Fantastic thread, OP, bravo.
I have to admit I expected your average 'games as art' discussion that doesn't go anywhere, but this actually cleared up a couple of things that have confused me about games conversation for a long while.
Pretty often I find myself finishing a game and being impressed by what it offered, leaving a pretty powerful impression and making me see it as a work of art, but I always wondered why it is that as soon as I look up stuff about it online, including conversations on it, I slowly stop seeing it as such. Now I get it, it's because online conversations or lack of thereof tend to reduce them to mere toys.
It feels like the only cases where you can truly discuss them as art is when the game is already 'artsy' (think Team Ico's output), so the intended audience perceives it as such before even playing it and obviously considers it art after finishing it too. Anything else is hard to discuss without the "keep politics out of my games!" crowd showing up... Which is troubling, because one could argue that mainstream games have a way wider audience, and thus their messages can affect the perception of a lot of people, so they definitely shouldn't be left out of these conversations.
I honestly don't really care if people perceive games as art or not, it doesn't affect my enjoyment of them, but it's definitely a pity when the potential for meaningful conversation is there and its actual fans that sabotage the whole thing.
Also, I think a lot more people would agree with the premise if they noticed the title is about games FEELING as art and not about whether they are it or not.
This is a very interesting way of seeing the medium.
I have to admit I expected your average 'games as art' discussion that doesn't go anywhere, but this actually cleared up a couple of things that have confused me about games conversation for a long while.
Pretty often I find myself finishing a game and being impressed by what it offered, leaving a pretty powerful impression and making me see it as a work of art, but I always wondered why it is that as soon as I look up stuff about it online, including conversations on it, I slowly stop seeing it as such. Now I get it, it's because online conversations or lack of thereof tend to reduce them to mere toys.
It feels like the only cases where you can truly discuss them as art is when the game is already 'artsy' (think Team Ico's output), so the intended audience perceives it as such before even playing it and obviously considers it art after finishing it too. Anything else is hard to discuss without the "keep politics out of my games!" crowd showing up... Which is troubling, because one could argue that mainstream games have a way wider audience, and thus their messages can affect the perception of a lot of people, so they definitely shouldn't be left out of these conversations.
I honestly don't really care if people perceive games as art or not, it doesn't affect my enjoyment of them, but it's definitely a pity when the potential for meaningful conversation is there and its actual fans that sabotage the whole thing.
Also, I think a lot more people would agree with the premise if they noticed the title is about games FEELING as art and not about whether they are it or not.
Great OP and solid thread, with surprisingly few people missing the point.
I think in some ways, video games now could be compared to renaissance art. The form and technique are there, but the amount of work is such that significant amounts of money need to be involved. So, work either needs to appeal to the masses or appeal to its benefactors.
And that isn't specifically to say the latest COD is comparable to a work by Michelangelo, but I'm saying the reason we repeatedly get the same types of experiences is the same reason so much renaissance art was religious (and not just religious, but using the same established motifs repeatedly).
This is a very interesting way of seeing the medium.