Arguments to classify Games as Art.

[bigolbear]

Britannica Online defines art as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others."

sounds like games to me, infact it sounds like a really nice description of mmo's or multiplayer games.

i would argue that not only is a game art - but further more the act of playing a game is art provided it can be witnessed by others according to this definition.

 

[crypt-creature]

More effort then, than me putting a spade on a pedestal, which requires no effort at all.
Your game won't sell, even if Blizzard was behind it, while my crap would've been worth a fortune, if I were a certain famous artist.

Which is a lie. Your market is what makes you a fortune, simple flash games sell quite a bit and Blizzard would know who to market to.
Your name wouldn't do you a bit of good unless you aimed your piece at a specific market, which is what good artists and agents for artists do and what the marketing department of every video game company does.
The difference is you're looking at an instant 'fortune' while a simple flash game might build up that 'fortune' over time.

You wouldn't sell a thing if you didn't target the right market.

Except for that fact that unlike those artworks, the games don't sell for a fortune and are not considered great.

By who? Every professional out there? Again, that's a lie.
Mass copies do not sell for fortunes, rare copies do and originals do.

Making a video game isn't easy, even one with an average metacritic score.

Neither is making quality art.

The gaming masses do not think crap is brilliant. The majority of gamers ignore the mediocre, the average and even good games. Only the top titles become succesful.

Yes, and people who are into art do the same things according to taste.
If a brilliant JRPG comes out, you will not convince someone who hates JRPG's that it is a brilliant game.
What you might not think is crap, I might think it is crap. Just because it is popular does not mean it can't be crap.
Being a top title doesn't always make a game 'brilliant' either, it makes it popular.

Sure it does, it matters money.
More to the point: there's a huge difference between name being *everything* in the art world, while it makes only a slight difference in the game industry.

Money also matter with artists.
A name isn't everything in the art world. It gets you more attention, but it isn't everything.

The audience decides. Picking out the really bad games is easy. Know the audience.

Same with art. Why do you think art trends come and go and there are galleries catering to certain types of art?

The answer is simple: none of these games art art.
There is great and there is awful and everything between and there is also this thing called art, which is seperate.

That makes no sense.
A games is 'art', a 'work of art' or an 'art form' no matter how good or bad it is.

That's not how it works at all! You do NOT as pass the work off as your own, but as someone else's, someone both famous and dead.
The trick here ofcourse is painting something the dead guy could've made, but didn't.

What you just described isn't a problem at all. Big deal if I did a painting like Picasso and signed it with my own name.
This is because NAMES is what's important in art.

Games now, games are about the content instead. You see a popular game and jump on the bandwagon with something very similar.

I know how it works.
You are talking about forgeries, which take a lot of skill to do and are very rare these days because people track these things and have ways of testing paint and materials to see if they are the same type used by the original artist.
Art thieves are a different sort, they take an image or idea of whatever sort not belonging to them and literally copy it and claim it as their own original work. Taking it from a living or dead person doesn't matter to them.

It is a problem, it would be like a third part person stealing Sony or Microsofts identity and ripping off and making forgeries of their games. A persons name is their identity, names are just as important in the game industry.

Games are still heavily based on names, otherwise you wouldn't have all these Sony, Microsoft, Blizzard, Valve, etc. fanboys and admirers everywhere. Name is still a big part of business and sways people.
Otherwise 'Clive Barkers JERICHO' would just be 'JERICHO' without the name drop. Otherwise, no game ever would have the name of their developers or studio on the box, or their system.

Well that's unfortunate for those other people, because it's only the influential people in art community get to decide what is art and put a value on it.
The toilet, the spade and the blue canvas are art. Alot of interesting, original and pretty work is not.

You also realize that different forms of art also take time to be recognized as such. Many types of styles that were not considered art 100 years ago, are now embraced by the art community.
Things change, people who aren't patient enough or are to jaded to let people catch up with the times are only digging a hole for the 3D artists and people who work on video games.
In other words, you're not helping the cause.

That's my whole point from the start.

Video games aren't art, lucky for us gamers. We get to argue about which games are GOOD instead, which is far more important.

They aren't considered art and yet you seem annoyed by that current trend, as do other gamers.
In some of your posts you seem to be arguing that games should be considered art, or are more 'artistic' than art but yet aren't 'art' or looked upon very highly by the fine art community (which is the community you're attacking, other parts of the art community view games as an art form and accept them openly).
Of which, you're wrong.

Artists get to argue about which art forms are GOOD and why, which CHANGES over the years.
It's just as important as arguing which video games are better since both are doing the same thing, as art styles and video games are influencing each other more often these days.

You don't seem to have that much of a grasp on the art community, just the bad parts of it. Just like most the art community doesn't have much of a grasp on the gaming community and focus on the bad.
In short, both sides are blind to one another and neither one wants to admit that they have much in common.

 

[veloper]

More effort then, than me putting a spade on a pedestal, which requires no effort at all.
Your game won't sell, even if Blizzard was behind it, while my crap would've been worth a fortune, if I were a certain famous artist.

Which is a lie. Your market is what makes you a fortune, simple flash games sell quite a bit and Blizzard would know who to market to.

You're kidding yourself if you think you could get your flash game published.

Ever clicked Alt+Escape on this site? Links to new free internet games every week. These games are free to play and already come with basic cutscenes, VOs, extra's, the lot.
The only revenue comes from ads on the websites.

The games featured on Alt+Escape are just the bottom-feeders of the game industry and yet these games are getting more and more advanced already. Just have a look for yourself.


So there we have it, a situation opposite from the art world, with it's spades, toilets and blue canvases:
on the one end of the spectrum you got the likes of Blizzard who can sell their new polished products for 50, while on the other hand you see the crap and sometimes even decent stuff, for FREE.

Except for that fact that unlike those artworks, the games don't sell for a fortune and are not considered great.

By who? Every professional out there? Again, that's a lie.
Mass copies do not sell for fortunes, rare copies do and originals do.

We simply don't do unique copies in the gaming world; yet another difference with the art world.
As for your question: the price difference shows how the gamers value AAA titles opposed to simpler games.

Making a video game isn't easy, even one with an average metacritic score.

Neither is making quality art.

No, the toilet, the spade and the blue canvas ARE quality art. Not to me, but to the art community and that's all matters here. They value this stuff and therefore it has high value.

The gaming masses do not think crap is brilliant. The majority of gamers ignore the mediocre, the average and even good games. Only the top titles become succesful.

Yes, and people who are into art do the same things according to taste.
If a brilliant JRPG comes out, you will not convince someone who hates JRPG's that it is a brilliant game.

Precisely.
This is why a good reviewer considers the audience for the genre. A brilliant JRPG IS a brilliant JRPG, but you can only make that distinction if you know the standards of the weeaboos.

Likewise, ART should be held to different standards than our games, comics and fantasy lit.
Different audience, more dispensible income, different standards.

The audience decides. Picking out the really bad games is easy. Know the audience.

Same with art. Why do you think art trends come and go and there are galleries catering to certain types of art?

Different audiences. Different from eachother and very different from the gamers.

The answer is simple: none of these games art art.
There is great and there is awful and everything between and there is also this thing called art, which is seperate.

That makes no sense.
A games is 'art', a 'work of art' or an 'art form' no matter how good or bad it is.

Games are games. "Art" doesn't cover the meaning at all. "Entertainment" comes closer, but with "games", everyone will know what you mean.

That's my whole point from the start.

Video games aren't art, lucky for us gamers. We get to argue about which games are GOOD instead, which is far more important.

They aren't considered art and yet you seem annoyed by that current trend, as do other gamers.
In some of your posts you seem to be arguing that games should be considered art,

I should've been more clearer then: I don't want to muddle the gaming discussion with talk of art, but rather I prefer to keep gaming discussion to the point: is game X,Y original, challenging, fair, balanced, polished? That sort of thing.

 

[ZenTaurus]

I always found this particular question pointless.
Music, film making, writing. It's all considered an art form.

Yet people feel the need to question if games are too. Even tho they combine all of the above (music, visuals, story) with a very complex idea of interactivity or influencing the story direction.

What is "art" (as in "quality art) and what games would qualify is a completely different issue. What would be game equivalent of movie blockbusters (or Britney Spears) that make huge profit and provide trashy fun but have low art value is also another topic.

The point is - games are an art form. And like with most things - there is gradation.

 

[AgentNein]

Do games have the potential to be art? Of course they do. Have they lived up to that potential yet, and been more than mere lowbrow entertainment? Are they going to 'grow up' and put out more than pulp? It's all very debatable. The mediums still young, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

We probably won't see it come from the big budget 'made or broke by their sales' games though. Those really don't have the creative-room to breath. I'm looking at the small time upstarts.

 

[Ryank1908]

With the definition of art today, I wouldn't want my favourite media to be classified as 'Art'.

 

[The Austin]

Art=Result of creative thinking

That's my definition.

BOOM!

He just dropped a philosophy bomb on your ass!

 

[AgentNein]

But also bear in mind that art has no real use, games are entertainment.

But look at any other medium and you'll find art at one end of a spectrum and pure entertainment at the other end of the spectrum. There's no special reason why games aren't on the same page. Maybe the fact that we still call them 'games' gives them a bad rap?

 

[crypt-creature]

You're kidding yourself if you think you could get your flash game published.

Ever clicked Alt+Escape on this site? Links to new free internet games every week. These games are free to play and already come with basic cutscenes, VOs, extra's, the lot.
The only revenue comes from ads on the websites.

The games featured on Alt+Escape are just the bottom-feeders of the game industry and yet these games are getting more and more advanced already. Just have a look for yourself.


So there we have it, a situation opposite from the art world, with it's spades, toilets and blue canvases:
on the one end of the spectrum you got the likes of Blizzard who can sell their new polished products for 50, while on the other hand you see the crap and sometimes even decent stuff, for FREE.

There are plenty of games, flash games, that make money by offering things (more points, more levels, exclusives, so on) and I'm willing to bet people (not all, who knows how many) would be willing to shove out some money to buy them. Again, it's dependent on your market and where you're marketing (there are other factors as well, but marketing is a large part of it).
Yes, some sites do offer free games with better things in them, but there are still thousands of simple games on the internet being sold and even more waiting in boxes on computer store shelves. Why? Because there is a market for it.

But more to the point, I wouldn't want to get the game published. I really don't care to, even if this were a real bet marketing games and producing them holds little interest to me (it actually annoyed me for various reasons). Plus, we're kind of getting off track and drifting.

In the art world, quality stuff does come cheap and even free. You just have to know the artist and the market, it's certainly not impossible or improbable. Many artists are willing to do trades or requests, or do gifts for various reasons and also give their works away for free in random name draws.

We simply don't do unique copies in the gaming world; yet another difference with the art world.
As for your question: the price difference shows how the gamers value AAA titles opposed to simpler games.

Games don't do unique copies? Maybe not as much today, but it has happened. Gold Nintendo cartridges, misprints, limited edition games, content, and bundle items that also have a limited edition. These things still pop up from time to time. Rare games that just didn't produce many copies to begin with are pretty unique.
As for the price difference, it doesn't exactly show that. Some games, being rare, retain a high price. In a lot of stores newer games hold a similar price range. Over time, even brilliant or good games can drop in price due to how many copies a store has (used or new).
Defining a title by price alone still will not make a title AAA or not. It's more than that, and more than consumers.
A lot of brilliant things and people were scoffed at and largely ignore at first, only being recognized as being brilliant as time went on.
I think a lot of games have added revolutionary elements, but few have been brilliant.

No, the toilet, the spade and the blue canvas ARE quality art. Not to me, but to the art community and that's all matters here. They value this stuff and therefore it has high value.

Same with the types of games you hate or dislike, simple or otherwise. But that's the thing we seem to be arguing here, no matter how much we might look down on something there are others who think it is a quality game or piece of art.
It still might not be good quality, but someone still thinks it is a quality item.

The gaming masses do not think crap is brilliant. The majority of gamers ignore the mediocre, the average and even good games. Only the top titles become succesful.

Yes, and people who are into art do the same things according to taste.
If a brilliant JRPG comes out, you will not convince someone who hates JRPG's that it is a brilliant game.
[/quote]

Precisely.
This is why a good reviewer considers the audience for the genre. A brilliant JRPG IS a brilliant JRPG, but you can only make that distinction if you know the standards of the weeaboos.

Likewise, ART should be held to different standards than our games, comics and fantasy lit.
Different audience, more dispensible income, different standards.[/quote]

True, but there are not a lot of good reviewers out there who are that good at taking those things into consideration.
Art critics fall into the same problem. Though I tend to see a lot of snooty critics no matter what I'm looking into, which is no fun.

I don't really think art should be held to different standards, mainly because art is such a broad term and covers so much already, and it's still expanding.
I suppose you could hold sub-genres, art forms and categories of art to different standards (some already are, some aren't), but as a whole? I think it would stunt the art community and be harder to add new things and allow things to grow, evolve, become refined, and branch off.
I mean, aside from just paintings and such, art forms also stretch to music, movies, dance, literature, and so on.

Different audiences. Different from eachother and very different from the gamers.

It's not that different. The big difference is the elements that a person or group are looking at/for, but the trends and taste of 'good' and 'bad' still apply.
Even games and gamers go through trends of which types are more popular over a period of time, and the market follows that until a different type of game pops up and grabs gamers. The market adjusts and tries to capitalize on the new trend. All the other types of games will still be there, but one will generally get more attention than the other.

Games are games. "Art" doesn't cover the meaning at all. "Entertainment" comes closer, but with "games", everyone will know what you mean.

Actually, art does cover games as does entertainment (sorry, left a long definition).

art
?noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts,
a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.
12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.

Games are indeed games, but they are still a form of art and entertainment. Heck, they could even loosely be called a sport.
But they will always be known first and foremost as games.

I should've been more clearer then: I don't want to muddle the gaming discussion with talk of art, but rather I prefer to keep gaming discussion to the point: is game X,Y original, challenging, fair, balanced, polished? That sort of thing.

Well, technically the talk of graphics and graphic styles is discussing part of the 'art' of a game (I hate those discussions, but anyway). As is plot and characters.
But I see where you're going with it now, and can agree.
Really, the points you you listed kind of are talking about 'art'. It's not breaking it down and comparing it to other art forms, but are focusing on their specific art forms within games/gaming as a whole and should be heavily discussed and targeted.

 

[crypt-creature]

But also bear in mind that art has no real use, games are entertainment.

Depends entirely on the type of art. Fountains are art and have a use. Portraits have a use, police sketches still exist and have a use.
Literature is art and has a use. The list goes on.

 

[veloper]

You're kidding yourself if you think you could get your flash game published.

Ever clicked Alt+Escape on this site? Links to new free internet games every week. These games are free to play and already come with basic cutscenes, VOs, extra's, the lot.
The only revenue comes from ads on the websites.

The games featured on Alt+Escape are just the bottom-feeders of the game industry and yet these games are getting more and more advanced already. Just have a look for yourself.


So there we have it, a situation opposite from the art world, with it's spades, toilets and blue canvases:
on the one end of the spectrum you got the likes of Blizzard who can sell their new polished products for 50, while on the other hand you see the crap and sometimes even decent stuff, for FREE.

There are plenty of games, flash games, that make money by offering things (more points, more levels, exclusives, so on) and I'm willing to bet people (not all, who knows how many) would be willing to shove out some money to buy them. Again, it's dependent on your market and where you're marketing (there are other factors as well, but marketing is a large part of it).
Yes, some sites do offer free games with better things in them, but there are still thousands of simple games on the internet being sold and even more waiting in boxes on computer store shelves. Why? Because there is a market for it.

An upper market and a lower market.

If Blizz could make more money, by offering their games for free on the net instead and live of web ads, they WOULD.
They cannot however as those games are too expensive to develop and the ads won't bring much in.
Fortunately, enough gamers are willing to buy their games at full price on release. Enough people even that the unavoidable price drop can be postponed for some months even. This is because buyers obviously consider those AAA titles to be superior.

We simply don't do unique copies in the gaming world; yet another difference with the art world.
As for your question: the price difference shows how the gamers value AAA titles opposed to simpler games.

Games don't do unique copies? Maybe not as much today, but it has happened. Gold Nintendo cartridges, misprints, limited edition games, content, and bundle items that also have a limited edition. These things still pop up from time to time. Rare games that just didn't produce many copies to begin with are pretty unique.

I have got such a "unique" copy: S.T.A.L.K.E.R. in a tin box and some extra's. There's actually thousands of these and the price difference was only about 20%. We're just kidding ourselves when we think this stuff is rare.

As for the price difference, it doesn't exactly show that. Some games, being rare, retain a high price. In a lot of stores newer games hold a similar price range. Over time, even brilliant or good games can drop in price due to how many copies a store has (used or new).
Defining a title by price alone still will not make a title AAA or not. It's more than that, and more than consumers.
A lot of brilliant things and people were scoffed at and largely ignore at first, only being recognized as being brilliant as time went on.
I think a lot of games have added revolutionary elements, but few have been brilliant.

I think price is a pretty good indicator, especially in hind-sight as you note how quickly a game price drops after release.
All the other indicators, like game reviews and complaints from users are far less objective.

I may be doing the niche markets a little short here, but the fanbase of impopular genres either adjust their standards, go indie or decline, so it makes little difference.

No, the toilet, the spade and the blue canvas ARE quality art. Not to me, but to the art community and that's all matters here. They value this stuff and therefore it has high value.

Same with the types of games you hate or dislike, simple or otherwise. But that's the thing we seem to be arguing here, no matter how much we might look down on something there are others who think it is a quality game or piece of art.
It still might not be good quality, but someone still thinks it is a quality item.

Yes, that is it.

You and I may have our own ideas of what makes a brilliant game, but I realized long ago that such opinions only have value in our own circle jerks.
A good game reviewer makes no secret where he's coming from. Not knowing which audience the reviewer is adressing, makes a game review pointless.

There's enough differences between gamers as it is, without bringing the art community into it aswell, by labeling games as art or abusing their criteria. They don't want our opinion on their crap either.

The gaming masses do not think crap is brilliant. The majority of gamers ignore the mediocre, the average and even good games. Only the top titles become succesful.

Yes, and people who are into art do the same things according to taste.
If a brilliant JRPG comes out, you will not convince someone who hates JRPG's that it is a brilliant game.

Precisely.
This is why a good reviewer considers the audience for the genre. A brilliant JRPG IS a brilliant JRPG, but you can only make that distinction if you know the standards of the weeaboos.

Likewise, ART should be held to different standards than our games, comics and fantasy lit.
Different audience, more dispensible income, different standards.

True, but there are not a lot of good reviewers out there who are that good at taking those things into consideration.
Art critics fall into the same problem. Though I tend to see a lot of snooty critics no matter what I'm looking into, which is no fun.

I don't really think art should be held to different standards, mainly because art is such a broad term and covers so much already, and it's still expanding.
[/quote]
Yes, art is a very broad term as demonstrated by posting a definition with 16 items. With every expansion the term will become more meaningless.

Reaching out to casual gamers and weeaboos would be ambitious enough already for any reviewer, without trying to include everyone on the planet.

Different audiences. Different from eachother and very different from the gamers.

It's not that different. The big difference is the elements that a person or group are looking at/for, but the trends and taste of 'good' and 'bad' still apply.

Not really. I think toilet on pedestal is bad and everyone around me agrees, but this opinion is completely irrelevant outside our circle. Good, bad and trends are all variable.

I should've been more clearer then: I don't want to muddle the gaming discussion with talk of art, but rather I prefer to keep gaming discussion to the point: is game X,Y original, challenging, fair, balanced, polished? That sort of thing.

Well, technically the talk of graphics and graphic styles is discussing part of the 'art' of a game (I hate those discussions, but anyway). As is plot and characters.
But I see where you're going with it now, and can agree.
Really, the points you you listed kind of are talking about 'art'. It's not breaking it down and comparing it to other art forms, but are focusing on their specific art forms within games/gaming as a whole and should be heavily discussed and targeted.

Yes, a focus on gaming is what I like.
I do enjoy this discussion even if we disagree on just about everything.
Thank you.

 

[crypt-creature]

An upper market and a lower market.

If Blizz could make more money, by offering their games for free on the net instead and live of web ads, they WOULD.
They cannot however as those games are too expensive to develop and the ads won't bring much in.
Fortunately, enough gamers are willing to buy their games at full price on release. Enough people even that the unavoidable price drop can be postponed for some months even. This is because buyers obviously consider those AAA titles to be superior.

That's what artists have to take into consideration too. They target whichever market (or both) will make them the most money with their skills.
I don't want to get into 'hardcore' gamers and that nonsense, so maybe... 'advanced' will do as a term. Gamers that have played numerous titles of various titles (the upper market in this case), free or otherwise, have different standards than people who play lower market games.
If I were to market the flash game to a company, it would be a lower market company. I would sell them the rights to use the game as I see fit, which might not earn a fortune but it's still money.

Depending on what your at is and the use for it, the same situation still applies. The Upper and Lower market there is... very large and filled with a lot of different things. There are AAA quality artists who still target the lower market with quality work, and keep things cheap.
A lot is dependent on attitude as well. It is true that in the art world, you get a lot of snooty brats who only want to target the high-market audience.
Some game companies can be snooty too, though it's usually more along the lines of which console they prefer to develop for. Sometimes the types of games. Some companies don't care which market they target.

I have got such a "unique" copy: S.T.A.L.K.E.R. in a tin box and some extra's. There's actually thousands of these and the price difference was only about 20%. We're just kidding ourselves when we think this stuff is rare.

It's really dependent on the game and just how unique or rare a game is (good sometimes matter, but isn't a necessary factor). Some really are rare, others not as much as the makers want people to believe.

I think price is a pretty good indicator, especially in hind-sight as you note how quickly a game price drops after release.
All the other indicators, like game reviews and complaints from users are far less objective.

I may be doing the niche markets a little short here, but the fanbase of impopular genres either adjust their standards, go indie or decline, so it makes little difference.

And that's part of my point. We're still looking at games that are popular, yes the consumers have decided that the popular game is good but it doesn't have to be terribly advanced to be popular.
I guess I'm just a person who doesn't think that something being popular means that something also has great quality or is brilliant.
Somethings are deserving, but a lot of others aren't.

Yes, that is it.

You and I may have our own ideas of what makes a brilliant game, but I realized long ago that such opinions only have value in our own circle jerks.
A good game reviewer makes no secret where he's coming from. Not knowing which audience the reviewer is adressing, makes a game review pointless.

There's enough differences between gamers as it is, without bringing the art community into it aswell, by labeling games as art or abusing their criteria. They don't want our opinion on their crap either.

Hate to tell you, but a good part of the art community is already a part of the gaming community, and vice versa. A lot of them enjoy games though, and judge a game as a game, not as art.
I think part of the problem is, a lot of people who are more into games than art, and vice versa, are always going to be looking at the opposing side with their glasses half fogged. It's not either sides fault really, but if they start poking around and stirring things up it will just bring out the worst in either community.

Yes, art is a very broad term as demonstrated by posting a definition with 16 items. With every expansion the term will become more meaningless.

Reaching out to casual gamers and weeaboos would be ambitious enough already for any reviewer, without trying to include everyone on the planet.

True, but that's part of gaming and a part of art. The more you add to something and the broader it becomes, the harder it is to hold that meaning. The basic components will always be there, gaming is playing games, art is expressing.
A reviewer doesn't have to reach out to them, but the companies and publishers sure will.

In a way, any term that expands will eventually become meaningless at some point. Though 'meaning' is also subject to the work and subject to the person/people. A community may become stagnant for a while, but meaning usually comes back in one form or another. Everything comes in cycles, and multiple times.
Something will only ever truly becoming meaningless when people stop caring. Some genres may become meaningless eventually, but art as a whole will just keep changing and evolving.

Not really. I think toilet on pedestal is bad and everyone around me agrees, but this opinion is completely irrelevant outside our circle. Good, bad and trends are all variable.

I probably should have explained it better. I meant that because one person or group finds something awful/good, another group may not and the item or work in question may still be very popular/unpopular. Yes they are all variable, but on a large scale still apply to the work.
Things work very similarly in the art and gaming community.

Yes, a focus on gaming is what I like.
I do enjoy this discussion even if we disagree on just about everything.
Thank you.

Agreed. Games are what they are and fit into many other categories, but that isn't as important as the game and its merits.
It has been fun, oddly enough. You have valid arguments to back up your view.
You're very welcome, and thank you as well.