Games are not art

I disagree. Even a single game of chess can be a work of art that is studied for years, let alone the entirety of chess. You have no understanding of anything.

they are not directly competing with either, and the fact that you think they are shows a complete misunderstanding of what games even aim to be in the first place.

Surprisingly not wanky and self indulgent for Kojima. Pretty sharp observation.

>Even a single game of chess can be a work of art that is studied for years, let alone the entirety of chess

So can a game of football, or a mathematical equation, doesn't mean it's art.

That's such a brainless take. The entire point of games is interactivity with the world, not whatever textures you put in your collisions. It's the mechanics that matter, not what the game looks and sounds like.

I'm not surprised that hideo "wanna be movie director" kojima thinks that though, his games are glorified shitty movies.

so what you are saying is that video games are like chess, a sport?

putting up arbitrary boundaries and limiting what classifies as art in such a restrictive manner is, ironically, contrary to the core concept of art.

If you're so confident in including and excluding what is and isn't art, let's hear your definition for it.

No one cares except insecure manchildren.

You're the one with the brainless take here, his point was that the interactivity of video games make it hard to control what exactly the player will experience and when, which is a fundamental part of art. It has nothing to do with mechanics or cutscenes.

>It's the mechanics that matter, not what the game looks and sounds like.
How can a game be pure mechanics, you retard? Are you going to play by looking at numbers on the screen like in The Matrix?
To make the intermediation between what happens in the game and the player you need art.

and his point is ridiculous. Interactivity is the main aspect of videogames and what makes them unique, it is not detrimental to a game being art, it is what makes them art.

>the interactivity of video games make it hard to control what exactly the player will experience and when, which is a fundamental part of art.
This is absolutely incorrect and just proves you know nothing about art. The interpretation of art is entirely subjective, the way that different people experience art differently is actually fundamental to it and you are claiming the exact opposite. Even when looking a painting or listening to music, different people will interpret it differently.

you need them, but they are not the main point, you absolute fucking mongoloid.

As for what you're looking at, how about randomly generated abstract shapes that you then have to place? Tetris is an ingenious game and undeniability a work of art.

>putting up arbitrary boundaries and limiting what classifies as art in such a restrictive manner is, ironically, contrary to the core concept of art.
If everything is art, then nothing is.

>If you're so confident in including and excluding what is and isn't art, let's hear your definition for it.
A controlled and curated experience that presents a particular creation of the artist. Games are inherently anti-art by ultimately being something the player is a participant in. Playing a piece of music can be art, giving somebody a piano lesson isn't.

>Interactivity is the main aspect of videogames and what makes them unique, it is not detrimental to a game being art, it is what makes them art.
Sports are just as interactive as video games, but that doesn't make them art.

...It should be noted that this is true, but it’s insecure manchildren that want games to be considered and accepted as “art” by society, so they can act like their hobby of playing with children’s toys isn’t something to be embarrassed by.

Stop making open world games then. Linear games exist.

lmao what a load of horseshit. "Controlled and curated", I dare you to find any definition of art ANYWHERE that includes that absurd limitaiton.

As for you little music analogy, it's funny you should bring it up, and I can already tell you have never actually played music in any capacity. Classical music, for example, despite being written down on a sheet, is entirely open to interpretation. The same piece will be played wildly different depending on the artist, and that's what will make them better or worse, their interpretation of it. It's why people enjoy listening to actual musicians play, and not computers.

By your very definition, playing music cannot be art, because you will inevitably participate in playing it and change from the original intent.

He said this back in 2006.

The thing about art is that it is much more easily defined in the positive rather than in the negative
That is it is easier to say what is art than to say what isn't
This is because art in itself has a positive connotation
To say something is "art" is really just to say "I believe this has worth"
This inevitably creates a situation where the burden of proof is weighted towards the claims that something is not art

But then you realize that in this situation games are the other way around
What is and isn't a game is generally not a point of debate as there is clear and indisputable logic here
To call something a game typically has a certain sort of negative connotation

So you can probably see this is where all of the controversy really arises from
One could say this question is easily reconciled by considering that these two concepts have an imbalance at least in public perception
If "art" was regarded less highly and "games" were regarded more highly everything would even out

Some of the most complex and pure “game” games, like Dwarf Fortress, Nethack are almost literally like looking at Matrix code.
Tetris isn’t much more complex than looking at code either, and could in fact be rendered with ascii art.