as a military commander considered art exactly? And for that matter, how can a video game directly offer the experience when you are a detached spectator sitting in front of your screen barking orders through a monitor?

[Anonymous No.17018008]

>>17017926
Cope harder without giving a proper reasoning.Anyways try dark souls series just to see how profound and deep the themes are.

[Anonymous No.17018013]

never

[Anonymous No.17018018]

>>17017485
>it doesnt matter what I think the goals and rules are, you can actually go and read Aristotle's Poetics or Kant's critique of judgement and see examples of theories about art and its rules and goals
Absolute pseud.

[Anonymous No.17018019]

>>17017980
>It still wouldn't change anything about experiencing the art.
>A terribly out of focus photo with amateurish composition and geometry wouldn't change anything about experiencing the art.
>It would also totally win a COMPETITION despite breaking basic RULES of photography
This is why you'll never make anything worthwhile in your life while I live off my own handcrafted jewelry.

[Anonymous No.17018022]

>>17017990
>How is larping as a military commander considered art exactly?
Why use a harsh word like "larping" here? Isn't all art a form of "larping" i.e. putting yourselves in the shoes of someone else in some other place?
What does art mean to you?

>And for that matter, how can a video game directly offer the experience when you are a detached spectator sitting in front of your screen barking orders through a monitor?
How can any other medium do it better? Video games can get the closest to simulating the actual experience since they utilize visuals, audio, and our active participation in manipulating them (i.e. making decisions and such).

[Anonymous No.17018030]

>>17018008
>Anyways try dark souls series just to see how profound and deep the themes are.
I've played these games hundreds of times in high school. They are fun 3D metroidvanias, but they are not even slightly deep in any way, it's entertaining kitsch that touches on some nihilistic themes at best.

[Anonymous No.17018035]

>>17017990
Grand strategy games like Hoi,Europa universallis,etc.

[Anonymous No.17018037]

>>17017043
there is no logically coherent alternative to admitting that they are

[Anonymous No.17018046]

>>17017909
>they encompass so many different ways to experience things at the same time, in a (hopefully) organic way too
I guess you could say video games have the potential to replicate the experience of watching a movie while also removing the audience's fixed point of view. It's an interesting idea, I've been reading Marshal McLuhan and he touches on stuff like that in regards to visual art. I'm not really sure how you'd implement the idea in a game, though.

[Anonymous No.17018053]

>>17017990
>Art and Simulacrum are not mutually inclusive
They are.
Or do you truly believe Homer traveled with Ulysses and all he said in the Odyssey was real?
I seriously doubt there's much truth in the Laocoon sculpture, and yet it's art.
Most of the production of art around is, in fact, a simulacrum, most writers to this day spoke about things they knew nothing about and never experienced.
>while high art
Rubbish, there is no such thing as "high" art, get off your high horse.

[Anonymous No.17018068]

>>17018030
>it's entertaining kitsch that touches on some nihilistic themes at best.
I love drinking coping tears who claim things like this

[Anonymous No.17018076]

>>17018019
>A terribly out of focus photo with amateurish composition and geometry wouldn't change anything about experiencing the art.
It becomes an avant-garde photo and there's no rule discredit it from being one.
>This is why you'll never make anything worthwhile in your life while I live off my own handcrafted jewelry.
Thank god I grew up to be a writer and music composer rather than some craftsman. You would be an inferior being in Ancient Greece, the peak of human civilization whereas I would be admired by the brightest minds. But hey, have fun selling your junk to lesbians on Etsy.

[Anonymous No.17018079]

>>17018022
>Why use a harsh word like "larping" here?
It's not harsh, it's exactly what it is. You are simulating the experience of being a military general and nothing more. What's artistic about that?
>Isn't all art a form of "larping" i.e. putting yourselves in the shoes of someone else in some other place?
No.
>How can any other medium do it better? Video games can get the closest to simulating the actual experience since they utilize visuals, audio, and our active participation in manipulating them (i.e. making decisions and such).
They can't (except for Opera), and that's actually okay because this gimmicky conception of art is awful and holds back real masterpieces.
>>17018035
>Grand strategy games like Hoi,Europa universallis,etc.
I'll be frank with you, if you played these games to excess, you will probably come out even less knowledgeable of actual warfare.

[Anonymous No.17018085]

>>17018046
It's more than just that, because games aren't necessarily about a predefined story either, although it is true it is the most common formula.
Take something like Terraria or Minecraft where the audience itself also becomes the driving force of the game's contents.
I think games have much higher potential in terms of both communication and self reflection, though arguably, it's a pipe dream of mine given the overwhelmingly commercial environment of the medium.
I won't say it's impossible but it's very unlikely, I still think that the more open ended games out there can lead to very interesting debates.

[Anonymous No.17018101]

>>17018076
>It becomes an avant-garde photo
Maybe, according to some RULE.
See, you can't avoid stumbling in your own ignorance.
>You would be an inferior being in Ancient Greece
A shame we aren't living in ancient greece anymore, eh?
But hey, have fun selling your tripe to hipsters and audiophiles on MySpace.

[Anonymous No.17018105]

>>17018053
You don't understand what simulacrum means, obviously.
>Rubbish, there is no such thing as "high" art, get off your high horse.
You are an imbecile if you can tell me with a straight face that Mozart, Wagner, or Bach do not produce transcedentally high art.

[Anonymous No.17018106]

>>17017048
actually based

[Anonymous No.17018108]

>>17018079
>What's artistic about that?
What isn't? There's craftsmanship involved, there's an illusion, there's an ideal, there's beauty, there's an experience, there's a relationship between creator and beholder, there's something human in it, there's something emotional about it, there can be excellence found in it... exactly what isn't artistic about it? And how does other art not essentially consist of that?

[Anonymous No.17018113]

>>17018101
Dude come on,by saying things like that Ur just falling for that retarded b8

[Anonymous No.17018125]

>>17018105
>transcedentally high art
What's that?

[Anonymous No.17018127]

>>17018108
It's also transcendental

[Anonymous No.17018136]

>>17018068
>I love drinking coping tears who claim things like this
It's typical obscurantist Japanese hogwash that doesn't touch on anything substantial except sentimentalism.

[Anonymous No.17018194]

>>17018136
Cope harder, especially when the fandom have discovered something deeply Jungian in those games(Bloodborne for instance)

[Anonymous No.17018203]

>>17018108
>There's craftsmanship involved, there's an illusion, there's an ideal, there's beauty, there's an experience, there's a relationship between creator and beholder, there's something human in it, there's something emotional about it, there can be excellence found in it... exactly what isn't artistic about it?
Well none of those applies to 4x games except he "illusion" of being a wise and all-knowing military leader.
>>17018125
Sublime, divine, genius etc.

[Anonymous No.17018209]

>>17018194
>especially when the fandom have discovered something deeply Jungian in those games(Bloodborne for instance)
Persona is also "Jungian". This says absolutely nothing to me other than you're a pseud midwit that think if art references philosophy or psychoanalysis it becomes a superior work as a result.

[Anonymous No.17018213]

>>17018203
>Sublime, divine, genius etc.
Nice load of empty buzzwords, anon.
Now actually try to put some effort in and define "high" art again.

[Anonymous No.17018222]

>>17018101
Is that what you mean by rules? A specific way to draw in a specific style that someone else came up with by being original and not following any "rules"? In any case those would be "rules" to make art but still there wouldn't be any rule to experience it and that's the point I have kept making. You can experience art the way whatever you want, there are no limitations stablished by rules in the way that video games have otherwise they would cease to be video games.

[Anonymous No.17018223]

>>17018203
>none of those applies to 4x games
Every single one of those do. So does >>17018127

[Anonymous No.17018237]

>>17018213
>Nice load of empty buzzwords, anon.
They are words with clear definitions.
>Now actually try to put some effort in and define "high" art again.
I gave you my definition of "high art", (i.e. Possessing a sublime quality). Refusing to accept my definition is simply admitting that video games do not possess sublime qualities. Cope.

[Anonymous No.17018255]

>>17018223
There is nothing beautiful or "transcendental" about 4x games, you're spouting literal jibberish.

[Anonymous No.17018276]

>>17018255
>There is nothing beautiful or "transcendental" about 4x games
First of all, beauty is relative, so just because you find nothing beautiful about it, that doesn't mean no one does. Second, what makes something transcendental is also relative, since ontological worldviews can differ, and that affects what transcendence entails. An artist attempting to capture the ideal subjective experience of being a military commander through the craft of illusion can be validly framed as transcendental.

[Anonymous No.17018278]

>>17017269
The interactive element is a key aspect of artistry in video games though. I've played Kentucky Route Zero and it is certainly art, the visuals, music, and narrative all serve clear artistic purposes.

[Anonymous No.17018287]

>>17018222
>Is that what you mean by rules?
Well, yes.
There's a reason why things such as genres exist after all, because they answer to a set of rules necessary to be indentified as whatever they are.
If people ask you to compose a dythiramb you don't give them a paean and them bitch about them kicking you out because of a nebulous idea of "art", just like you don't bring a photograph to a painting contest.
>but still there wouldn't be any rule to experience it
So what you're saying is you can enjoy a movie in the same exact way by either being blindfolded or with wax in your ears.
There are in fact rules needed to experience things, as much as you don't like the idea, otherwise we end up in the usual interpretation problems Eco warned us about.
Sure, you can find a lot of possible meanings or readings in everything, doesn't mean all of those readings or meanings are inherently valid just because you can come up with those.

[Anonymous No.17018289]

>>17018255
no game is transcendental, only the experience a player has while consooming it.

[Anonymous No.17018290]

>>17017043
No. Videogames and film will never be art.

[Anonymous No.17018291]

>>17018237
>They are words with clear definitions.
Define them if you're so great.
>I gave you my definition of "high art"
No, you vomited a bunch of adjectives with no meaning.
See me after school.

[Anonymous No.17018303]

>>17017888
just delete kotor 2 and play the superior kotor 1
or just stop playing videogames

[Anonymous No.17018311]

>>17018276
>First of all, beauty is relative
>Second, what makes something transcendental is also relative
You're a completely braindead moron. Read Kant or Burke, and you will learn there exists subjectivity in our experience of art but the object itself has an objective quality to it (aesthetics).

[Anonymous No.17018321]

>>17018311
not a him but what a weak case you're making: "objects have objective qualities" and a smattering of insults; truly weak post

[Anonymous No.17018323]

>>17018291
>Define them if you're so great.
>No, you vomited a bunch of adjectives with no meaning.
Poor little baby can't open his dictionary.

[Anonymous No.17018325]

>>17018311
>Read Kant or Burke
I disagree with them philosophically. There is nothing in our worldview that is "objective" i.e. independent of our conscious or unconscious making.

[Anonymous No.17018329]

Art requires blood: sublimation of your deepest desires and thoughts. You need to feel deeply and people must be able to access this mode of perception through your art. Anything less is ultimately just pseudo-art and pseudo-culture

[Anonymous No.17018336]

>>17018311
>Kant or Burke
They are both wrong about literally everything tho
But I support that idiot should read them

[Anonymous No.17018343]

>>17018085
Although it's thematically shallow I'd say the Mass Effect trilogy approaches this. The player is encouraged to own their decisions and see the repurcussions of them on characters they've come to know personally. I remember just dicking around and deciding to let a terrorist go free, and an alien character expressed their severe dissappointment and I'd clearly reinforced their prejudice against humans. It's a dumb scenario but I felt genuinely guilty. There's no reason a game can't do that with more sobre subject matter. Unfortunately there's a trend of "artistic games" that are just slow and boring, poorly emulating TV and film dramas.

[Anonymous No.17018344]

>>17018323
I don't find anything about "transcendental high art" by looking at the definition of any of those words by checking any dictionary.
But I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.17018352]

>>17018203
You can no artistic qualities apply to an Avengers movie, that doesn't mean cinema isn't an art form. Any medium can be used to soulless cash grabs, that doesn't invalidate the entire medium.

[Anonymous No.17018360]

>>17018329
>Art requires blood: sublimation of your deepest desires and thoughts. You need to feel deeply and people must be able to access this mode of perception through your art.
Videogames like kotor achive that, it has all the elements that Aristotle prescribes

[Anonymous No.17018364]

>>17017043
Of course. But it suffers from several factors that tend to hide or lessen its qualities: for example, any type of grinding mecanic, over-reliance on repetitive gameplay gimmicks, excessive hand-holding of the player that break immersion and the illusion of freedom, etc... I'm of course speaking about rpgs, or adventure games only; any other category either acceptable but mindless leisure or plain trash.

[Anonymous No.17018368]

>>17018321
>objects have objective qualities
Do you think you're clever for reducing my post to an aphorism? Object refers to the "art" itself in this scenario, the art possess qualities that are objective and holds itself to a standard we do typically refer to as "beautiful" or "sublime", possessing such excellence that only a rat or clueless buffoon would deny otherwise. Educate yourself before you say something so harebrained and worthless as "beauty is subjective" with complete disregard to the entire field of art.

[Anonymous No.17018378]

>>17018325
>There is nothing in our worldview that is "objective" i.e. independent of our conscious or unconscious making.
This is the speak of either a nihilist or a last man.
>>17018336
>They are both wrong about literally everything tho
No matter how you feel about them, their essays on aesthetics are certainly worth delving into.

[Anonymous No.17018381]

Vidyas are digital multimedia entertainment products. They contain art, games, music, and wifes.

[Anonymous No.17018393]

>>17018344
>I don't find anything about "transcendental high art" by looking at the definition of any of those words by checking any dictionary.
If you can't see the definition of "sublime" and not immediately understand what I'm talking about, then you may just lack a soul altogether.

[Anonymous No.17018394]

>>17018378
>This is the speak of either a nihilist or a last man.
In what sense for either?

[Anonymous No.17018402]

>>17018352
The thing is you falsely assume that "The Avengers" AREN'T the majority of video games.

[Anonymous No.17018411]

>>17018360
There's no vanguard of artists getting their oxygen from star wars role-playing games and it's certainly not the watering hole of great men in general. If it had potency then it would attract front runners rather than timid nerds

[Anonymous No.17018412]

>>17018394
A false sense of egalitarianism to justify his own lack of convictions.

[Anonymous No.17018426]

I've found that devs who think games are art make significantly worse game than devs who don't care.

[Anonymous No.17018438]

>>17018402
I didn't say that anywhere.

[Anonymous No.17018450]

>>17018393
Is Scriabin's Prometheus more or less "sublime" than Mozart's K. 622? If so, why?

[Anonymous No.17018472]

>>17018412
What I said had nothing to do with egalitarianism. Not sure how this statement even relates to nihilism or last man, either.

[Anonymous No.17018760]

>>17017043
KOTOR I and II were good games but only in that they mimicked the pen-and-paper RPG experience while expanding a 'fandom' in many directions that many kids already thought they were already inundated in. It showed people a "deep time" to Star Wars, but its still just star wars.
>>17017293
lol played this on acid and my first words were "This was a great tech demo, imagine someone pitching this idea to a boardroom". The girl got sad when I was saying this.
>>17017608
MGS has great gameplay, and an interesting story, but the writing was nothing to be remembered, and actually quite bad in parts. Kojima does do great environmental/gameplay driven storytelling at times.
I have nothing to really contribute that others have not said. Games in antiquity (esp dice) had a much more serious characeter to them that made them closer to life than art (or, more akin to folk art). Video games try to mimic this with competitiveness, but only end up being an imitation. Others stray to close to narrative, or try to emulate a life like experience.

There is something to the way people's perceptions of games has shifted that is fascinating. When i was growing up (mid 2000s-early 2010s) games seemed to inspire a lot of creativity amongst kids - we all played cool games and wanted to code, direct, or design games or something similar. Or make our own yard games to emulate what we saw there. It sparked a curiosity in things that just weren't games. Seeing younger kids playing games now, as I have 'grown out' of these things, the curiosity is gone: they all want to be twitch streamers or youtubers. Delivering content instead of creating it. As with other forms of art/entertainment (which can be shitty or not) games are dead, or zombified, or whatever you may call them. The inspiration some may take from these things is largely defeated

[Anonymous No.17018793]

>>17017911
you have to go back

[Anonymous No.17018828]

>>17018287
>There's a reason why things such as genres exist after all, because they answer to a set of rules necessary to be indentified as whatever they are.
I don't really disagree on this but the right term is more guidelines rather than rules. Rules are strict and must be followed, no other way. Guidelines can be followed to achieve something but it's not necessary and that's how a lot of genres and subgenres have started.

>So what you're saying is you can enjoy a movie in the same exact way by either being blindfolded or with wax in your ears.
No, not in the exact same way because you would use different senses but you could still enjoy it. There isn't really a rule stating that you can't watch the movie blindfolded anyway and if you do it, you won't be penalised and lose. That's not possible in a video game because there are strict rules and you will be penalised for breaking them and possible lose.

>There are in fact rules needed to experience things
As I said before, the right word is guideline. The recommended but not necessary way to experience something and only if the artist designed his art piece to be experienced in one specific way. In that case I can agree that one should follow a guideline to experience something as it's intended to get their message but that's not in the same nature as games. Games impose rules and restrictions to make competition fair. You must follow those rules or else be penalised.
>Sure, you can find a lot of possible meanings or readings in everything, doesn't mean all of those readings or meanings are inherently valid
I mean, that would depend on the art piece itself. It could be so vague to the point it could have different interpretations and they would all be right.

[Anonymous No.17018838]

>>17017306
>what are singleplayer games, guys? games are more of a social experience
Luckily for you, certain vital centers in your brain like the one for respiration work autonomously, otherwise you would have died a long time ago because of your room temperature IQ.

[Anonymous No.17018919]

>>17017845
>Right now there's nothing video games can do that can't be done in another medium
Interactivity.
>The biggest thing they have to offer is a sense of interactivity
Good job on contradicting yourself in literally the next sentence, you absolute imbecile.
>but right now the technology isn't good enough to duplicate the level of interactivity you would get from a real-life performance with human actors
So what?
>"Interactive storytelling" in games is really just picking different paths down a pre-determined flowchart.
Well what do you know. You can summarize interactive storytelling as multiple different paths which are determined since everything that exist is determined, including a story with multiple paths. What a revelation.
>the audience will eventually go down every path of the flowchart and experience everything, at which point the sense of interactivity is completely lost
You are either baiting or are almost literally retarded.
>but to me that just sounds like window dressing
Wow, what an argument.
>A good writer can create the same feeling with words alone.
Yes, they surely can use words to recreate a feeling of literally experiencing a thing for yourself, controlling the character whose story you're experiencing etc.
You imbecile.
>the more I feel that they're an artistic dead end and that the medium doesn't have much potential in its current state
I agree, but only because games peaked in the 90s and it's been going downhill from there. As opposed to certain people thinking that games have yet to reach their peak, there's nowhere to go from here other than to add VR to the whole thing, but that won't improve anything. What games need are more interactivity, which can be offered through many branching paths, branching level design and so on. This is why games like Deus Ex are the best ever made.

[Anonymous No.17018927]

>>17017064
It has gameplay though. No other media involves interactivity.

[Anonymous No.17018956]

>he hasn't experienced peak point'n'click kino
embarrassing

[Anonymous No.17018977]

>>17018838
My IQ certainly dropped to room temperature after reading this. Either you are too retarded to understand what I said or maybe never played Journey.

[Anonymous No.17018995]

>>17018977
>My IQ certainly dropped to room temperature after reading this
It couldn't have when it already was at that level, my friend. What other type of person otherwise would post a statement related to one specific game saying how it's a social experience and after that make, without elaborating at all, a big and general statement such as "Games and art are mutually exclusive".

[Anonymous No.17019032]

>>17018995
I elaborated it in another post lol. Do you know how 4chan works?

[Anonymous No.17019034]

>>17018828
>Rules are strict and must be followed
Not necessarily, it depends on the rule, some rules are strictly necessary, other give more leeway for interpretation and some light twisting.
To make a game example, in soccer only the goalkeeper can use their hands to interact with the ball, but that doesn't mean everyone else is barred from using their heads or other body parts that aren't the hands.
And to make an art example, a sculpture is a three dimensional piece of solid material that is sculpted by someone, whether you're using ice or marble doesn't change that, whether you're doing this by hand or a 3D printer still doesn't change that what you're doing is fundamentally a sculpture, nor does the subject.

On the other hand, in soccer the team with more points win, and scultpures fall into different genres depending on their subjects, which is why you don't lump Michelangelo's David together with Boccioni's "Forme uniche della continuità nello spazio", they answer to different rules of classification and use different rules of expression as well, even though they're both sculptures.
>because you would use different senses but you could still enjoy it
Enjoyment is a broad term and even there, there are rules and barriers.
On one hand because any media and piece of art is subject to interpretation, on the other hand because there are also certain hard barriers where interpretation simply cannot take place.
I'm sure we all agree that War and Peace is a classic, but if were to give the original russian text to a 16 year old with zero knowledge of russian, what would happen?
>inb4 but language barriers aren't rules
Sadly, they are.
It's why people often say it's hard to get certain books until you read them in their original language, that too is a rule, or condition if you want to call it in a different way.
When I was younger, I myself really couldn't understand why so many people liked Hemingway until I read him in english, truth to be told my opinion didn't change much but I see him in a very different light now compared to 20 years ago.
>It could be so vague to the point it could have different interpretations and they would all be right.
There is a potentially infinite number of interpretations for anything, in the impossible case that all of these infinite interpretations are supposedly equally valid, you enter a paradox of communication where that piece of something inevitably has no meaning, so nothing is wrong but nothing is right either, can you call it an art piece then? Or even just "something"? Because I honestly cannot imagine such a thing, all art is created with at the very least one specific purpose in mind with can act as its prime interpretation from which everything else stems.

[Anonymous No.17019135]

>>17018919
There's a pretty big difference between a real interaction between a performer and his audience in real life and a simulated interaction between a computer program pretending to be human and its user. Sense of interactivity != interactivity. It's like comparing a chatbot and a real human being, I don't know why you're so hostile to the idea that computers can't accurately replicate people.