What video-games do you consider to be art?

I killed your mom to provoke an emotion so that was art
ok retard

None

Most games are created for commericial purposes, not to inspire emotion. Note that in the context of your post, the urge to consoom is not an emotion.

None. It's like calling the national enquirer a well respected fact based publicist. While it may pretend it's journalism like games pretend they are art it comes no where close. I would argue that art as a medium of expression is all but dead. The masters have been replaced by charlatans and sophisticated money laundering schemes for the ultra wealthy. The only real talent that lives today are the people who are tasked with maintaining, cleaning and restoring old pieces of art for museums and collections. They have the care and touch of the masters but exert all their energy in preserving history.

None have come close to reaching the peaks of other mediums. The only one I think comes even somewhat close is Pathologic.

Why is that definition so difficult for you?

>Most games are created for commericial purposes, not to inspire emotion.
Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

They are exclusive. While you can sell art, if you created it for the purpose of selling it, it isn't art.

All of them. Everything made with creative intent is Art.
Art is not defined by quality.
>Old thing good, new thing bad

The difference being that the emotion games are trying to tap into increasingly is fanaticism by virtue of validating the players preconceived notions about the world. Often in the view that the player is somehow a victim or being acted against. Art however covers the full gamut and tries to explore the human condition.

>mom jokes
Takes me back to when I was in school... I miss school.

I can't believe people insist on it being anything else. Art itself is subjective but the definition is not. It takes a true micro-mind to say something "isn't art".

Old thing was created by masters. New thing is some schmuck making obtuse and disjointed shapes or splashes of color or some ugly ironic piece. They are only considered art because a wealthy person will secure the piece for a hefty price and sit on it for years before finally donating it to a museum for a massive tax break due to the inflated price paid. They end up making money in the end while shit is peddled as roses.

>if you created it for the purpose of selling it, it isn't art.
By that definition, the Sistine chapel isn't art.

Attached: Sistine-Chapel.jpg (780x516, 126.42K)

>The difference being that the emotion games are trying to tap into increasingly is fanaticism by virtue of validating the players preconceived notions about the world.
That's a whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooole lotta strawman right there.

It's not dead, it's just been claimed by the proletariat. "High Art" is just a meme to exclude the lower classes from artistic endeavors by dismissing their work as lowbrow trash.

That's funny cause the only thing I see worth a damn these days come from the "lower classes". I buy prints from all sorts of interesting people. Who do it in their spare time.

Being commissioned to create art is not the same as creating art to lure a customer into purchasing it. In the former case, the transaction is complete before the creative process has begun.

the stanley parableis art, for me at least.

And super deepthroat.

Attached: 1343030184799.jpg (594x817, 241.72K)

You know people *are* commissioned to create art for video games, right? The transaction is complete before the disc is sold to you.

Sure is a strawman when almost every major studio is churning out woke fodder for people who play a few hours and feel smug for supporting them before going on some diatribe about how deep it was.

Keep piling it on

Most "art" is created for commercial purposes.

"Art for art" is an idealistic and outdated concept.

All of it is art, but there's art that's good and art that's shit based on its merits

Attached: 1592670062061.jpg (1920x1560, 382.36K)

If there were a perfect definition of art that included video games, I would redefine it to exclude video games as a special case.

Art being IN a video game doesn't make the game itself art. By that logic, Animal Crossing would be art just because the Mona Lisa is in it.

Fair.
But Animal Crossing *is* art.

I don’t disagree entirely but you must have an extremely narrow range of media in mind if you think nothing has been made for artistic purposes more than financial purposes.
Do you really think that James Joyce or somebody like that was writing for the same reasons as Stephanie Meyer?

99.9% of all art is created for the purpose of being sold, you mong. Go to an art gallery some time. Not an art museum, a gallery. They're different. You know how they're different? Gallery pieces have fucking price tags on them.

Art is inherently idealistic.

Just because someone put it in a gallery does not make it art.