famousringo said:
Then I'd say Del Toro's mistake and your own is that you don't think good game design is an art. You just see it as a vector for storytelling, which would seem to be the narrow definition of art that you accept. Super Mario Bros. has reached so many millions of people and become a monolithic cultural artifact, but you don't think it's art? A game doesn't need an elborate story or a sympathetic character to express the ideas of its creator(s). Architecture and many paintings manage to be art without epic stories or sympathetic characters. Nobody seems to have trouble accepting that. |
Super Mario Bros. is a great game - but I don't see what I see looking at a painting or looking at an amazing building (or ICO). I see a great game with zero meaning other than the fun you have playing it. For me Art has to convey something - and it might just be me (although I know its not) but Super Mario Bros. is a great game but nothing more. Now I've seen art featuring Mario character - but the game itself? No. Not by my definition of art.
Also, don't mix up a cultural artifact with a piece of art. Batman is a cultural artifact, but you still have to create a piece of art featuring him to actually have something to regard.
And no - I don't think good game design is art anymore than I think the rules of Tennis is art. A game of Tennis could be Art, as could a game of chess, etc. But it would be a combination of the players, the event and what they create, not the game itself.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...