Quote:
Originally Posted by Mesden
See, this is why I made that chess analogy. Playing or not playing the game isn't relevant to his point. He just chose something inherent to all games (not just video games) and said that that quality, the one the makes them games, differences them from art. If that's his opinion then he doesn't have to play the game. That it is called a game is a justification for his reasoning (which isn't horrible, mind you, but very easy to disagree with).
|
It's not legitimate, however, because no one is claiming that a simple game such as chess, checkers, solitaire, poker, etc. is art. They are JUST a game and nothing else. I know I don't have to actually explain the differences to any of the members here, so I won't do so in detail.
The point, however, is that many video games make socio-political points, express ideas, exist to create beauty, etc. etc. all those things which the art community defines as the actual purpose of art.
If he had done some cursory research he'd know these things are inherent to art and that there are no things which EXCLUDE something from being art. There for he would not be making ignorant definitions of art.
If he had played some games he'd know that video games include those things and therefore not have removed them from the purview of art/artistic endeavor.
As that he's done NEITHER he can have no legitimate point.
Much as if he did a movie review and admitted half way through that he had never seen the movie but the trailers are pretty shit, no one would accept it, no one should, either, accept his ideas on video games vis a vis art, until he has educated himself on both matters.
He's, frankly, not worth the time.
Adam Sessler was because he has some idea of what he's talking about for at least HALF of the equation.