| Bodhesatva said: Given the lengthy discussion about what "art" is in this thread, I suggest we all drop that avenue. It's a semantic dead end that will absolutely never be resolved. Instead, I think we should all say this: video games are capable of being intelligent, provocative, edifying and sophisticated. I'm not sure that makes games art, but I hope it's really those qualities we're after, not the actual "art" label. |
To a certain extent, I do agree with you.
But can you say, that in 50 years, when gaming has developed beyond what think is imaginable now. Possibly
when game designers are striving to be as far away from photorealism as possible. And anything that they
want to happen, can happen. That gaming still wouldn't be considered an art.
By then, gaming would have developed so much. There will be languages and techniques used to develop
stories and convey emotions, that other mediums wouldn't be able to use thanks to their lack of inteactvity.
Also, for gaming to be worldly recognised as an art form, it'd need recognition from the vast majority. It means
that the game industry will need to grow, as well as develop, before it can be considered an art form.
