Wonktonodi on 19 April 2010
| Metallicube said: “One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome,” Ebert said. “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.” Ebert nailed it with this quote. Games are not art.. they are GAMES. Do you call Yahtzee art? Do you call Monopoly art? I suppose you can put art INTO games, but the games themselves are NOT art. The game industry is trying too hard to be like Hollywood, and Ebert can see through this. |
So these last winter olypics when I was watching the figure skating I wasn't watching art? It has rules pooints objectives and outcomes? I don't see why art can't have those? Art is a very broad term. Just because something has a function doesn't mean it's not art. Just because the function of the game is to be played doesn't mean it can't be art.
Games can contain music. Visuals. Dialog and poetry. Stories that make you feel. I'd even say how you put it altogether is art itself.
You also seem to try and limit the definition of game. Games don't always need to have winners and loosers but about having fun. Or the experience.
