Article: Hating on the casuals

[Bodhesatva]

As another note, I'd like to take a moment to discuss how the "games as art" dialogue has evolved.

While there is also a legitimate discussion to be had on the topic, I've long suspected that "games as art" was a psychological defense, much the way Rockstar Games applied it with their PS2 GTA games. Do people disapprove of the games you play (or make?) It's art, you can't criticize it. The same basic principle has been applied here: games like Metal Gear, Final Fantasy and Bioshock (single player, story driven experiences) are no longer driving the industry. They aren't as popular, either, compared to games like Halo, Wii Sports, Call of Duty 4, and Animal Crossing.

So if one were a lover of such single player, story driven games, how would one convince themselves that their games of choice are factually better, even if they are no longer as popular? You'd say that the games you like are art and therefore are above the rabble, regardless of sales and regardless of how popular or unpopular they may be.

I'm not saying everyone uses this defensive mechanism, nor am I saying it applies to all games. But just look at the dialogue here -- just look! We've gone from asking "can games be art?" just a few months ago to using the phrase "artistic games" as if obviously these games are art. The whole discussion has just been swept aside, and I suspect this defensive mechanic will become more and more empassioned as these types of games become more and more marginalized.

We will quickly move from "are games art?" to "games are art" to "games are art, and specifically the games I like are art" to "because the games I like are art, and the games you like are not, it does not matter how much your games sell because my games are better."

I'll submit once again that the most "artistic" games I've ever played are Chess and Go, and both of those games are multiplayer and have no story whatsoever.