I just don't care at this point, to be honest.

Its all too subjective to successfully label. IMO games can be "high" art.

Games are art. Period. End of discussion. Art is a product of ones imagination. No matter what it is. You could describe to me what a white painted wall looks like in your mind, and it would be art even though it isn't a physical product that I would experience.

it all depends on your definition of art. Whether or not it is going to be labeled as such will have little to no effect on the industry, so I don't care. I play games, I enjoy them, and I feel the same connection to them as I do literature or film, so I guess I would consider them to be art, but that's just because of the way a well-told game story can impact ME.

pretty excited for this its like shadows of the colossus

Games are what they are. They are a way to pass time for some, an escape for others. Everything and nothing is art. You know that piece of art that is just paint splatters...I call that cr*p not art, but everyone else calls it art. The same can be said for video games. Some will call them art, others will call them a distraction. But seriously...why are those paint splatters considered art? There is nothing art about it(Get my point?).

Everybody needs to stop trying to figure out whether games are art and just play the crap out of 'em. Does it really matter if they're considered art? Think about it. Will the answer EVER affect how you play the game? No. So shut up.

If novels like "The Great Gatsby" or "Pride and Prejudice" can be considered high art, then there's no reason why "Bioshock" or "Dragon Age: Origins" shouldn't be also.

This is really sort-of a flawed argument. Anything can be considered art if viewed through the right lens. Forks aren't generally considered art. Unless they're exceptionally interesting ones, with some kind of peculiar design or historical significance... see how that works?

I think the definition of art is at this point in time meaningless to argue over. Everyone has their own interpretation of what art is, arguing about if this is art is a never ending debate.

For me games have the potential to be the greatest medium available, because every games gives unique experiences for everyone. The industry is getting there, wait and see. Gaming has the potential to become something so special and unique, in the next few years this will be true.


People get to create their own unique stories in games, no two people play a video game the same way. Gaming as an industry can craft stories and narratives that are only possible in a video game. Portal, Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Fallout, and even Minecraft, all experiences that can only be experienced through video games.

This needs talking about because art is constitutionally protected, if one medium can be declared "not art" and therefore unprotected blah blah censorship blah blah Orwell blah blah pure evil blah plus being in the protagonist's shoes instead of an observer just makes them better.

Well, game stories are often art. But the real question is whether the key parts of games can be art. Is a really great engine a work of art? Technically speaking sure, but since you use games... he may be exactly right. Games are only art when they lean on movie and book or music and graphic style storytelling or presentation. Am I right?

There is art and there are games. Should the two co-exist peacefully? Yes. Should they combine and become one? No. Why is this? Because if people purchased games like they do art then the better games out there would cost way more than the others. I don't feel like shelling out $300 for Modern Warfare 3 just because its a fine piece of art. Games should be played, art should be looked at, and we should quit this stupid debate cause the two will never become one. Nor should they. I want to play my games not stare and them and nod my head quietly with my hand on my chin.

It really depends on what you define as art.

I would qualify video games as low art.

Hey I was in an art museum several years ago and featured in one area, prominently, was an enormous canvas, half painted yellow and half painted blue. That's it. Someone drew a line vertically down the middle of the canvas and painted half of it yellow and half of it blue. And this was hanging in an art museum next to stuff like Dali. If that stupid thing was art, then videogames are art.

I'm sorry, but stating that art is divided into a hierarchy based upon the accessibility is a flawed and very vague claim. So what is this "accessibility" he is talking about? Money? Intelligence? Is he saying a Van Gogh painting is higher art because people are too stupid to understand it? Shouldn't great art be accessible to all intelligent life to understand the artist's perspective?

What the hell IS he saying, exactly?

Why cant we just drop the subject and move on because obviously people have different opinions and we need to learn to accept that fact like it or not.

Art evokes emotion.  Paintings, music, and stories can make you feel all kinds of emotions from sadness, to joy, to awe.  They can also change the way you think.

I consider the game Flower to be art because playing it gave me a sense of calmness, anticipation, and awe that swept me along with the petals.  These are the same emotions I feel when looking at a painting or reading a good book.  And it's not just Flower.  Lots of game evoke emotion, sometimes by their stories, other times by graphics or level design.