[General Discussion] Games as Art

Number one deserves a great big hahahahahahahaaha, even if already mentioned to be completely bullshit. That's absolute bull, even for IGN.

Hell, most of the games are bullshit. Art has always been about creativity, not about who has the most money to fling around and make things look pretty. Just about every game on their had a rather large budget for its time.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Don't give me that hair-splitting shit because I chose to say "almost all" instead of "the majority". Shadow of the Colossus and Okami are a mite bit of a stretch for that list of yours. Out of this World I have no numbers to back up, but you're automatically counting because of how aged it looks today. IGN seems to think it was quite stunning for its time, so one has to wonder how not-well-funded you'd have me believe:

Quote:

Out of This World boasted some of the most realistic character animations ever witnessed.

Anyway, I happen to like a good few of those games. Creative? Sure. But do I consider them art? No.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by SouthJag

In any case, not to call you out GB, but something you said struck me. You'd call games creative, and I'd venture that you'd say the same about art. So if games are creative and art is creative, what's the difference?

Not all art is creative, and not all that is creative is art. For example, I think Jackson Pollock was a complete hack. And I also happen to think the slinky is creative.

There's art, and then there's mediums. That's what Ebert was trying to explain.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.