next »

[Kreed]

A question that's tossed around frequently is "Are games art?" While that's a challenging and interesting question, I think a large part of the misunderstandings may be due not only to an indefinite definition of art, but also of what qualifies as a game.

The label of "game" is slapped on anything that can be played, which is understandable. Games are played. However, not everything that can be played with is a game. Toys aren't necessarily games, genitals aren't really games, so can't it then be concluded that maybe some software can be considered a toy rather than a game? There are games that identify themselves as toys.

A professional painter, (fiction) writer, or music artist can't gauge what's "marketable" any more than dry wood can touch a fire without igniting. On the other hand, the majority of dominant game companies don't design games based upon what's creative or different, but rather what sells best. Are their productions still art? I wouldn't dare argue against the status of games like Flower or Passage being extremely artistic, and it seems to me that the biggest issue in the debate is that we're lumping them together in the same category without caring to look at their gigantic differences.

[Paul Eres]

you defined game but not art

[_Madk]

Is art games? Because if not, then it can fuck off.

[LemonScented]

Is art games? Because if not, then it can fuck off.

This.

Also, my genitals are both a game and a work of art.

On a less flippant note, I don't think there's any single universally agreed-upon definition of game, and there certainly isn't one for art. I don't think there ever will be, for either of them. The best attempt I've seen to come up with a series of different definitions that go some way towards a coherent whole is probaly the book "Rules of Play - Game Design Fundamentals":
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=9802

It's quite a big book, but it sort of covers the tip of the iceberg at least.

[moi]

Sorry dude, we have reached our quota of lolthreads at the moment, come back later.
Thanks for trying anyway

[bateleur]

A professional painter, (fiction) writer, or music artist can't gauge what's "marketable"

From which I deduce that you know few-to-no people who work in any of these fields.

The word for a fiction writer who doesn't know what's marketable isn't "professional" it's "unemployed".

[C.A. Sinner]

Games are what people play, that's why they're called games. And people play them because they're games and thus meant to be played. That's because the verb "to play" goes along with the noun "game". Hence "play" is what you normally do with a game, the intended use so to speak. But can't a musical instrument be played as well? Why isn't that a game? Because an instrument isn't a game and the verb "to play" means something else in the context of an instrument. However, playing an instrument can be part of a game, but that means you're playing a game by playing an instrument, playing an instrument is in itself not a game.