One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.
At this point, it became bluntly obvious to me that the man probably has not played, or even touched, a video game since the likes of Pong. This whole point of his is flatter then 3 week old open soda. Is he insisting that a video game can't be art because you can win it? That a video game absolutely cannot be a representation of a story, and that only novels, plays, and films can? My bias senses are tingling!
Video games simply aren't made like that anymore, I'm sure you guys know this as well as I do. There are some truly gorgeous and even inspiring video games out there, like the Metal Gear Solid series or Tales of Symphonia, for example. Of course, you won't find those, or any other highly acclaimed, examples in his article. Instead, we get three games that are poorly chosen at best (although that's the defender's fault on that part) and the best part is he doesn't actually experience them as they should; they should be played, not watched.
I wouldn't have as much of a problem with this article had he simply said "In my opinion, video games can't be art" or "Not all video games should be considered art," but no, he completely dismisses the whole medium as "unable to be art" as if it's fact. He reminds me of a bitter old man who still insists that the Beatles isn't music; that rock and roll music is still the work of the devil or something.
_________________ The Local Video Gaming Lunatic
Recent stuff I'm into:
Watching: A Certain Scientific Railgun (ep.14, stalled), Hoshi no Kirby (ep. 71, stalled), Nazo No Kanojo X (ep. 8), Acchi Kocchi (ep. 8)
Reading: nothing
Search Forum
Member List
Chat
Control Panel
Private Messages
Register
Log in
