YWB: "The late Roger Ebert once stirred up a veritable hornet’s nest when he proclaimed that “video games can never be art”. I know, I know: that topic has been done to death. Don’t worry, I’m not here to revisit that particular discussion; it came to a conclusion that I believe all can agree on. But now that we’ve cleared up that video games can be art, perhaps its worth considering the cultural use of games outside of the realm of art and entertainment."
As of right now, there are no monopolies in the games industry, and for the sake of the medium as a whole, they never should either.
And yet the biggest tech companies in America are essentially that. They buy up all the small comps only to kill them off and steal what they have, and if they can't buy em they bleed them to death.
On Amazon, you can't get an RTX 4090 for less than this one from Gigabyte, which now offers great value after an eye-catching April deal.
Gamespot: The SteelSeries Arctis Nova 7P is still our favorite PS5 headset, but there are several great alternatives to choose from in 2024.
I wrote my own article on this actually.
What I believe is that video games as a medium should be split in order to be considered, and get more "respect" by the general audience.
Games with simpler objectives (like stuff you'll find on Miniclip, including games like Street Fighter for instance) should be considered video games.
Games that forge an emotional connection to the player, or leave you in awe that way a movie, book, or good TV show can (games like Journey, Final Fantasy VII, etc.) should be considered an art, as they have storytelling, and interactivity that together, provide a unique experience.
it depends on what your definition of art
is exactly
personally i do think video games are more than art
can't say the same about some of the stuff
that they have in our native museum of art...
that's why i said it depends on yourself