“Santiago might cite a [sic] immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.”
That quote just makes it a matter of semantics. If I am playing it on my wii, DS, or PS3 ect, I call it a "videogame". I cannot win Noby Noby Boy. Does it cease to be a videogame, and become something else? You could call it whatever you want, the populous at large will still call it a videogame. And if Noby Noby Boy is "art" and "Mario Galaxy" is a game with a thousand shades of gray in between, what do I care of the semantics? I'm still holding a controller, interacting with the representations on screen.
I do not think videogames HAVE to be art or that I am deeply concerned on whether or not they are. It's a matter of saying that if a person is able to interact with it, it can still have self expression, and a message, and be considered "art". Whether or not modern games are "art" is a different discussion as to whether or not they can "be" art.
You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.
