/v/ - Video Games

>>13875710

>it's shit on purpose

lmao.

literally who?

Archive of the tweet, courtesy of >>13875722.

https://archive.fo/ERRtX

>>13875742

>just ripping shit from the GG thread

Oh fuck off. At least be original in your lols.

nottu disu shito agen

>creates shitty game that isn't fun

>"I-It's art, g-goyim!"

He's right. Games don't have to be fun. However when have you heard of a popular game that isn't fun? :^)

>>13875710

I don't think there's anything wrong with this, good horror games shouldn't always be "fun" since happiness is a different emotion than fear. There's also place for games that make you sad or angry.

sage for shit thread.

Why even care what every faggot says? Laugh at them and move on.

Games are foremost a form of entertainment. Any game that's not fun most of the time for enough people is a failed game.

>>13875710

When someone say something is fun, they're really just saying that they managed to engage with that thing in a way that is compelling. You can have fun staring at paint dry if you contextualize it in a way that is engaging. What this person is suggesting is that "art" can afford to be dull, which is something I fundamentally disagree with. If your art is dull, then it will only receive passive and hurried glances, and nobody will care to speak or write about it. That's what you want? You reserve the right to be boring?

>>13875767

>fun is happiness

Good horror games are fun when they manage to be scary or unsettling to some degree. The fun comes from a well executed attempt at presenting the intended expression. Fun is contextual, and can mean different things in different situations. Fun is not always akin to a sense of happiness (i.e. masochists who enjoy getting tied up and tortured can be considered to be experiencing fun, but you'd likely not agree if it were you in a situation like that).

>>13875782

> it shouldn't taste good or be edible.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the not having to taste good part was true.

>>13875710

LITERALLY

FUCKING

WHO

>Making this entertaining, I felt, would devalue the messages.

I bet 638 KPW that the game has some #FuckDrumpf #PunchNazis messages on it on top of all the nihilism tumblrshit.

>>13875783

Because if we don't stop them, they will ruin videogames. I agree that they need to be mocked though. Shame is a powerful tool against these people.

games don't have to be fun all the time to entertain you, but they are ultimately entertainment. these faggots want to use games not being fun as an argument on why they praise garbage non-games like the graveyard or gone home.

games also will never be art.

>>13876022

I am actually ok with games being art, but not shitty "modern art". I like art. I like good art, more importantly.

>>13876030

no, they by definition can't be art. They are productions.

>>13876035

Shadow of the Colossus is art. Fucking fight me you dumb nigger.

Art is a corrupted garbage term.

Fun is a buzzword with no clear meaning.

Not all games have to invoke joy but they have to be at least decently executed in order to make them pleasant to experience.

There's music that can make you sad, but you still listen to it because it's well-composed and isn't an infernal cacophony causing eardrums to burst.

who are quoting

>>13875710

beyond that, you have to embrace the idea that people will have OPINIONS on your art and the right to not like it. Gameplay first, then message

>>13876035

so are movies. And music. And the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Try again

>>13876050

>but you still listen to it because it's well-composed and isn't an infernal cacophony causing eardrums to burst.

Only if you are a pleb

>>13875710

>an interactive medium doesn't have to be enjoyable to interact with

Okay so what exactly keeps devs from making something that is fun and "cover emotions?" And thsi faggot obviously doesn't play vidya because there are plenty of games that aren't fun already.

>>13875851

Fun is too vague because it means different things depending on who you ask, you are referring to whether something is compelling, I am referring to the emotion of happiness. If we replace what he said with the word compelling then you're right and he's retarded, but if we replace it with happiness then I'm right and he's only mildly retarded.

>>13876050

an inappropriate approach to "fun". It certainly has a meaning.

the problem is that fun is the result, not a qualifier. It does not provide useful data or analysis

>videogames don't have to be fun

I thought this was the industry's default stance since 2008.

>>13875851

>That's what you want? You reserve the right to be boring?

Boredom is just another emotion like anger or fear, it's not evil.

>>13876172

It sucks, though. And it has no potential for being interesting unlike anger or fear.

>>13876070

<Video games can't be art.

>t. anon who hasn't escaped his cycle of guilt

Stop making waves, you jian scum.

I played Journey for the first time for 15 minutes today. It wasn't fun and I didn't find it artistic. What was the point of it?

>>13876203

playing online with a random buddy

>>13876183

I don't know about that

I remember parts of American Psycho being deliberately boring for effect

Also with games, Pathologic comes to mind, where it accentuates the ambient feeling of despair

Opinions on its execution may vary, but there is at least potential there, especially for contrast

I think a phobia of boredom is just a symptom of our modern fetish with instant gratification

Boredom can potentially be used as a tool for expression, it is not fundamentally wrong

I mean it is treated like a sin just for the crime of being unpleasant

>>13876172

>>13876229

>I think fun can be compelling

I see what you're saying, but I think we're just going to devolve into a semantic argument, because I'd argue that if you managed to take a concept like boredom, or more appropriately the concept of patience, and applied it in a way that is itself contextualized to be engaging, then I wouldn't call that approach to be itself "boring" or "dull", if that makes sense. As an example, some people consider meditation to be boring, and maybe that's a valid critique, but meditation is meant to facilitate a prolonged sense of relaxation and awareness, which itself requires a deliberately quiet and "dull" environment and frame of mind.

>>13876158

underrated

>>13876229

>>13876183

Its pretty well established in storytelling that excitement is not proportional to how interested the audience is, I can't think of any good story that doesn't have moments of high excitement/tension followed by moments of relative boredom. Its the contrast between the boredom and the excitement that makes things interesting, not the level of excitement itself.

Even the two most fast-paced unrelenting action movies I can think of have moments of lull, that being Hardcore Henry and Crank. They're both famous/infamous for never slowing down the pace, and while they don't slow down to the levels of most other movies they do still do it quite a bit. Even cuhrayzee games like DMC do this both out of combat with the parts where you walk around but also within combat in parts where your best move is to taunt from afar and let the enemy come to you (or charge up an attack).

Fortunately, games are not art.

>>13876172

>Boredom is just another emotion like anger or fear, it's not evil.

It is when you're watching a movie, playing a game, or reading a book. If at any time I'm indulging myself in some media, and start to feel like I could be spending my time doing anything else, then your media sucks and deserve to be called out on it.

>>13876229

>deliberately boring for effect

Slow-paced or placid mood =! boring, so long as it feels cohesive to what you're watching or something else is going to keep you stimulated.

>I mean it is treated like a sin just for the crime of being unpleasant

Because it is, and always has been. When media isn't stimulating you, it fucking sucks and is worthless.

True, I play Victoria 2.

>>13876331

same tbh. gsgs are meant to be fun

>>13875710

video games are art in the way they make you feel emotionally via gameplay, not story

an epic story triumph is nothing compared to an epic gameplay triumph

>>13876265

The problem is meditation and patience both have positive connotations, with a light at the end of the tunnel. There is still a sense of fulfillment there. But that's not what I am intending to convey. Nor am I trying to argue for masochism, which is also distinctly fulfilling for its intended audience. But actual boredom, with no holds barred and no punched pulled. Not relaxation like when you lay down after a long day, but that unpleasant sense of restlessness after illness has left you stuck in bed for several of your waking hours.

Also considering things like deliberately cheating the player, frustrating them, etc.

A lot of things which are considered bad in theory could be excellent tools left unused by self-conscious artists of many mediums. I mean people put up with all of these things before, and it was "bad" design sure, but today they wax nostalgic over those same faults regardless. Just maybe there is some magic in those negative emotions which has been lost due to the sterile and "fair" development philosophy that we have today.

>>13875710

vidya is first and foremost a consummer product, it can be considered artsy or have good music, story or visual design but as long as you want to call it a game it has to be some variation of chess

besides, artsy stuff does not sell and this industry is all about shekkels

>>13876172

>Boredom is just another emotion like anger or fear, it's not evil.

So? Shit is just another substance like water or potatoes. Doesn't mean I want it in my soup. Relativism isn't a meaningful contribution to anything.

I mean, there are some good games that I'd describe as not fun. Pathologic, Drakengard. The disconnect is that these faggots are treating "fun" and "good" like the same thing and then trying to use "not fun" to smuggle in "not good" because they aren't interested in art, what they're interested in is being the arbiters of art. They want respectability and power and no objective standards they can be held to.

>>13876232

>The only time it is acceptable for a game to not be fun, is when the game is developed specifically for masochistic tendencies

Nothing will ever top Desert Bus for this

>>13876385

Hey, like I said, if you find a way to make it work, then I wouldn't call such a successful application "boring", instead I'd just say that you made something compelling that used a theme to its fullest extent, which is something totally different than what I'd consider to be disengaging or "boring". You didn't like my meditation example, so I'd ask you to come up with an example that you think might succinctly capture the message you're trying to convey.

>>13875754

Literally a aspect of a game can be defended by calling it art.

>It isn't fun

It's art

>The music sounds terrible

It's art

>The mechanics are broken

It's art

>It looks ugly

It's art

Depends on your definition of fun. If you mean entertaining, engaging, interesting, then something that is sad, tense, bleak or scary can be all of those things. Boring trash is never fun though.

>>13876305

>Slow-paced or placid mood =! boring

Pretty much this. Boredom is the lack of interest. Just because nothing is happening right now does not mean you are not interested, if you were not interested you wouldn't keep playing or watching or whatever. Usually slower points are the buildup to something else and you keep going out of anticipation for how they play out. That's the same with gameplay as well as story and it's the reason you might spend hours grinding for various things, hopefully in order to have some sort of payoff when its all done.

Of course, different people's tolerance for slow or repetitive things varies, so just how much and how often that "payoff" has to happen can vary and just because one person finds something boring doesn't mean another will. All art should still strive to interest its intended audience though (whether that's one person or everyone), so it shouldn't ever be boring to them.

A lot of people here shit on modern/postmodern art but I think there are a lot of misconceptions about what exactly they are. The easiest examples I have of the three different kinds of art are in the form of comedic art:

Classical: a joke that is funny all by itself, like one where the punchline is a form of dramatic irony that only references things in said joke.

Modern: a joke that is funny in the context of society, so this would include satire like political commentary as the punchline requires knowledge of things outside of the joke itself.

Postmodern: a joke that is funny in the context that is presented, this would be something like the 2070 Paradigm Shift where its mostly funny because its actually being done at a TedX event. If this was just a skit he filmed in a studio the stunt would be much less enjoyable, thus the context is a part of the appeal meaning it is postmodern. Sam Hyde isn't a good comedian, that's the only good thing he's done.

Postmodern art isn't inherently bad, its just that people don't seem to realize that the best postmodern art is postmodern, and the types that go around using the word are the kind who just want to sound cultured and have no idea what it actually means. The best postmodern videogame I've played is Frog Fractions, and to anyone who has played it you should easily be able to see how the appeal of it relates to postmodernism. Other postmodern games include MGS2, Spec Ops: The Line, Doki Doki Literature club for similar reasons.

Also, the more infamous example of postmodern art would be something like a dirty toilet sitting in a fancy art exhibit. Now the first time that someone did this it was actually pretty clever from a comedic-postmodernism point of view. The goal was to confuse patrons and see how they reacted to something so strange, or if they'd even convince themselves that it is fine art merely because its in an art exhibit and they don't understand it. However, this shit has been done so many times that it has come to be expected from a postmodern art exhibit so it has no appeal. If you tell someone that your art is postmodern then in most cases you're defeating the purpose of it, unless you've somehow worked the concept of telling people that its postmodern art into the art itself.

If you read all of this autism then good for you, now it is your responsibility to educate the ignorant.

>>13876468

>babbies first VN

>good anything

It's too bad, I was with you on Sam Hyde being gold, but clearly you're retarded. The kind of stopped clock that is right twice a day.

>>13876508

I didn't say any of those were good, I actually haven't played Doki Doki literature club and I don't intend to. Spec Ops was okay and MGS2 was neat at the end and I appreciate the dedication to the ruse but that doesn't excuse the rest of the game being tedious.

>>13875710

Be sure throw "games don't have to be fun" back in their stupid faces when they get triggered over shit that doesn't cater to post-modernism. Tell them the game is making a statement that they are precious retards.

>>13876404

>vidya is first and foremost a consummer product

Doesn't need to be, particularly if it is free or you have strong principles.

At which point you are creatively liberated from an audiences whims.

Serving your audience is enslaving yourself to a mass of idiots.

An artist should have confidence in their own intuition.

>>13876437

Then it might just be semantics.

>>13876411

An interesting opinion, but I am of the impression plebs do not really know what they want anyway.

I assume you enjoy all kinds of unpleasant things, and will later, and don't even realize it.

>>13876468

Spotted the kike.

Here's the thing all these tryhard hipsters need to understand: maybe games can be art, but more importantly, art can be shit. Whether you like it or not, the value of art can be rated and quantified based on how effectively it sends it message, and more importantly by the quality of the work itself.

You can paint an eviscerated penis with your period blood all you like, but it's not gonna get your ugly ass in the Smithsonian. You aren't owed fame and success just because you're an artist.

Does a game like Shadow of the Colossus carry the same significance as a sculpture of David? Possibly. Does a game like Ori and the Blind Forest? Maybe. Does your interactive 'zine about bunnies talking about being on fire and getting cucked carry any significance whatsoever? Fuck no.

>>13876689

>people view challenge as fascism

Huh. I really like that interpretation. Also what's the image from?

>>13875710

>setting out to make art for art's sake instead of making something out of the medium that can be considered artistic expression

Again we see how leftist are shallow and vapid. They're using the art label because like current year useless artists and social scientists, they want the sweet government grant money to churn out useless shit in the name of art. They're not fighting a political or even ideological war here. It's purely financial.

>>13876715

>Also what's the image from?

I wish I knew, I just saved it ages ago.

>>13875802

>dat Kevin Spacey sign

Wew

>>13876689

>Video Games are children's toys.

To a point, it is preferable to them pushing this kind of shit into games because they are children's toys. We've been down that fucking road before, and while arty fart sniffer want to shove their regressive values into games - at least it's not legislated by a bunch of congressional suits looking for a soap box and hoping to court the soccer mom vote.

Inviting the comparison of games to art was a fucking deal with devil, whether anybody at the time knew it or not, but at the end of the day this rampant PC police bullshit is just a moral panic, and like the fashion trend concerns they are, they will pass in time and with resistance.

Law and regulations are much harder to get rid of.

>>13875710

False equivalence.

Games are made for entertainment i.e. fun.

Art is name for wide range of human expression and activity, but fun is not necessarily in the equation.

So if games = art, then games do not have to be fun,even though "not-fun" is literally antithesis to the concept of games.

I suggest all video "game" artists to just call their shit video art software instead.

>>13875710

Literally fucking dare desu ka?

>this is his game

>>13876746

Well that's another element of denial. People need to stop pretending that children are retards who want to be pandered to and have all the edge taken out of life. Kids hate being pandered to, and kids love edge, these are just facts (at least, certainly for the straight white male outcast demographic I was talking about earlier). Parents shouldn't be worried about their kids being shown violence or even really sex because spoiler alert: They already know all that shit. Maybe they don't have as deep an understanding as an adult but they certainly understand what violence and sex are.

I will never understand why people have to be so deeply in denial, I swear half this world's problems can be solved by just getting people to look at things objectively and without the crazy biases/fantasy world they've built around the subject.

>>13876777

apparently the faggot that made this obnoxious shit >>13876778

jesus this is actually worse than depression quest and gone homo because at least those aren't offensive to the senses.

>>13876815

it reminds me of shit like frog in a blender and those little stupid "games" but this guy thinks this is art

>>13875710

Your art is shit.

>>13876846

It's what the arts have been reduced to. Shitting vagina blood onto canvas, feminist scream singing, crudely carved figures of men sucking themselves off, etc.. If he's getting an arts education today, he's likely mindfucked enough to not understand what's wrong with what he's saying.

>>13876879

Sometimes i wonder if certain board lied to me about niggers.

>>13876445

<The mechanics are broken

>It's art

Actually this is the thing that prevents gaming from being completely taken over by the progressive types, as illustrated wonderfully by Massdefect Androgynous. There's lots of things you can bullshit your way past the "it's art you just don't get it" line but processors, programming languages, and game engines aren't among them.

>>13876921

Art is just a code word for low effort. The ultimate goal for these art gamers is to get public funds for their game development. This way they can get paid even if no one buys their shit, kind of like with art house movies and other shit branded with the word "art".

>>13876944

They fall on a bell curve.

>>13876944

Don't fall for the based nigger meme, Anon.

>Retard (number) filename

Gas yourself any hour

>>13875710

I would agree if what they do was actually art instead of a vage excuse for their cheap shit.

>>13877016

>May you die in the same agony that you caused to thousands of defenceless (HIGH LEVEL EDUCATION) virtual creatures.

So… No agony what-so-ever? I don't know what you had your programmers doing but when I make video games I don't waste time coding an agony system into the random monsters. Thanks for wishing me a peaceful death cunt.

>>13877006

>not saving images as i.kym-cdn.2389560109378-some-random-bullshit.jpg instead

>>13877034

>he doesn't model suffering from his experiments

>>13877016

Hatred was fucking shit but journalists are fucking fags

>>13877047

Honestly I doubt agony could be coded. The closest you could come is a system like tabletop Shadowrun where at certain damage levels all of your rolls become harder. Even still I don't think making every action harder really covers exactly what agony really is. You can't make a computer program suffer (though that could make some good cyberpunk or sci-fi fiction).

>>13876468

Sam Hyde isn't funny because of whatever garage your post reeks of. Sam Hyde is funny because people like you exist in this world and you honestly need to get beat down or bullied.

>>13877084

Well for one, it's bullshit. Good art IS always fun, even if it's making you feel uncomfortable or on edge you're still having a fun time observing the art. Other than that maybe try reading and replying to the thread faggot.

>>13875802

Jesus why is that thing so expensive? I used to own one that cost less than $20.

>>13876035

This. Games have assets which can be art. Games aren't art though unless you're willing to call Tic Tac Toe art.

Is there a new art game out?

>>13877083

Looks pretty fun actually.

>>13877091

>>13877084

You two need to define your definition of fun if you don't want to be running circles around each other

>>13877104

What part of the Game doesn't make it art?

If it is the fact that there is no time a videogame you play out is exactly the same way I would have to say you're wrong as there are actors and dancers who do performances that are art. They cannot make the exact same outcome every time, they can also improvise, and mistakes will be made on stage.

Tic Tac Toe is art, not the highest quality of art, but art none the less

>>13877106

I would apply the argument I put above as the performance being art.

>>13876374

I really believe I am only person on the planet who have read this entire post.

But you are fully right, it is just that you could technically say same things in two paragraphs.

>>13875728

>shit on games because they're made to be cheap fun and there's no more gitting gud

>shit on SJW making an agreeable point only because it can be applied to shit games as well.

oh i get it, you're either a /pol/ack hypocrite or run of the mill troll peddling "it's only okay if we do it"

>>13877091

Good art is always beautiful, not fun.

>>13877130

Fun is enjoyment. People don't get a roller coaster and say "my god I didn't have fun on that, what a work of art!" they say "that was fun, I was fucking scared for a second there!". Even if you like watching fucked up films that make you feel disgusting inside you still like watching them and are having fun.

>>13876889

it seems like it depends where, if you're doing art in the city then yeah it's just money laundering schemes and conartistry

>>13876944

niggers aren't black people and black people are white cultured race mixed tbh

>>13877134

Good art is art that people enjoy. Enjoying something is having fun.

>>13877140

Good art is something that shows mastery of skill. Queefing out dyed eggs randomly onto a canvas is not art unless you paint some incredible portrait with it. Another example is the guy that makes portraits by hammering nails meticulously and carefully into a board. Good code, good animations and good assets (3d models/sprites/backgrounds) are art but the entire product is not. Games can contain art but overall I don't think they should be considered art.

>>13877147

I have never once in this thread said video games are art and in fact this was my first post >>13876689

>>13875802

>When rich kids are brainwashed into feeling guilty.

>>13877157

We were talking about good art and I never made the claim you thought games were art, just stating my opinion on it.

>>13877130

>What part of the Game doesn't make it art?

It's a set of rules. And your outcomes have nothing to do with the actual product. It's not art. Dancers and Performers are a visual medium to others and are thus artistic in may ways. And they're performances aren't bound by any rules either.

>>13877163

Fair enough.

>>13877162

Honestly I don't get why people want to label what they do "art". I'm a coder and I'm perfectly comfortable making games, and yes even children's toys. I really think it stems from these people's need to feel politically active at their work and as though they're "making a change". I laugh when I think about how they'll end up changing nothing and they'll look back on their lives with regret (or more denial).

>>13875710

>twitter

>1/6

i cannot understand why these attention whores won't make a blog and fuckoff with that shit

>>13877176

>Honestly I don't get why people want to label what they do "art"

If you call it art, that means it MUST have value. Even if you paint with feces. What they don't realize is that the term is so overused, they've watered it down and it means almost nothing.

>>13877176

I think it has to do with the modern art.

First it started focusing on the message instead of skill. You kinda need to call modern art "art" because otherwise you aren't sending a message.

>>13877185

>it MUST have value

This is why I fucking hate modern art communities.

Reason it has a value is because of snobs masturbating over something trendy. It has no real value, but they give it one.

Think of people buying Iphones. These phones are worth half the price, but people will easily buy it for 3 times the current one.

>>13876374

nicely explained anon

also, might i add, that the most magnificent modernists and post-modernists actually KNEW a lot of art theory, that's why they work has added value, not because "lol so random"

Like Picasso, at first look it seems chaotic, but when you read about him, you learn that his works are a deconstruction of different points of view and how to use them at the same time on the painting, and that's fucking impressive.

But for these "nuartists", that only copy, don't care to understand the underlying of the artistic piece, they only see "desproportionate figures and weird people, got it". Then they shit on a painting and defend themselves from the critics saying "it's based on picasso".

It's a sad world, but i'll say that this is not a sign of a decline on art, it's just a mere consequence of having all these mainstream broadcasts (social networks and so on) available to everyone, so now even the most idiot can make itself heard whenever he wants, and other idiots can join him to make it even louder.

tl;dr promote and appreciate the good artists, ignore these frauds so they rot on their snow globe thinking they are hot shit

>>13877170

There can be set rules depending on the performance like there are like rules in game and rules in videogames. If you are performing romeo and Juliet you can't just change all the plot and characters, if you do it will be a shit rendition of it. like calling DmC shit because it really changed near everything people expect out of DMC.

You can have an outcome on a product like people throwing tomatoes at a bad singer or booing a bad comedian at the apollo. Or a rule with less exception during a part the audience starts to clap or laugh and the actors have to pause before continuing the rest of the play. The way an actor has to work with an audience does matter to the outcome of the performance.

There is always a set expectation or a rule when you present art. If you present a macaroni sculpture and it has no macaroni on it then it's gonna be a shit macaroni sculpture. If you say you made an indie game, people will compare it to past video games and consider it good or bad.

I can see how videogames have more of a rigid ruleset as there are already set standards with computer architecture, a necessary visual and audio peripheral, and a controller of some kind, and the program itself being bound within the processing and memory constraints(unless you make an intentionally broken videogame).

>>13877181

can't get a large audience with instant response that way

>>13877219

>Reason it has a value is because of snobs masturbating over something trendy. It has no real value, but they give it one.

A lot of these people also fail to realize is that we highly value skill (taking about painting and drawing) because it's a metric that has been finely tuned over millednia. Telling a story and sending a message has already been finely tuned in books and movies. The fact that they can use gameplay to tell a story and send a message, like some other anon said, means they completely ignore the untapped potential and just basically want to paint with feces on a canvas and get recognition for it.

If it's art then there should be some artistic vision that they can point to. All the flaws should be things which, intentional or not, they noticed and chose to leave in place to serve a purpose. The flaws should build towards a narrative or a theme, they should comment on something or at least make the person playing aware of something they took for granted

But more importantly than being art, games are a luxury, and nobody is required to buy your shit game. You can bully as many betas into praising you as you want, nobody will lie for you without a reason, especially after paying for the experience you just put them through

Why is your art worth my precious time? The artist works for the consumer's approval, not the other way round.

Actually there are some games which use un-fun segments in order to set a contrast with the fun ones, to good effect. However, a game which is never fun to play or even only a minority of the time is still fucking pointless to play.The key, as always, is asking the question, "What does interactivity do to make this thing I'm trying to make more meaningful than a properly written film or story?" Interactivity is a two way street, no one is going to bother interacting with your game if it's not worth interacting with. The inability to understand this is a symptom of narcissism and is why games like Gone Home get made.

>>13876759

This. The GAMES in "video games" refers to a game.

The definition of "game" is "an activity engaged in for diversion or amusement"

"Fun" is defined as "what provides amusement and enjoyment". Ergo, it is fun to play games (unless you have serious avoidance issues).

Notice how art isn't used anywhere in this definition. Games use art in their construction: to provide a story, add visual flair, even promote the game itself. But games aren't artistic for art's sake, and any indie dev who tries wastes everybody's time with an utterly un-game-like product.

Anyone who writes trash like this to bait stupid anons like us into giving them attention doesn't care about games or art or anything. Like other anons have stated, they just want to create a niche for "game art" games where people like them can earn a living without any skill that real games require. Useless bottom-feeding cultural parasites vomiting words in the hopes their stupidity will be impossible to ignore so everyone has to tell them what vague word A and vague word B is and then they'll just say "it's not how I define it".

who

>>13875802

>Kevin Spacey did nothing wrong

top kek

>>13877338

All art is interactive. You see a painting about a baby and a mom and an apple and a dozen other symbolic tropes and you naturally fill in the details making your own story. Even if it's spelled out for you like a story the act of emotionally reacting to it customizes the experience for you. Only a robot can't see everything as art because it has no imagination.

Art is defined by: works produced by human creative skill and imagination.

It never says anything about the degree of interaction involved. So games should continue being made the way they are (minus on-disk DLC and microtransactions) and don't worry what some literally who thinks it should be. If your play, book or game is not fun in some way it won't sell. What's a better artwork in theater, Cats or Michael Moore's "terms of my surrender"? It's subjective but it doesn't mean tolerating boring shit is noble.

>>13877436

We know. It is just fun discussing art.

>>13877436

If only Accolade had this joker as their P.R. person to convince everyone that Bubsy 3-D was a masterpiece. Who are you going to believe, Nathalie, or your own lying senses?

>>13877237

>There can be set rules depending on the performance like there are like rules in game and rules in videogames

Yes but there's no requirement of the rules in a performance. In games there are, otherwise you're cheating.

>like calling DmC shit because it really changed near everything people expect out of DMC.

DMC failed because it wasn't as engaging. After that it failed in plot and other aspects. Still doesn't mean either are art.

>Or a rule with less exception during a part the audience starts to clap or laugh and the actors have to pause before continuing the rest of the play.

The difference is (again) that playing the game and the game itself is are 2 seperate entities. A game is by definition something you don't intake for any other enjoyment except an interactive one. And interactivity in itself isn't an art. And neither is the set of rules you're required to interact with. You're basically saying Let's Play's are art here.

>I can see how videogames have more of a rigid ruleset as there are already set standards with computer architecture

Game's aren't held back from becoming art by limited rule sets. They're held back because by definition they must have rules. No other method of entertainment you've presented is limited by such an objective and permanent concept and thus Video games are not art. You can try and compare other mediums to video games all you want to try and make a factual truth. But you still don't understand that there's a reason it's another medium entirely.

A game in it's most solid form is a product that can only be enjoyed if somebody interacts with it. You can't play a game and say that that act (with no other context) is an artistic performance. Games have been trying to become more and more naturalized to real life since the start. But it's only done so mainly through assets. And as a result more and more people have become confused as to what a game actually is, a set of rules that a person is supposed to work within. The rules themselves aren't something video games can ever surpass because once they do it ceases to be a game.

>>13877447

>Art is defined by

You should know better than to use the current year US definition of art.

>>13877102

Parents will keep buying that shit because their kids nag. That's how it goes man. I saw some plastic piece of shit bear for 50 bucks, and it was nothing more than at most 2 pieces of plastic that wouldn't cost shit to produce and they still sell.

>>13877532

So you consider games like basketball, soccer, and football not art?

I'm also guessing by what you say you divide simulators and videogames into separate categories as well?

Sure every lets play would be a bad example of art, but what about the people who do perform world record high scores in arcades or people who are able to play parts of a game with a guitar hero guitar? It's not as impressive as watching a gymnastics routine but it is art.

Every art piece has to have some kind of interaction with it to be enjoyed. pictures have visual, music has audio, and videogames have tactile interaction and manipulation. I would have to say that you can in theory pick apart every medium as not art. I could say that the minerals and rocks used in the painting aren't art or the vibrations in air isn't art.

If a person presents something and claims it as a videogame it will be judged on videogames in the past and looked on at the perspective that it is a videogame. Sure you can present notepad.exe as a videogame but it will be shit in comparision to other videogames. The intended creation of notepad.exe was stated to be a program to help write stuff, so people consider it an application, not a videogame, and find it succeeds based on that purpose. You could call diagram a painting and vice versa and they probably wouldn't stack up in quality in regards to their original purpose. A lot of content tends to meld together when discussing and defining them as an artistic perspective is what I'm trying to say.

>>13876374

I've used this argument for why MGS V is a good game despite it's obvious flaws but good luck getting anyone to listen to that.

>>13877133

No one is gonna fall for it, leftycock sucker. Remember the biggest pig is your bo.

>>13877718

>So you consider games like basketball, soccer, and football not art?

The sports themselves? No.

>I'm also guessing by what you say you divide simulators and videogames into separate categories as well?

Simulators have rules as well as fail states. At the end of the day you're accomplishing something through a set of rules.

>Sure every lets play would be a bad example of art, but what about the people who do perform world record high scores in arcades or people who are able to play parts of a game with a guitar hero guitar? It's not as impressive as watching a gymnastics routine but it is art.

Again that's not art. Getting a high score in a game is not an artistic achievement. The reaction and skill might have a degree of talent that you might consider artistic. But in the end it's still a game. Which isn't art.

>Every art piece has to have some kind of interaction with it to be enjoyed.

Mental interaction is not the same as physical interaction and every one of those mediums you bring up hasn't been brought up with the condition that there must be rules.

>I would have to say that you can in theory pick apart every medium as not art.

Except I'm not picking apart a video game. I'm stating what it is at it's most basic form. A painting in it's most basic form is still a painting. Your analogy with minerals would be like applying the game with the TV screen. Which I'm not pointing to here. Painting's aren't inhibited by anything but the visual sense. Games are inhibited by the requirement of rules. Painting doesn't have to be on Canvas. It can be on any surface paint will stick. Video games have to be inhibited with rules otherwise they're not video games.

>A lot of content tends to meld together when discussing and defining them as an artistic perspective is what I'm trying to say

The difference here is that video games have a specific key function that must be incorporated into them in order for them to be considered a game. No other medium really does this. You can't take a film and put a video game in it and call it a film. Because in the end it's a video game. Vice Versa if you took a game and put a film into it, it's still a game. So in this context nothing "melds" other than assets.

Are horror games supposed to be "fun"? If it is, then I think you've failed at making a horror game.

>>13877945

Stalker and Fear are horror games and I'd say they're pretty fun.

Problem here is that fun doesnt mean 'hahaha', but fun means good.

She wrote this, because she made some dumb game and nobody liked it. Now A Man In Black is shilling it on pcgamer.

>>13877953

I would call Fear a horror game by technicality and nothing else. Though it did a great job of incorporating horror into the gameplay by making side paths have rewards at the end with the risk of a jump scare.

>>13877181

twitter is a piece of shit, but the idiot in chief uses it so people think its okay

>>13877471

you realize the kikes want to keep the lower class in a perpetual state of this soft conflict because it's keeping us from going after them

do you remember what happened with occupy wall street?

>>13877993

its really scary how quickly people forget this. how quickly theyre willing to attack their fellow goyim.

>>13877988

>one 105+ IQ nigger in an ocean of sub 80s invalidates everything

There is a greater chance of you meeting your waifu in real life and marrying her than there is in meeting a smart nigger.

>>13876035

>the ars vs. techne argument again

Why the fuck does anyone care?

>>13878045

>still cucking for niggers

>>13876022

Either something is art or it isn't. Nothing really excludes games from being art but 'true' art in the sense of it brings you closer to the truth (or maybe God, in a sense) is something that happens very organically and semi-unconsciously. Hell I think that a lot of guys who just want to make entertainment sometimes make art entirely by accident. So games can be art but I don't think pursuing it consciously the way these hipster faggots do it can really work.

>>13878028

It's a fun philosophical argument that will never really be resolved.

>>13878066

>using heuristics is bad

Anon if a man spends an hour explaining to you why getting pissed on is fine I'm more than reasonably able to assume he's a piss lover. Thus, if someone comes in and can't stop talking about how much they love niggers, well…

>>13876879

Came here to post that.

Thanks based negro of good arguments

>>13875710

Translation: I want to continue to make shitty unplayable artsy wankery and be called a dev

>>13877147

You can't reduce art to just craftsmanship. Art without that extra spark is just kitsch, the issue with modern art (among others) is completely ditching the craftsmanship in favor of chasing the spark and then still not finding the spark because modern "artists" are hacks almost every time.

>>13878094

i think you got it backwards. you gotta pay him if youre living in his head

>>13876566

>An artist should have confidence in their own intuition.

I think you are baiting, but if not, that artist should also have the conviction to be ready to starve for the cause of his art, if that art happens to lack appreciation from its recipients.

>>13876778

I like it. It has a very obscure, underground vibe to it.

>>13876132

The only pleb here is you. Not counting those who prefer its remix by DJ Tiesto to the original.

>>13877176

>Honestly I don't get why people want to label what they do "art".

Because they want to reassure themselves and to prove to their parents that they didn't make the shittiest life decision.

Saying that you're an "artist" is the equivalent of slacktivism: you think you're changing the world but you're actually doing nothing.

>>13876778

It's shit

worse

It's post-modernism shit

sounds like an excuse to create shovelware

>>13875710

Face it losers and social welfare parasites: no matter how hard you try to appeal for some sort of cultural legitimacy for your worthless solipsistic pursuits it won't change the simple fact that art can never be video games

>if games are art

basketball is art now?

darts is arts?

The crux of a good video game should be that it's fun.

Educational games have their own distinction. We need to come up with a label for halfassed boring artfag games.

>>13878321

That's giving it too much credit, it's WOW SO WEIRD youtuber bait.

>>13875710

Games like these are being made.

They don't sell.

This is totally fine but then they throw a tantrum because nobody bought it.

>>13875710

>If movies are art then we have to embrace the idea that they don't have to be fun

Yeah they tried that with movies in the 70's? And guess what, no one wanted movies that weren't enjoyable. Let them make their boring as fuck un fun "games" and let the market sort them out.

>>13878456

The combination of different kinds of edible stuff doesn't have to be edible too.

>>13875802

>Open Society Foundation

>"This name reeks of jew"

>Search for it

>The Open Society Foundations work to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens

>Open Society Foundations (OSF), formerly the Open Society Institute, is an international grantmaking network founded by business magnate George Soros

Every fucking time

>>13878456

>the problem is that their definition of art is "something grownups do"

It's like their definition of "emotion", to them it means "sad". See the visionary creator David Cage for example, you never see happiness in his games, only sadness.

>>13878494

Then do it for the science and eat some fish dish with chocolate.

>>13878557

So you want something poisonous? Some mushrooms are unedible just because they taste like shit, not because they can kill you.

>>13878658

*inedible

>>13878752

theres always like 4 assholes who cannot for the life of them read. whether its due to horrible dyslexia or having english as a second language.

>>13876434

Takeshi's Challenge

If that's the case, then they should admit that they games are crap and barely qualify as games.

video games consist of more subcategories

Art Designe

Music

Gameplay

technic

engine

all these core modules determine the immersiveness of a game. As we see, Art Designe is just one core of the hole concept but Art Designe is the only core which you can aply the Games are art badge.

If these fucknuts continue to arguee like this, they will continue to play games without any game mechanics

it wouldn't be a problem if these fucknuts where not in high ranked position within the gaming industry/Media

But even if not, there are still enough shills/goons/sjw pushing this theme

>>13876944

He's racemixed, grandparents probably burnt coal.

>>13878735

Is this mushroom edible?

http://www.first-nature.com/fungi/tylopilus-felleus.php

Cya, little baiter.

>>13878752

Fish and chocolate are inedible together, for example. Read the reply chain before you post in it.

>>13878873

That you can't read at all.

>Accidentally including this imposter in a meal guarantees that it will be inedible to anyone who still has any taste buds.

Games aren't art, they should always be entertaining and fun.

if my team gets to define what art is I can just say all my critics fundamentally misunderstand and thus their opinions are invalid - SJW

>>13878879

what if art is entertaining and fun?

>>13878901

>fish + chocolate

Either a genuine chromosome hoarder, or a baiter so bored he stoops to outright lying.

A game should be engaging, interesting, and evocative.

"Fun" can be any one of those things.

>>13879313

i like that

Why is it that the group of people who think games shouldn't be fun all the time are the same ones who try to start a riot when a game won't beat itself for them?

>>13877083

Does it have some colours mod?

>>13879487

Anything can be fun, because different people find different things fun. Fuck off.

>Video games don't have to be fun

>Games don't have to be fun

why

Of course they don't have to be fun. A game doesn't have to be fun, a movie doesn't have to be entertaining, music doesn't have to sound good, and food doesn't have to taste good. It just means that they are bad at what they do. All those things are still art even when the execution is bad, but part of being art means that it's open to criticism and there are bad creations. Games being art means that they can be bad art.

More importantly, how many times a fucking week do we need this goddamn thread?

>>13879579

You can find things appealing without finding anything fun about it at all. I don't understand why you're so obsessed with claiming the word "fun".

It's like saying all food has to be delicious. You can enjoy food that's really bitter or sour and makes your face turn inside out, but that doesn't make it delicious.

>>13879639

>You can enjoy food

>but that doesn't make it delicious.

Yes it fucking does you retard.

>>13879639

If somebody enjoys food that is overly bitter or unbearably tart, that's just having bad taste. "Delicious" means that something tastes good in any way, meaning you enjoy it. It doesn't make much sense to enjoy the taste of something that tastes bad to you. If you enjoy the flavor, it is delicious to you to some degree.

>>13877945

Depends if by fun you mean happiness, bright colours, and laughter, or just entertainment.

>>13879487

Alright, then: Games should be compelling. Can we agree on that?

>>13879820

Yes.

>>13879871

>literalpiss.webm

>>13876085

Think that this guy is President of America now hahahaha

>>13875710

Video games do not have to be fun.

They do have to be entertaining, however.

You can have something that is entertaining without it being "fun".

>ctrl-f

>chess

How I've been waiting for this. The chess analogue is always relevant. Chess is a perfect game. It's all mechanics and tons of potential challenge, depending on your opponent.

Chess would not become a better game if you added cutscenes, detailed pieces or "progressive" message to it. Now, of course this isn't enough for the rainbow hairs. The game is too challenging, so they would also like to simplify the mechanics until it becomes checkers.

Chess is actually a progressive game. When a pawn is promoted, they can become a queen. That's right, you had a sex change operation right in front of your eyes.

>>13880014

Chess is an unbalanced game that has a win ratio for white of about 55% in high-level play. It has a strong first-move advantage. Chess is a good game, but not perfect.

Go is a much better game, and being points-based, you can fairly and accurately handicap for player level and first-move advantage. Go is a perfect game.

>>13879986

weve fallen pretty far

>>13879988

Again, that's debatable. A lot of people would consider horror movies fun.

>>13880204

Horror movies are not always fun, though. More importantly, they are not built to be fun. But you will find all of them have the goal of being entertaining.

It's an undebatable fact, here.

>>13880024

That first webm plays out like a comedy sketch.

>>13875710

I would agree with this, but on the condition that fun games receive equal recognition for being on that same spectrum. But that will never happen with these half wits. So fuck this guy in his strong eye hole.

>>13880294

I disagree, The Evil Dead series and by association the modern remake attempted to keep the fun of the originals while attempting to make a serious horror movie.

>>13875710

>Nathalie

Newspeak gender-neutral name meaning 'failed abortion.'

>>13880396

Not the point, you kraut.

Or do you think that because some games are made to be scary, all games are made to be scary?

The basis of games, and most media in general, is to be entertaining, not fun.

Fun is something in the same realm as "scary".

>>13880378

Thats because it was.

>>13880294

Whether fun is just a synonym of entertaining is a debate in and of itself.

>>13880418

>gender-neutral

Why would you name a boy Nathalie?

I, for one, only play unfun games.

>>13880457

Not a boy, but maybe a demi-boy.

>>13880439

True, but it's a stupid debate, because this is basic english.

>>13877136

This.

>>13880024

Was this during the campaign? because this is the first I saw this. This looks way too ridiculous.

Well, she's right. A game doesn't have to be fun. It can be an intentionally bad game. Just like how someone can intentionally bad movie.

Yes, any game that isn't fun is bad. Being engrossed in something, whether it makes you happy or sad, is fun. Blade Runner is fun. Dredd is fun. They're fun for different reasons, but I still enjoy them.

Something that isn't fun is either forgettable or bad.

>>13880646

I wasn't talking about ironic enjoyment. Why are you?

>>13880614

Theres a difference between making a game to satirize a genre, or to make a game thats shit and defend it with muh art

>>13877133

why does leftypol still trying to shit on pol by bringing them onto an unrelated issue?

fucks sake, stay on your containment board or fuck off back to reddit

>>13880655

So you are saying objectively bad games and movies can be enjoyed? I'm sure there is some level of enjoyment akin to a child enjoying the box more than the toy but we are trying to make an objective case here. There are definitions that make something enjoyable or entertaining. Bad games and movies don't meet those criteria, simple as that.

>>13878353

>We need to come up with a label for halfassed boring artfag games.

Complete shit

>>13880835

What is an objective measure of fun? That's personal engagement.

A game can be well made but bad because it's boring. The objective measure of a game's quality is in how well it's made. Bethesda games are inherently bad because they don't work. Whether or not they're fun is an individual question.

>>13880964

Preferably a label that doesn't apply to a lot of things other than halfassed boring artfag games.

Completely retarded argument. Fun is a measure enjoyment, not an emotion. A sad game can still be fun. If your game is not fun, it's just shit. No matter what emotion your game is attempting to convey, the game can still be made to be fun.

>>13876778

The worst thing I can say about the game is that it is meta shit.

When a 'game' behaves like fucking malware, they should be banned because they might actually be malware.

>>13880986

Social Justice Simulators

>>13881015

That must be the bugchaser equivalent for indie game design. You aren't a true gamer until someone infects your computer.

>>13881119

And I never implied that I didn't know what lostboy was. You were already assuming, I thought I would join in. :^)

>>13876921

But anon they literally argue for all of those

>>13881171

>TruthSeeker

What did you mean by this?

>>13881179

Lurk more faggot.

>>13881222

No.

>>13880520

>fun

>something that provides mirth or amusement

>>13881236

Eat shit

>>13881042

Objectively, not really. They do basic things that are meant to hit the psychological reward systems games are meant to hit, but most if not every game does that. Whether it works or not is dependent on the person.

There are no objective measures of fun or engagement. Each person experiences this on their own level. Being universally acclaimed doesnt change that. Nothing is objectively fun, because there is no objective measure of fun.

>>13880825

I was referring to people who defend mostly bad games with "but it's fun" in place of an actual valid reason why it's not bad.

It was used a lot in the Overwatch threads we had here, because the anons there clearly knew that the game was indefensible.

'but it's fun' is the 'but I came' rating you might give a prostitute - it's a low bar.

>>13875710

that reminds me, Killer 7 got so much praise for being art but these faggots that say games should be art. probably never played games like Killer 7 or other games that where experimental in the gamecube, xbawx and ps2 days.

And thanks to faggots like him, we have a god damn formula to everything gaming. Indie games are 2d platformers, if not a survival game with a gimmick, if not they are a literal walking simulation game with minor interaction.

I fucking hate these people.

I feel like this whole thing stems from misinterpretation of the fact that emotion is created from within the person, not necessarily directly from the medium. Meaning that something that doesn't look objectively good to an outside perspective can be meaningful to a particular person.(a semi-relevant example would be horror games, a lot of men just don't find them scary, at all) So in other words, they've taken subjective value and driven it into the ground. Maybe in their twisted little heads it feels good to them, but that's delusion.

I wish I could explain it better…