Gamers have fits of Internet rage when non-gamers attack the video game industry. Roger Ebert has spoken out against the idea that games can be an art form. Most gamers will tell you that Ebert doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But what if he does? What if he’s right? What if games actually aren’t “art” at all? Don’t panic. Back away from the ledge. Here are five good reasons why it doesn’t matter whether or not games are art.
You know, I wasn't sure where I stood in this argument, but this all makes sense and makes it easier for me. I'll go with "not art." :)
Games>Art that's what the article basically says and I agree
i don't think games in general are art, but games CAN be art. the "can be" applies to games like Flower, Journey, Shadow of the Colossus...games like those (and i use the term "game" loosely in the case of the former two since they're more like experiences) aren't just about winning or losing, they're about speaking to you on different levels than a normal game does. they're about trying to convey something, trying to touch you in a certain emotional way, and that's why i'd call them art.
obviously video games in general aren't art; there's nothing artistic about Madden, Halo, Mario, etc, but there are a few examples in gaming that show that games can reach that level if the developers have the right ideas and execute them well.
Cheating a little on the headline there, folks :)
Also, hi, Hilary, been a while. It's the skinny dude who used to sit around the office in his boxers.
Well I didn't read the article but games are a form of art in my opinion. It really depends on how to define art.