The eternal debate

I'm not a time traveller so I haven't played it

Better than 100% Jew

Nintendo themselves would never consider Mario or Zelda games art, they're designed around being toys for the largest audience. The nigger is you. Games produced with conveying a deeper experience in mind are Shin Megami Tensei, Nier Automata or New Vegas

Videogames were made to have fun
Not to push a propaganda to collect tranny moral points

games dont need to be fun, they need to be engaging

>something designed to be fun can't be art
juvenile opinion

That's not what I said. But if it's not for more than fun, then it's a toy. It's on the level of a Gundam figure.

And he's an honorary Aryan.

druck wants his game to be engaging, which is just a different kind of (saying) fun.

Time traveler here, it sucks big doo doo

Attached: 1584994513285.jpg (552x540, 36.84K)

can gameplay be art though?

When we think about a sport or a game of cards or chess, we never think of the set of rules that make the game as an artform, but everything around it can be art from how the pieces look to the way the player expresses himself while playing. I dont think videogames are much diffrent

Oh no here comes the artfags and hollywood netflix dicksuckers.

And Druckmann is 100% jew

based reggie

you both are pathetic

and white

If you don't think gameplay can be art, you just don't like or don't understand video games. Proper "art" video games always use gameplay to convey an experience to the player. Video games are very unique in that it is the only medium in which it can convey emotions through making the audience do something. And every good video game tries to exploit the feeling of being made to do something yourself. Bloodborne is fantastic and exciting because of the experience of being in the brutal fights with the beasts and other abominations leaves a huge impression, it's the act of playing that makes the game, nothing else. Being forced to make a really difficult and far-reaching decision that you are not completely happy with yourself is what makes an SMT game. It's the moments where you feel like you are doing these things, where you reflect upon your actions within the game and what you are doing that games are at their best, and gameplay is the vehicle for that.

Games in which the gameplay feels like an obstacle to get to the good stuff are awful. Like Final Fantasy XIII and Witcher 3

A game should be fun first and foremost, engaging gameplay should be the most important. Gameplay could be combat, interaction with characters, platforming ect. I think that's the biggest difference between the medium of film and video games, whilst films could be created to convey a number of different things, such as information through documentaries, or some other deep underlying moral questions which make the audience ponder, pure entertainment isn't always the most important aspect of film, in-fact some films like holocaust films are designed to be difficult to watch and not entertaining, but horrifying and thought provoking. However with video games, the definition of the medium requires gameplay, and for this game to be considered "good", this gameplay should ideally be engaging and entertaining, film does not have this constraint. So ultimately, if the video game does not achieve "fun" and entertaining gameplay, it fails at one of the most fundamental aspects of a video game.

Attached: Untitled.png (340x331, 68.65K)

Half of this thread is the age old debate about games as art, the other half is the age old bitching about niggers. Jesus Zig Forums Marilyn Manson was right, it's all been said and done before.

Attached: 1590081084060m.jpg (1024x768, 141.76K)

>its another pretentious edgy difficult action game/from software fanboy

your taste isnt better than interactive movie bitches

something can be engaging but not exactly fun

Holocaust movies and the like are fun in their own way, even if people don't admit it. There is a thrill in seeing horrifiyng things or being forced to endure difficult things, and plenty of video games do that as well, and they are also "fun" in their own way by doing that. A game can use gameplay to portray something horrifying in a satisfying way, like killing a friend or beloved character.

yeah like being raped into the ass by a 10 foot tall nigger

>SMT, Automata, NV
First week on Zig Forums?

> i only play kiddie nintendo games or multiplayer with friends and am for some reason mad at people who enjoy other things

literally subhuman. i also enjoy silly and simple games they just don't leave me with a huge impression and a thirst for more like more artful or demanding games most of the time. (but there are exceptions)

I chose them because they are popular dumbass. Why would I choose something controversial and get (you)'d over them? I guess you get you'd on this board regardless of what you do

No, it's a fairly basic piece of art that serves as a vessel for excellent gameplay.

>what's wrong with gaming
He said, having only been alive 18 years tops

Reggie is right but Nintendo games at the time were not fun making him an hypocrite

nihil sub sole novum

510555147
Yeah my (you) rates are higher than most. Dumb niggers won't stop taking east bait, just like (you).

If he doesnt act like a nigger, why bother?

You could've chosen something correct

Like?

How can one nigga be so based?

Can't people find games that aren't designed to be fun actually fun? People seem to really like Dark Souls afterall.

Attached: 1587763771895.jpg (720x657, 70.81K)

I agree with some of this.
The part I take away that I agree with is that films and games are different and as such they are each better at different things. Games should not be trying to simply be interactive films; a totally valid criticism of gameplay elements that make this so, from QTEs to most of the narrative being told with cutscenes, still applies to games trying to be like films. That criticism doesn't disappear just because a game's producer decided gameplay wasn't important.

Where I disagree is on there being some hard-set limitation on what games should be. To say that films do some things better than games and vice-versa is to point out a fact; it's purely organic that the differences in the medium create different strengths and weaknesses. No one is arbitrarily deciding that games belong in one box and movies in another. Nor should they: games should explore every possible avenue for development and creativity. The problem is even the best games that pretend to be films gain the limitations of films whilst having few of the strengths of games.

What debate? Reggie got fired and Neil's still VP of ND.

Attached: DXYj6tnVAAAjwvE.jpg (397x366, 48.55K)

ok but all of that is aided by everything that is sorrounding the gameplay that can be art. Music, writing, character design, world bulding etc. if you stripped bloodborne from everything except its gameplay would you say its still artistic?

what i dont get is what about the gameplay in chess and the gameplay in a mario game makes one more of an artform than the other?

A videogame can be art, but the gameplay itself cant

can you please stop obsessing about my people please, its weird and we are going through a really tough time right now

thanks

gunpla fags would say that they're art though