When did we go from "games can be art" to "all games must be art?"

[Not G. Ivingname]

Snip

This is both a good and bad thing.

It's good because now gamers are starting to go into the groups that all other medias have and it is a sign of our rapid developement towards cultural acceptance.

Bad because the "pretentious artz fan" is the most annoying fan of any media.

 

[Ultra_Caboose]

I agree with the OP. Not every game is or should be considered a work of art. There are dozens upon dozens that could be called art very easily, but then you have some games that are just meant to be fun. Mindless fun, even.
Bulletstorm, Borderlands, and Duke Nukem seem like that to me, amongst many others. You know that you're not going to go into these games being compelled by strong stories, music and characters. You play the game with the assurance that everything that moves will either have a bullet in the head or a foot up the ass. It's fun for fun's sake, and nothing more.

I do wonder how some people do try to see all games as art. Do film buffs do that too? If so, I'd love to see them rationalize Meet the Spartans or Big Momma's House...

 

[GiantRaven]

You know that you're not going to go into these games being compelled by strong stories, music and characters.

Hey now, the Borderlands soundtrack is awesome.

 

[Ultra_Caboose]

You know that you're not going to go into these games being compelled by strong stories, music and characters.

Hey now, the Borderlands soundtrack is awesome.

Oh, I know. I didn't mean anything against the soundtrack.

 

[Twilight_guy]

You say that they can't afford to have some guy come along write a story and crowbar it in somehow? nonsense!

You say that a crowbarred-in, superfluous story is better than none at all? I call that nonsense. The presence or absence of a given element isn't an indicator of quality; the quality of all of the elements present combined determines the quality.

Yes but even then we expect a diversity of elements. If a major triple A game is released and its a one-button game its going to be treated as garbage because of how simple it is. People expect a minimum standard of elements which includes some story. Games used to be able to get away with no story but now-a-days that's just extreme laziness. It's no longer a challenge to incorporate a story into the game or have the space for it. It's challenge to come up with good ideas but gamers don't expect novels (yet) they expect a coherent narrative even one as simple as "Ghaaa, zombies, survive and shot them" (which is what L4D boils down to). Advocating games without stories is like saying that you suck so don't even bother its a step backwards. Why should we regress to when games left this element out. Shouldn't we expect more and better things? Shouldn't we move upwards and raise the standards not let some elements be optional because they're not doing as well? Yeah it's like some games need a story and some might not have much material for one but shouldn't we at least try? This is about forward momentum and avoiding stagnation by progressing. Yeah some stories are bad and feel unnatural but isn't that the start don't we build from there?
It all boils down he fact that games aren't as simple as they once were and skipping the story just doesn't happen anymore. Trying to regress from this point is either nostalgia talking or a glorification of the older ways. Both of which lead to stagnation and static lack of innovation. That's why games need stories and more then that need to advance and push the bounds in every element.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

You say that they can't afford to have some guy come along write a story and crowbar it in somehow? nonsense!

You say that a crowbarred-in, superfluous story is better than none at all? I call that nonsense. The presence or absence of a given element isn't an indicator of quality; the quality of all of the elements present combined determines the quality.

Yes but even then we expect a diversity of elements. If a major triple A game is released and its a one-button game its going to be treated as garbage because of how simple it is. People expect a minimum standard of elements which includes some story. Games used to be able to get away with no story but now-a-days that's just extreme laziness. It's no longer a challenge to incorporate a story into the game or have the space for it. It's challenge to come up with good ideas but gamers don't expect novels (yet) they expect a coherent narrative even one as simple as "Ghaaa, zombies, survive and shot them" (which is what L4D boils down to). Advocating games without stories is like saying that you suck so don't even bother its a step backwards. Why should we regress to when games left this element out. Shouldn't we expect more and better things? Shouldn't we move upwards and raise the standards not let some elements be optional because they're not doing as well? Yeah it's like some games need a story and some might not have much material for one but shouldn't we at least try? This is about forward momentum and avoiding stagnation by progressing. Yeah some stories are bad and feel unnatural but isn't that the start don't we build from there?
It all boils down he fact that games aren't as simple as they once were and skipping the story just doesn't happen anymore. Trying to regress from this point is either nostalgia talking or a glorification of the older ways. Both of which lead to stagnation and static lack of innovation. That's why games need stories and more then that need to advance and push the bounds in every element.

Actually, what I'm saying here is that in a certain subgenre of action game, any story outside of the manual and maybe something optional between levels is going to get in the way of that action, and negatively impact the game. Would Robot Unicorn Attack be any good if the game stopped every so often for a story sequence? Would Serious Sam be improved if the crazy action ground to a halt so some character we don't care about could pontificate on the meaning of life? Would Metal Slug or Alien Hominid be improved by having the bosses give out a long speech before you got to fight them? Of course not. So why do we have to pretend that a story is some necessary aspect of a game?

 

[Twilight_guy]

You say that they can't afford to have some guy come along write a story and crowbar it in somehow? nonsense!

You say that a crowbarred-in, superfluous story is better than none at all? I call that nonsense. The presence or absence of a given element isn't an indicator of quality; the quality of all of the elements present combined determines the quality.

Yes but even then we expect a diversity of elements. If a major triple A game is released and its a one-button game its going to be treated as garbage because of how simple it is. People expect a minimum standard of elements which includes some story. Games used to be able to get away with no story but now-a-days that's just extreme laziness. It's no longer a challenge to incorporate a story into the game or have the space for it. It's challenge to come up with good ideas but gamers don't expect novels (yet) they expect a coherent narrative even one as simple as "Ghaaa, zombies, survive and shot them" (which is what L4D boils down to). Advocating games without stories is like saying that you suck so don't even bother its a step backwards. Why should we regress to when games left this element out. Shouldn't we expect more and better things? Shouldn't we move upwards and raise the standards not let some elements be optional because they're not doing as well? Yeah it's like some games need a story and some might not have much material for one but shouldn't we at least try? This is about forward momentum and avoiding stagnation by progressing. Yeah some stories are bad and feel unnatural but isn't that the start don't we build from there?
It all boils down he fact that games aren't as simple as they once were and skipping the story just doesn't happen anymore. Trying to regress from this point is either nostalgia talking or a glorification of the older ways. Both of which lead to stagnation and static lack of innovation. That's why games need stories and more then that need to advance and push the bounds in every element.

Actually, what I'm saying here is that in a certain subgenre of action game, any story outside of the manual and maybe something optional between levels is going to get in the way of that action, and negatively impact the game. Would Robot Unicorn Attack be any good if the game stopped every so often for a story sequence? Would Serious Sam be improved if the crazy action ground to a halt so some character we don't care about could pontificate on the meaning of life? Would Metal Slug or Alien Hominid be improved by having the bosses give out a long speech before you got to fight them? Of course not. So why do we have to pretend that a story is some necessary aspect of a game?

There's more then one way to tell a story. (Valve is an expert at this actually) I'm not saying that there needs to be an interrupt for a cut-scene or dialogue in fact this style of story telling is actually being phased out over time. What I'm saying is that the method of telling the story (like the environmental story telling method which is what the games you mentioned use) needs to improve and innovate over time and help the games to reach a more complex whole. I'm not happy with just saying that games can sit on their thumbs and not do anything. The games you mentioned do have stories (except robot unicorn attack which is a one button arcade game) and can improve on that aspect. There aren't any nonsensical random games that have nothing binding them together so every games has some story and we need to press forward in whatever method tells story. I'm not saying throwing in cut-scenes I'm saying put in the thought that provides the backbone that drives the story and come up with better way of conveying your story that are appropriate for the genera. The only games that can attest to fall under the radar are retro games and simple flash games (I mean like one button games like RUA) and that's only because these games are are locked into a method of story telling that relates to the era or are designed to be stripped down to the bear bones. Even then we can advance the method of story telling its just these types of games have other goals and areas to innovate in besides story at the moment.

 

[Ashcrexl]

it's very simple. either everything is art or nothing is art. any disagreement with that statement is only due to semantics.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

You say that they can't afford to have some guy come along write a story and crowbar it in somehow? nonsense!

You say that a crowbarred-in, superfluous story is better than none at all? I call that nonsense. The presence or absence of a given element isn't an indicator of quality; the quality of all of the elements present combined determines the quality.

Yes but even then we expect a diversity of elements. If a major triple A game is released and its a one-button game its going to be treated as garbage because of how simple it is. People expect a minimum standard of elements which includes some story. Games used to be able to get away with no story but now-a-days that's just extreme laziness. It's no longer a challenge to incorporate a story into the game or have the space for it. It's challenge to come up with good ideas but gamers don't expect novels (yet) they expect a coherent narrative even one as simple as "Ghaaa, zombies, survive and shot them" (which is what L4D boils down to). Advocating games without stories is like saying that you suck so don't even bother its a step backwards. Why should we regress to when games left this element out. Shouldn't we expect more and better things? Shouldn't we move upwards and raise the standards not let some elements be optional because they're not doing as well? Yeah it's like some games need a story and some might not have much material for one but shouldn't we at least try? This is about forward momentum and avoiding stagnation by progressing. Yeah some stories are bad and feel unnatural but isn't that the start don't we build from there?
It all boils down he fact that games aren't as simple as they once were and skipping the story just doesn't happen anymore. Trying to regress from this point is either nostalgia talking or a glorification of the older ways. Both of which lead to stagnation and static lack of innovation. That's why games need stories and more then that need to advance and push the bounds in every element.

Actually, what I'm saying here is that in a certain subgenre of action game, any story outside of the manual and maybe something optional between levels is going to get in the way of that action, and negatively impact the game. Would Robot Unicorn Attack be any good if the game stopped every so often for a story sequence? Would Serious Sam be improved if the crazy action ground to a halt so some character we don't care about could pontificate on the meaning of life? Would Metal Slug or Alien Hominid be improved by having the bosses give out a long speech before you got to fight them? Of course not. So why do we have to pretend that a story is some necessary aspect of a game?

There's more then one way to tell a story. (Valve is an expert at this actually) I'm not saying that there needs to be an interrupt for a cut-scene or dialogue in fact this style of story telling is actually being phased out over time. What I'm saying is that the method of telling the story (like the environmental story telling method which is what the games you mentioned use) needs to improve and innovate over time and help the games to reach a more complex whole. I'm not happy with just saying that games can sit on their thumbs and not do anything. The games you mentioned do have stories (except robot unicorn attack which is a one button arcade game) and can improve on that aspect. There aren't any nonsensical random games that have nothing binding them together so every games has some story and we need to press forward in whatever method tells story. I'm not saying throwing in cut-scenes I'm saying put in the thought that provides the backbone that drives the story and come up with better way of conveying your story that are appropriate for the genera. The only games that can attest to fall under the radar are retro games and simple flash games (I mean like one button games like RUA) and that's only because these games are are locked into a method of story telling that relates to the era or are designed to be stripped down to the bear bones. Even then we can advance the method of story telling its just these types of games have other goals and areas to innovate in besides story at the moment.

Well that kind of story telling is fine, but it's the "all in the manual" story that I was talking about. I've only played the demo of Serious Sam, so maybe it does have an L4D style environmental story. I doubt it, though, since the original game came out in 2001, and was a throwback back then. Regardless, Alien Hominid and Metal Slug are true cases of "all in the manual." There may be some sort of theme between the levels, but you're reading too much into it if you want to call it a coherent story.

[sub]And RUA has two buttons, not one [/sub]

 

[Twilight_guy]

You say that they can't afford to have some guy come along write a story and crowbar it in somehow? nonsense!

You say that a crowbarred-in, superfluous story is better than none at all? I call that nonsense. The presence or absence of a given element isn't an indicator of quality; the quality of all of the elements present combined determines the quality.

Yes but even then we expect a diversity of elements. If a major triple A game is released and its a one-button game its going to be treated as garbage because of how simple it is. People expect a minimum standard of elements which includes some story. Games used to be able to get away with no story but now-a-days that's just extreme laziness. It's no longer a challenge to incorporate a story into the game or have the space for it. It's challenge to come up with good ideas but gamers don't expect novels (yet) they expect a coherent narrative even one as simple as "Ghaaa, zombies, survive and shot them" (which is what L4D boils down to). Advocating games without stories is like saying that you suck so don't even bother its a step backwards. Why should we regress to when games left this element out. Shouldn't we expect more and better things? Shouldn't we move upwards and raise the standards not let some elements be optional because they're not doing as well? Yeah it's like some games need a story and some might not have much material for one but shouldn't we at least try? This is about forward momentum and avoiding stagnation by progressing. Yeah some stories are bad and feel unnatural but isn't that the start don't we build from there?
It all boils down he fact that games aren't as simple as they once were and skipping the story just doesn't happen anymore. Trying to regress from this point is either nostalgia talking or a glorification of the older ways. Both of which lead to stagnation and static lack of innovation. That's why games need stories and more then that need to advance and push the bounds in every element.

Actually, what I'm saying here is that in a certain subgenre of action game, any story outside of the manual and maybe something optional between levels is going to get in the way of that action, and negatively impact the game. Would Robot Unicorn Attack be any good if the game stopped every so often for a story sequence? Would Serious Sam be improved if the crazy action ground to a halt so some character we don't care about could pontificate on the meaning of life? Would Metal Slug or Alien Hominid be improved by having the bosses give out a long speech before you got to fight them? Of course not. So why do we have to pretend that a story is some necessary aspect of a game?

There's more then one way to tell a story. (Valve is an expert at this actually) I'm not saying that there needs to be an interrupt for a cut-scene or dialogue in fact this style of story telling is actually being phased out over time. What I'm saying is that the method of telling the story (like the environmental story telling method which is what the games you mentioned use) needs to improve and innovate over time and help the games to reach a more complex whole. I'm not happy with just saying that games can sit on their thumbs and not do anything. The games you mentioned do have stories (except robot unicorn attack which is a one button arcade game) and can improve on that aspect. There aren't any nonsensical random games that have nothing binding them together so every games has some story and we need to press forward in whatever method tells story. I'm not saying throwing in cut-scenes I'm saying put in the thought that provides the backbone that drives the story and come up with better way of conveying your story that are appropriate for the genera. The only games that can attest to fall under the radar are retro games and simple flash games (I mean like one button games like RUA) and that's only because these games are are locked into a method of story telling that relates to the era or are designed to be stripped down to the bear bones. Even then we can advance the method of story telling its just these types of games have other goals and areas to innovate in besides story at the moment.

Well that kind of story telling is fine, but it's the "all in the manual" story that I was talking about. I've only played the demo of Serious Sam, so maybe it does have an L4D style environmental story. I doubt it, though, since the original game came out in 2001, and was a throwback back then. Regardless, Alien Hominid and Metal Slug are true cases of "all in the manual." There may be some sort of theme between the levels, but you're reading too much into it if you want to call it a coherent story.

[sub]And RUA has two buttons, not one [/sub]

Okay, well All I'm saying is that I think games need to strive to innovate and advance the art of story telling (among other aspects) We should never be satisfied with what we have and always moving because evolution is a continuous process and think we can both agree on that, however we want the story told.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

You say that they can't afford to have some guy come along write a story and crowbar it in somehow? nonsense!

You say that a crowbarred-in, superfluous story is better than none at all? I call that nonsense. The presence or absence of a given element isn't an indicator of quality; the quality of all of the elements present combined determines the quality.

Yes but even then we expect a diversity of elements. If a major triple A game is released and its a one-button game its going to be treated as garbage because of how simple it is. People expect a minimum standard of elements which includes some story. Games used to be able to get away with no story but now-a-days that's just extreme laziness. It's no longer a challenge to incorporate a story into the game or have the space for it. It's challenge to come up with good ideas but gamers don't expect novels (yet) they expect a coherent narrative even one as simple as "Ghaaa, zombies, survive and shot them" (which is what L4D boils down to). Advocating games without stories is like saying that you suck so don't even bother its a step backwards. Why should we regress to when games left this element out. Shouldn't we expect more and better things? Shouldn't we move upwards and raise the standards not let some elements be optional because they're not doing as well? Yeah it's like some games need a story and some might not have much material for one but shouldn't we at least try? This is about forward momentum and avoiding stagnation by progressing. Yeah some stories are bad and feel unnatural but isn't that the start don't we build from there?
It all boils down he fact that games aren't as simple as they once were and skipping the story just doesn't happen anymore. Trying to regress from this point is either nostalgia talking or a glorification of the older ways. Both of which lead to stagnation and static lack of innovation. That's why games need stories and more then that need to advance and push the bounds in every element.

Actually, what I'm saying here is that in a certain subgenre of action game, any story outside of the manual and maybe something optional between levels is going to get in the way of that action, and negatively impact the game. Would Robot Unicorn Attack be any good if the game stopped every so often for a story sequence? Would Serious Sam be improved if the crazy action ground to a halt so some character we don't care about could pontificate on the meaning of life? Would Metal Slug or Alien Hominid be improved by having the bosses give out a long speech before you got to fight them? Of course not. So why do we have to pretend that a story is some necessary aspect of a game?

There's more then one way to tell a story. (Valve is an expert at this actually) I'm not saying that there needs to be an interrupt for a cut-scene or dialogue in fact this style of story telling is actually being phased out over time. What I'm saying is that the method of telling the story (like the environmental story telling method which is what the games you mentioned use) needs to improve and innovate over time and help the games to reach a more complex whole. I'm not happy with just saying that games can sit on their thumbs and not do anything. The games you mentioned do have stories (except robot unicorn attack which is a one button arcade game) and can improve on that aspect. There aren't any nonsensical random games that have nothing binding them together so every games has some story and we need to press forward in whatever method tells story. I'm not saying throwing in cut-scenes I'm saying put in the thought that provides the backbone that drives the story and come up with better way of conveying your story that are appropriate for the genera. The only games that can attest to fall under the radar are retro games and simple flash games (I mean like one button games like RUA) and that's only because these games are are locked into a method of story telling that relates to the era or are designed to be stripped down to the bear bones. Even then we can advance the method of story telling its just these types of games have other goals and areas to innovate in besides story at the moment.

Well that kind of story telling is fine, but it's the "all in the manual" story that I was talking about. I've only played the demo of Serious Sam, so maybe it does have an L4D style environmental story. I doubt it, though, since the original game came out in 2001, and was a throwback back then. Regardless, Alien Hominid and Metal Slug are true cases of "all in the manual." There may be some sort of theme between the levels, but you're reading too much into it if you want to call it a coherent story.

[sub]And RUA has two buttons, not one [/sub]

Okay, well All I'm saying is that I think games need to strive to innovate and advance the art of story telling (among other aspects) We should never be satisfied with what we have and always moving because evolution is a continuous process and think we can both agree on that, however we want the story told.

Well yes, I see nothing wrong with advancing the art, but where you and I disagree here is the notion that all games need to advance that art. Sometimes, a well executed example of the status quo -- or even a well executed throw back to an earlier era -- can still be a really good game. It's not like there aren't other developers out there advancing the medium.

 

[singlcuteguy]

Hmm... I don't know if anyone has checked out EXTRA CREDITS on the ESCAPIST, it's my fave outside of Yahtzee, and they make great arguments about the artistic merits of games, new and (recently) old games. They make some great points. What I got out of them: The thing about this 'new art' of videogames can be restated as Interactive Artistic Expression©, whereby the artist AND the player are both involved in the artistic statement. Once developers actually wrap their heads around this concept and embrace it - I believe there will be a new golden age of gaming.

Check out the EXTRA CREDITS vid here:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2545-Narrative-Mechanics

(It's about game narrative and meaning from Atari's old Missile Command arcade game)

 

[TerranReaper]

Hmm... I don't know if anyone has checked out EXTRA CREDITS on the ESCAPIST, it's my fave outside of Yahtzee, and they make great arguments about the artistic merits of games, new and (recently) old games. They make some great points. What I got out of them: The thing about this 'new art' of videogames can be restated as Interactive Artistic Expression©, whereby the artist AND the player are both involved in the artistic statement. Once developers actually wrap their heads around this concept and embrace it - I believe there will be a new golden age of gaming.

Check out the EXTRA CREDITS vid here:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2545-Narrative-Mechanics

(It's about game narrative and meaning from Atari's old Missile Command arcade game)

Yes we have, infact, I consider Extra Credits to be part of the problem that the OP is talking about. They have SOME good points, but a lot of them are either obvious or they go off on tangents that have little to do with they are saying. They try to push gaming to be art while disregarding the variety that makes gaming what it is. While they do have good points and are trying to prove something, I can't help but to say they sound really pretentious most of the time while they're talking. Another problem I have is that people constantly regurgitate what they say in their videos without actually coming up with anything on their own. Gaming can progress and "evolve", but pushing them as art is not the only way.

 

[jailbreaker]

I think all games always have been art.

Art is, in my opinion, any attempt to express an emotion. This means that bullying is an art; flirting is an art; speech is an art; intimidation is an art; game design is an art; killing is an art. The emotions one is trying to convey are, respectively: Inferiority, sexual desire, an opinion, fear, reward (usually), and... deadness.

They don't have to be art through story. In fact, they shouldn't be art just for their story. We call those games "long movies." Games should be art through both their stories and their gameplay.

 

[MaximillionMiles]

*scratches head*
I have written about the subject of artistic games and entertaining games on my blog, visible on my profile if anyone's curious, but here's the short version:

Art games and pure fun games have different aims, and tend to please different kinds of people. These two kinds of games are NOT opposites and neither will destroy the industry or each other. Variety in games is good. From "pure art" games to "pure fun" games to everything in between, they all have their audience and their place.

 

[singlcuteguy]

Hmm... I don't know if anyone has checked out EXTRA CREDITS on the ESCAPIST, it's my fave outside of Yahtzee, and they make great arguments about the artistic merits of games, new and (recently) old games. They make some great points. What I got out of them: The thing about this 'new art' of videogames can be restated as Interactive Artistic Expression©, whereby the artist AND the player are both involved in the artistic statement. Once developers actually wrap their heads around this concept and embrace it - I believe there will be a new golden age of gaming.

Check out the EXTRA CREDITS vid here:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2545-Narrative-Mechanics

(It's about game narrative and meaning from Atari's old Missile Command arcade game)

Yes we have, infact, I consider Extra Credits to be part of the problem that the OP is talking about. They have SOME good points, but a lot of them are either obvious or they go off on tangents that have little to do with they are saying. They try to push gaming to be art while disregarding the variety that makes gaming what it is. While they do have good points and are trying to prove something, I can't help but to say they sound really pretentious most of the time while they're talking. Another problem I have is that people constantly regurgitate what they say in their videos without actually coming up with anything on their own. Gaming can progress and "evolve", but pushing them as art is not the only way.

Terran,
I believe the word pretentious gets bandied about too much nowadays. If you can, look up some of Chris Crawford's views on gaming. He once believed it could be art, but has abandoned the field due to his view of the underlying mechanics betraying any 'art' which could be attempted in the medium.

My own view on the subject of 'ART' is for any medium, whether traditional, film, or gaming: Artisic merit is only accomplished if the medium is restricted. Meaning, the tighter the boundaries, the more likely the 'science' will be turned into an 'art'. Novels, sculpture, paintings, film, and television have had these moments. Gaming used to, especially in the 8-bit era where new underlying mechanics of gameplay itself drove the medium. I really believe Pac-man has much more artistic merit than something like COD, not because of the novelty of it's time but because of the impact made on both the industry and culture. I feel the same way about films - Gone With The Wind having more artistic merit than something like The Transformers.

But forgive me, I'm old and obviously hell-bent on reaching the grave much more quickly than my peers... darwinian law and all that.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

If this mindset gives us more games like Okami, Killer 7 or Shadow of the Colossus I'm willing to accept the loss of the dooms or multilayer wankfests in exchange.

Wouldn't you?


In this world we have limited resources and time so we can only play so many games, all I end up playing is that type of game anyways so this wouldn't be much different for me to be honest.

I as well grew up with sonic, thank God gaming grew up with me and now it is about more than a quick blue ball collecting rings and jumping over spiked and cutesy monsters. Games like that will still be made for the kids but us who are not kids any more should push the medium forward and not ostensibly stick with our lovely nostalgia since we'll be missing out in the end.

 

[Jumplion]

Your opinion is offensive. Not anything you've actually done.

Well....why? I'd honestly like to know, because if I'm offending anyone with what I'm saying I'd prefer not to.

 

[fdbluth]

Games are just like any medium; they're ALL art. Fun ones, arty ones, short ones, long ones, good ones, crappy ones, all of them. Art isn't talking about grittiness or realism or even a good story (although I am a proponent of "more story!" when it comes to games; but I digress). It's about value, something that the reader/viewer/player can walk away from and become inherently changed for better or worse, because of coming into contact with the medium. It's not always about Mass Effect offering situations that make your morals come into question. It's not always about Modern Warfare's grim simulation of a man crawling and dying from a nuclear blast. It can also be that feeling you get after playing any FPS games, that "FUCK YEAH I JUST SHOT A MAN IN THE HEAD FROM 50 YARDS AWAY!". It's just that feeling is fleeting and shallow. What people really ask for when they want games to be "art" is a less ethereal, deeper experience.

But then, I'm a pretentious asshole. What do I know?

 

[Nieroshai]

The same time "piss christ" was declared as unassailably art. I guess our new standard might have to be "is it good art or terrible art?"