Are gamers the reason video games aren't considered art?

>make a shitty 2d pixel art game with nothing original about it
>no one buys it
>OMG why don't toxic gamers appreciate my genius?!?! Gamers are too immature to appreciate art.

Because those devs have overinflated egos. They think they're hot shit but in reality they are mediocre a best. So they blame the players for not understanding their artistic vision instead of admiting they suck at making good video games.

>Art is important
laugh out loud

>it's another zoomer using "2D" and "pixel art" as pejoratives

>'artists' make bad games and blame it on players
Then is there any non-artsy developers that make good games that also are more than entertainment?
Or is art at odds with entertainment?

Attached: ichigo.jpg (550x552, 45.63K)

Bloodborne is art, you can't prove me wrong.

No, we just like subverting their expectations.

Anyone who goes into gamedev with the intention of "making art" is a fart-huffing pretentious git who can only make mediocre-to-shit games, but they think wrapping it up in some 3deep5u narrative makes it a revolutionary masterpiece. Anyone whose worldview isn't rocked to the core by the sheer magnitude of their genius is written off as as a stupid pleb, and since the game is mediocre-to-shit, that's how most people react. Thus, the dev's response is "ugh gamers are so stupid and undeserving of my talents."

Valve single player games.

I hope videogames never become considered as art whether they are or not. The amount of pretentious fags who will cling to any 'art' and the platform, not to mention the fags who just want to push an agenda is bullshit. Games can be considered toys forever for all I care.

Something isn't Art if it was made with the intention to be Art. It's just a product. It might be a product that does what it was produced for well, but it's just a product.

Attached: 1578147582288.png (557x633, 521.87K)

They do not understand the medium.

Definitions of that kind are purely pushed and supported by the media of the medium itself..

Because they make boring games.
The book equivalent of a walking sim is just a book where most of the pages are blank. The movie equivalent would be most of the movie being blank.

Walking sim creators tear out all puzzles, adventure and action and replace them with nothing. They're not clever or insightful for doing it.

>Or is art at odds with entertainment?

No, not inherently. It's simply because video games are an interactive medium, and are typcially judged in two different ways: "Gameplay" and "Everything else."

This reminds me of that one Rayman advertisement.

Define "Art"

/thread

Attached: 90841720489127348917234098137981.jpg (680x383, 48.39K)

This. All Art the Product is these days is a way to shield the rest of the product from criticism. You can't call it garbage, YOU just don't get it.

How the fuck can anything be emotionally invocative if it's created with such a phoney, self-serving intent?

Attached: 1452465141562.jpg (350x277, 17.03K)

You are the type of gamer art devs are talking about when they say gamers are too immature for art.

Games are considered art by the industry as soon as they authors put communist allegories in them.
>life is strange
>undertale
>disco Elysium

Is this the same guy that did some Venetian Snares cover art?

Attached: a2139366688_5.jpg (700x700, 60.09K)

I don't give a shit about your philosophical meaning or deeper intentions. If a game isn't fun it's not worth shit. It could have the greatest story in the world but I don't fucking care.

Didn't this artist make the artwork for some Venetian Snares album?

YOLK'd

>Right wing art
Cringe.

Video games aren't considered art though.

youtube.com/watch?v=xSXofLK5hFQ

And you are a faggot

Some of my favorite games are deep, user. But they're not pretentious.
Planscape: Torment is one, off the top of my head.

Video games aren't art, they are games

They have rules, mechanics, goals, objectives. Art has none of this

Art has no meaning except itself, you making your own meaning to it

Just cause a guy drew a design on a soccer jersey that doesn't make soccer art now

>political art
CRINGE

Miss me with that gay shit senator-pai

idk, would that guy's name be Trevor Brown?

Attached: drinkme.jpg (564x700, 31.47K)

>that make art
Maybe they should stop making art that looks like shit? See here's the thing. If you expect to get money from something you made, it's a product. If the userbase thinks your "high quality" art that's really just flipping a couple assets off an asset store and a generic story so poorly executed it's just plain shit isn't worth $20 you need to grow the fuck up.
Gamers aren't "too immature" for a piece of "art' that spends more time beating the entire plot over the player's head than it does the player moving through an empty ass environment. That's not art, that's shit. That's not mature, that's boring. These "game developers" need to refer to rule 1 and rule 2
>Rule 1: Get over yourself
>Rule 2: No really, get over yourself.

Anything can be art. Now fuck off.

Because vocal developers who are driven to make art in video games are usually abysmally talentless hacks who suffer from extreme dunning kruger delusions and believe that their work is outstanding and refined when in reality it is artless, derivative and insulting to the intelligence of their audience. More so, the relatively "plebeian" and artistically ignorant perspectives of gamers actually often work in the favour of these sorts of hacks, since works would be instantly disregarded as low quality, pretentious, unoriginal etc. in other mediums get a pass or even praise from gamers since the bar is so low in the video game medium. Even broad appeal, middle brow stuff like the The order, the bioshock series, david cage's drek, any given walking sim etc. would be laughed out of film or literature as juvenile, crass, pretentious, derivative etc. but in the realm of games that sort of trash can become highly regarded for its writing and themes.
People will call out that soiboy rpg or the tale of tales guys, but to me the best example of how deluded these sorts of people are will always be the guy who wrote Farcry 3 and then went ballistic when people criticized his idiotic narrative and inane themes, contending that gamers were just too stupid to understand the artistic merit of the story as evidenced by the fact that nobody got that Rook island was a play on words about theft and pirates.

The reality is that "art" game devs are lucky that standards are so low in gaming right now.

Attached: remeber this.jpg (474x330, 23.29K)

walking sims have no rules or goals. Are they art?

Yes, actually.
This is now the thread theme.
youtube.com/watch?v=HiwBUIZI-Ps

Attached: Capture.png (385x39, 1.87K)

im glad videogames are not considered art, because, Have you fucking seen modern art nowadays?
its a joke.

They do have goals, walk to the next area

Next.

>right wing art
I think most traditional art was produced under a monarchy. But traditional art has value because it has history and prestige behind it. Take a walk through the met and look at art from antiquity or the medieval ages. Then compare this to anything post Goya, could look at something like the moma to see literally if there is any sort of communistic allegory behind the work it is blindly celebrated.

videogames as art would be a good thing

because art would be fucking saved then

Don't care what any of you say, but Mother 3 stands out to me by showing the death of innocence. Even if it was done in such a simple way, that doesn't matter. You don't need to convolute everything.

Just watching Tazmily die little by little, this caring community becoming self-absorbed and chasing after things they never needed until someone told them they did.

>walking sims have no rules or goals

nice

Attached: nano02a.jpg (468x556, 21.32K)

Nu-artists are 95% trash, and the remaining 5% doesn't get apreciated

in that case books have goals - turning pages. Painting also have goals - looking and noticing all the detail
retard

videogames have been art since their inception, and at the very least, since 1993
people will disagree but art is also a near meaningless term. all games are art, some are just bad art
using art as a way to denote something has quality or merit is for pretentious fags
the definition of art, whatever it is, will inevitably include things you don't like. something may be bad, but it's still a piece of art

you can make a game with no goal or objective, people have
is minecraft art? I'd say it is but I'd also say DOOM is art
also there's no rules in making art but that doesn't mean the art itself can't have rules

Both sides are full of shit.
The average consumer is too simple to care about the nuances in their product.
The average "artistic" developer is too pretentious to create a product with nuance.
Fortunately there's a lot of middle ground between these two that can be filled with simply good games.

I don't think you'll find many people denying that games can feature narrative complexity. It only becomes the shit we're bitching about when any criticism of its execution only meets with
>UGH well the stupid unwashed gamer masses don't get it maaaaan I guess the world isn't really for my genius oh woe is me

Attached: pig.jpg (666x667, 50.57K)

or it videogames would be dragged down even further, and in this timeline, everyrhing gets to become even worse each day that passes, i personally blame the jews and normalization of social networks and fucking smartphones in general.

Art takes skill as far as i know.

Thats not a goal, good try

>you can make a game with no goal or objective, people have
>is minecraft art?

It has a goal, go to ender zone and kill dragon

Also has rules and mechanics, you dont need to meet every last criteria

HUMP'D
>you had one job tard

Attached: 1585089438175.jpg (572x720, 24.89K)

fpbp /thread etc