Sionnach Glic wrote:Again, I'd argue that the same could be said of many modern day movies. I certainly don't recall any deep philosphical subtexts in 300 or Transformers 2, for example.
stitch626 wrote:Difference from vid games and sports: video games must be created and produced by someone, and thought up in a creative process. Sports require no more creative process than eating... IMO of course.
Captain Seafort wrote:So's this:
Indeed, it's considerably more expressive than a blank wall
just because a person isn't "skilled" doesn't mean they can't make art.
Yes it does.
Fair enough, amend the first requirement to invoking an emotional reaction by visual means.
-that something must be something that one experiences through their senses, but that they do not actively participate in.
stitch626 wrote:I consider cars and planes and boats to be works of art too... maybe there is something wrong with me.
the protagonist has a health bar
Sionnach Glic wrote:Well, since two people now have brought it up, I'll challenge it. Why does something stop becoming art when it becomes interactive?
I think most people here would agree that movies are a form of art, yet for a number of games the only real difference between it being a video game and a movie is that the protagonist has a health bar. So why does it cease being art the moment the viewer gets to take part?
Sionnach Glic wrote:Aye, I know that's what the common perception is. I'm asking people here who think it to explain why.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest