How can games be ever considered art when gamers are so much more infantile than bookworms or even film buffs?

>it's another one of these threads

Reminder that film is art but White Chicks exists
Reminder that literature is art but My Immortal exists
Reminder that drawing is art but Sonichu exists
Reminder that music is art but Hot Problems exists

But somehow
For some reason

Games can't be art because Call of Duty exists.

Stocking is hot.

>How can games be ever considered art
Who cares?

>vidya can't be art because vidya fans are too immature
>coming from a weeb posting junk food anime

also and

>junk food anime
But Panty&Stocking is true kino

>There will never be a second season.
;_;

the content should not be judge based on the audience
the content will exist regardless if there is an audience or not

Video games are just modern kid toys.
And kid toys aren't art are they?

I heard the soundtrack is GOAT.

P&S was fucking garbage. ATROCIOUS writing.

user I love panty and stocking but the first episode is a slut and chocoholic going sailor moon on a sentient shit giant and none of it is taken seriously. Across the entire series it only ever gets slightly more serious than that.
I've yet to meet anyone who would call PSG art unless they're the sort that says anything is art
It's great
youtube.com/watch?v=tmmqBAwxG-0
youtube.com/watch?v=2g8QkkwBI-U
That's why I love it

youtube.com/watch?v=EsYNcQsSZ7A

>kid toys

Yeah
I mean

Who wouldn't let little Tommy play a nice wholesome game for children where losing gets you raped and forcibly impregnated

>art

Fuck off, I want games to play good first and foremost

I don't know OP, but Panty & Stocking sure as fuck ain't art. Also, it's the most infantile shit I've ever watched.

So like said, who the fuck cares what is considered art and what isn't.

That dog seems worried, will he be alright?

tfw he fugs your corpse

That's my favorite track, easily.

The credits theme is based too.
youtube.com/watch?v=tmmqBAwxG-0

Call Of Duty is a better work in its respective medium than all the other things you mentioned tho

How can anime be ever considered art when otaku are so much more infantile than bookworms or even film buffs?

That makes the point more poignant.

Call of Duty, among many other well-made games, are pulled out of Cred Forums's ass as "reasons why gaming isn't art," because
I guess it can't be art if they personally don't like it

Or something equally stupid.

Have you never met someone who's into art?

They're fucking garbage on a whole other level. Worst part is that they draw a sense of pride from it.

I'LL HOUSE YOU

youtube.com/watch?v=GHocMegnY_U

movies and books are not art either.

>implying toys can't be art
If a drawing of a pipe saying it's not a pipe can be art, and if a toilet seat can be art, and if pictures of genitalia can be art, then you better believe toys can be art.

Firstly, art isn't determined by how snobby its enthusiasts can get away with being.
Secondly, why does it even matter?

Well, this thread made me realize I watched Panty and Stocking at some point. Completely forgot about it.
That does not speak very well about the show.

>nobody's posted it yet
youtube.com/watch?v=zsJzJROlITU

>"amers are so much more infantile than bookworms or even film buffs?"

that's your opinion. Why should I care what you personally think about me?

>Secondly, why does it even matter?
That is an interesting question, really.
Anyone who ever really stopped and figured out what the fuck "art" is and what is it good for should be able to answer that.
The fact that people are still getting confused about this shows how fundamental the misunderstanding about what art is good for seems to be.

More like it does not speak very well about your brain gramps, better get it checked.

loling@u dummy

> about your brain gramps,
Well, I suppose if you are 13 it might still seem like THE HOT SHIT...

they are medium
some games are works of art some are not
just like movies

no

>People who play games don't read books.

youtube.com/watch?v=tmmqBAwxG-0

How can one show have such a perfect OST

Why is it in english?

>Games can't be art because Call of Duty exists.

No.
Games can't be art because games are games.

>Games can't be art because games are games.
It's pretty hilarious that you people think this is actually an argument.

>Cred Forums doesn't even react to barney bait anymore

Games are only art when it's convenient

abema had a PSG marathon the other day, god fuck that ending

>Reminder that drawing is art
>art is art
Yeah no fucking shit>Games can't be art because Call of Duty exists.
It's because games is entertainment.

>Bookworm
>Letting other people think for you
>Not the most infantile thing listed
Books are for faggots and retards.

>It's because games is entertainment.
Are you implying that cinema is not entertainment?

Not necessarily. It can also be used for education or evoking catharsis.

>Not necessarily. It can also be used for education or evoking catharsis.
And games can't?

If you compare the greatest movies to the greatest games it's obvious games isn't art. No game can possibly compare to The Godfather 1 & 2 for example. Even the best stories in any game can't compete because in movies they have real writers and real actors, games don't.

>If you compare the greatest movies to the greatest games it's obvious games isn't art.
No, it isn't at all. There is no structural argument here, actually. It's all essentially "I like movies more than games". Argument of "X is better than Y" holds little to no merit here and certainly don't talk about the capability of the entire medium. Even if your argument was actually valid (which it isn't), all it would take is to hire a single good ("real" as you so laughably put it) and there would be absolutely nothing standing in the way of games being art.

Also
>real actors
Multiple games feature real actors, while multiple movies feature no actors (animated movies, for an example) so this is about the most pathetic attempt to make an argument I've seen in a good while.

There are games like Pathologic that can compare to some of the best movie writing and storytelling already. They might not be present in as large numbers as high-quality movies, but then again the medium is young, and existence of even a single one proves your entire argument wrong.

>There are games like Pathologic that can compare to some of the best movie writing and storytelling already
Oh, you're trolling. Nevermind then.

> Best girl
But that's not Scanty

So you don't actually have anything even closely resembling argument, do you?
Let me show just how stupid your own logic is:

>No game can possibly compare to The Godfather 1 & 2 for example.
Oh, you're trolling. Nevermind then.
See? Not actually a very strong argument.

True, nobody who has ever read a book has ever committed sexual assault.

Pathologic doesn't compare to anything, no. If we want to be unfair we can compare books to games and it gets really laughable. I love games but I'm not delusional enough to think there's any game out there that compares to Count of Monte Cristo or I don't know, thousands of great books out there. Games have terrible writing. When a game's story falls apart in act 3 I consider it to be decent for a game.

This is again a non-argument. The same one you tried to push already. And the choice of Count Monte Cristo, essentially the fucking DaVinci Code of it's era further supports my suspicion that you are either trolling, or just a complete fucking idiot who does not know anything about literature, cinema or games.

What criteria for quality do you actually have? What gives you the unweaving confidence in them? What makes you absolutely positive ALL GAMES must have SHIT WRITING even though you sure as fuck have not played all of them. You have not actually played Pathologic by the way, it's pretty damn easy to tell that at this point.

Delusion, my friend, is a lack of actual, real world reasoning behind your belief, yet the insistance that they are right. Which is exactly what you are displaying here, making broad statements about an entire medium, beliving your criteria for quality evaluation are absolute and unquestionable (even though they are actually pretty fucking clearly questionable from within people educated in the very media you so senselessly worship), shouting judgements of games you had not even played.

Yeah, you are delusional. As fuck. And I hope you are just a troll, because if you are sincere at this point, you are one seriously disturbed person.

>Games have terrible writing.

That's the only point you seem to be bringing up though. You're ignoring that games can employ virtually any aspect of any other art form, save for live in the flesh performances, and in combinations and ways those other forms are unable to.

Thanks for noticing. >And the choice of Count Monte Cristo, essentially the fucking DaVinci Code of it's era
....................
>What makes you absolutely positive ALL GAMES must have SHIT WRITING even though you sure as fuck have not played all of them
Because games is still young. The funny thing is you don't even understand this. Watch early movies. They suck ass. That's where games are right now.
>You have not actually played Pathologic by the way
Oh really.

Seconded
Who in the actual fuck cares?

>Watch early movies. They suck ass.
Metropolis, Voyage to the Moon, the filmography of Bauer, Tourneur, DeMille would like to have a long talk with you. So far we have gathered that you talk about shit you don't understand and apparently you are a 12 years old sucker too. Interesting.

>That's where games are right now.
Because you have decided so? You still have no fucking argument outside of "all old movies suck" for fuck sake.

>Oh really.
Very really. Give me a run-down characteristics including their late-game agenda for any three Bound, one for each character.

How fucking old are you, really? Where the fuck does your confidence in your own fucking beliefs come from? Because, it's clearly not experience, education or knowledge.

How about you just shut the Fuck up and post more of best girl already

>Metropolis, Voyage to the Moon, the filmography of Bauer, Tourneur, DeMille would like to have a long talk with you.
The word pathetic comes to mind.
>You still have no fucking argument outside of "all old movies suck" for fuck sake.
Oh, it was too difficult for you to understand?
>Give me a run-down characteristics including their late-game agenda for any three Bound, one for each character.
Why would I want to talk about that pathetic game for? Because you don't think someone doesn't play games on \v\?
> Because, it's clearly not experience, education or knowledge.
It's clear you haven't read many books or we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. Ironically the best stories in games for me are the ones that focus more on gameplay and simple stories because so far that's what games do best. It'll change in the future, sure, but games and stories is just laughable. Gamers deny this of course, because they don't like movies and probably haven't read a single book since high school.

If menstrual blood can be art I'm sure games can be, too.

Books have been around since forever so of course there's going to be a few hundred more "gud" books than videogames.

Just pray they don't end up as shit as movies did.

...

the industry has a major lack of people who actually WANT to make video games

we keep getting pretentious twits and rejects who couldn't make it anywhere else

>The word pathetic comes to mind.
Yes, I've been thinking of how pathetic you are for this entire discussion. Mostly because you just dismissed some 40's of fantastic cinematography, thought fucking Count Monte Cristo is an example of great literature and flat out lied about having played a game because... why again?
Seriously. Let's look at this shit:
>Why would I want to talk about that pathetic game for?
To prove that your judgement of the game is based on you having actually played it. That is: to prove that you are not a pathetic cunt of a liar talking about of your ass?
Your dismissal of games and their writing is based on you actually knowing them, right? That is the theory at least. You are merely asked to prove that, which should be absolutely no problem for anyone who had played the game for at least a couple of hours.
If you can't do that, you are very much proving that you were lying about having played the game.

>It's clear you haven't read many books or we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.
Kid, I teach 20th century literature at Uni. I can assure you I've read a lot more than you will ever had in your life. You know how I mocked you for choosing Count Monte Cristo?
That is because I've read the thing. And I've also read Balzac's other works. Like, say, La Comédie Humaine. You know, his actually literally worth-while works, instead of the literal genre crap he shat out between working on what he considered his real literal calling.
You would know this if YOU actually had read something. And if you'd read even more, you'd know that Balzac is still one of the most mediocre authors in one of the most mediocre, dead-end literary movements of modern literature, and you had STILL chosen one of his most mediocre works.

So, you fucking idiot. It's not me who needs to read more. And more importantly, needs to get his head out of ass thinking dismissing an entire medium and LYING on the internet makes you look superior.

...

What influence does the consumer have on a piece of art?

Also video games are art by definition, deal with it.

Cool Ranch is better than Nacho Cheese

>Yes, I've been thinking of how pathetic you are for this entire discussion
That's all you've said this entire time because you don't have any arguments.
>Mostly because you just dismissed some 40's of fantastic cinematography
Oh, I'm more into other directors you didn't mention.
>And if you'd read even more, you'd know that Balzac is still one of the most mediocre authors
You don't have to try so hard, buddy. It's okay. I get it if you're not into books.
>LYING on the internet makes you look superior.
Wait, you still think I haven't played that pathetic game? You're hilarious. Pathologic isn't even fucking obscure. It's even getting a remake for crying out loud.

>music can be considered art based on how good it sounds and its intricacy, even without lyrics to portray a story of any kind
>games are called art based solely on whether or not they try to be a movie
Why not judge games based on their own qualities as a medium? Is it really wrong to call Ninja Gaiden higher art than The Last of Us because it accomplishes much more within its own medium instead of being a 7/10 movie with some decent gunplay thrown in?

Pretty much everything can be considered art. The question is, is it high art?

The problem you all have with art is that you think that it's something exclusive, special for the intelligent and cultured.
This is a false claim.

Anything created as a result of a creative outlet is art.
As soon as you tap your pencil on your desk to make a rythm it's by definition music.
As soon as you draw a cat, no matter how bad and simplistic it ends up to look like, it's art.

Art is nothing special. Art can be special but doesn't have to be to be considered art.

Art is signified solely by how much someone is willing to pay for something.

Therefore, paintings can be art because they are often expensive. Games can't be art because they are usually just sold for 60 bucks.

This post is art
My post is art
We're living art

Fucking Duchamp

For every bookworm you've got fifteen Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey worshippers.

For every film buff you've got hundreds of mindless Micheal Bay dicksuckers.

We don't judge mediums by the average IQ.

>That's all you've said this entire time because you don't have any arguments.
Are you serious? You do realize that your entire argument is "games are shit, books are better, end of the discussion" so far?

>Oh, I'm more into other directors you didn't mention.
I don't give a fuck. You just tried to dismiss the value of works of some most visionary and talented people in the fucking history of the medium you god-damn cunt.

>It's okay. I get it if you're not into books.
There is literally nothing in the world that I care more about than books, child. Unlike you, however - I read because I have a passion for storytelling. Not because I need to use one token and poorly chosen book title to make others around me look stupid by making poorly justified bullshit claims.

>Pathologic isn't even fucking obscure.
Who said ANYTHING about the game being obscure? What the fuck have you projected here? I'm not saying it's obscure, I'm saying it's a great piece of storytelling.

>Wait, you still think I haven't played that pathetic game?
I'm absolutely positive about it. Otherwise, you'd not be so afraid of giving me what I asked for. One paragraph for one character isn't that much of a work, and it would immediately improve your standing. Prove that you actually know what you are talking about.

Well once you're """""art""""" your medium can get away with anything (see people shitting in spaghetti-o's being "preformance art" or batshit insane arthouse films), something vidya could definitely use

The art establishment existed before the dadaist movement.

A movement that's still mocked to this day.

Some might argue that San Fran's batshit insane output qualifies for the intellectual level of shit in spaghetti-os, though.

>There is literally nothing in the world that I care more about than books, child. Unlike you, however - I read because I have a passion for storytelling.
The only thing you've proven is that you're a fucking retard. The Count of Monte Cristo was written by Alexandre Dumas, not Balzac. Now fuck off.

Games are art, but I think the hardest thing about defining games as art is that out of the many forms of conventional art out there, games are the only one that is entirely interactive and mostly detached from the creator.

Cinema, painting, sculpting, music; it's all mostly non-interactive at least in a direct way. Most things that could be considered high art have been non-interactive until postmodernism which is heavily polarized in the eyes of the public.

So attempting to judge a game's artistic merits makes people compare it to other things. Also many games lose the focus of an individual creator and start to become a mishmash of several ideas which also is seen as non-artistic.

>Art can be special but doesn't have to be to be considered art.
That is actually literally THE ONLY CONDITION to consider something art.
The concept of art has NO OTHER MEANING than "This work is special and needs to be recognized as such." That is all there is to art. You might disagree with the criteria on which some works are recognized as art, you might even find them so confusing that you might start thinking there aren't any, but that is a problem of the criteria of speciality and value, and your understanding of them. Not of art itself. Art is universal, a cultural constant. Every society selects some works and then establishes them as unique and worth special attention. They may differ in the criteria and selection process, but all of them do it, one way or another. And doing that, selecting works as "special" IS. ART. The entire existence of art is just that.

In spite of them.

I love Twilight Sparkle!

Interactivity undermines art. Art is intentionally made by an artist to communicate something specific, if the audience is allowed to tailor the message to their liking (through interactivity), then it ceases to become art because it's no longer the message of the artist. A recorded play of a video game can be art, the writing and story can be art, because they are all static and are created by an artist, but the game itself can never be art.

I'm glad we all agree that Death of the Author was a massive mistake.

>Art is intentionally made by an artist to communicate something specific,
So... interpretation is no longer a thing in art? You should really get off your ass and read something like Chazarian Dictionary before you make bullshit claims like that.

That's bullshit though

only reason why i came to this thread