OutrageousEmu said:
If you use the term like that, the term becomes meaningless, and you're arguing semantics. You could tell we were discussing good art, and when we say art we're referring to good art, so why did you feel the need to say "Everything is art", a phrase thats meaningless by definition.
"All games are art" does not equal "Everything is art". If the latter had been said, I'd agree with you. But it wasn't. The implicit definition of art that's used here is something that has an *impact* on you, be it emotional, intellectual or what have you. Or, something that is *supposed* to have an impact, has the *potential* to have an impact, as intended by the creator - as said, bad art is still art, and actually learning to paint/write/compose/whatever so that the end result causes the impact you want it to cause is the very meat of trying to become a better artist.
JMeganSnow said:
A cut scene is not a MECHANICAL part of the game. It is a MOVIE. MOVIES ARE ART. It's the gameplay aspects that are not art. I won't say interactivity in and of itself can't be art, but I have yet to see a game where this is the case. The gameplay is not integrated with the rest of the artwork. All those instances of you pulling a trigger or picking up health packs or hiding behind cover are not integrated with anything--you could perform exactly the same tasks in a featureless gray cube and they would be precisely as meaningful.
I think you missed the point. A cutscene is a movie, and presumably art, but it is the interactivity, the gameplay, the mechanics *outside* of that cutscene that gave it the context and meaning necessary to pack a player punch in a far more *personal* way than regular movies can usually achieve.
Gameplay has several inherent qualities. Most importantly, it achieves the feeling that it is YOU in the character's shoes, effectively, that you are them. This can easily be exploited for artistic effect, e.g. by making it more personal when the hero bites it, or making YOU feel like a wretch for failing to save someone or choosing to do target practice on kittens. It's an inherently different experience from merely *watching* someone do these things. Getting someone to identify with a character on such a strong level in any other medium is a much more difficult, arduous and hit-and-miss process.
Gameplay and non-gameplay don't exist in a vacuum - they're tied to each other and influence the way the other is experienced, like two neighbouring colours in a painting. Neither one would be experienced the same way without the other, and would probably be worse off for it. (Can you honestly say that you miss the days of the early games that were just about killing monsters, gathering collectibles, and advancing to the next dungeon, with no more than an excuse for a story present?) As such, since gameplay and non-gameplay elements both contribute something significant to the end result, I see no reason to distinguish between them in terms of "artness". Like the ingredients of a dish, they contribute something vital to the end result. To dismiss gameplay as being inherently non-art would be like dismissing a particular type of sauce as "not real cooking".
I don't understand why people get so crazy about this. It's not like being "art" is some medal or title and we must knight games under its auspices. It's a word. It has a definition. Things either fall within the definition or they do not. It's not a condemnation to say that something isn't art. It's a game. That's what it is. Nobody is going to say that Monopoly is art because you've painted the Mona Lisa on the board. You can take a first-person shooter and slather it with as much artwork as you like, this won't disguise the fact that it's still a GAME with a bunch of artwork on top of it. GET OVER IT.
It's inevitable that somewhere in a debate somebody will infer that the opposing side is effectively just being silly and making a big deal over nothing, but it doesn't strike me as a very relevant argument, sorry. Debating about why people are debating sounds like a roundabout type of ad hominem to me.
