I guess it depends what the intentions of the game maker(s) was (besides just selling as many copies as possible). If the idea is to make the next competitive online Counterstrike game, maybe at least the intention of the developer was not to make a piece of art. But if the developer wanted to make an interactive media journey that the viewer takes part to, why not, I can consider it as a piece of art.

That's the distinction that I make in my mind already now: many (competitive and challenging) games are more like sports (especially online multiplayer games), while others are more like pieces of art that I'm just supposed to admire as I wade through them, and/or make you think. Prime freeware examples of the latter that I've "played" lately: "The Stanley Parable" and "The Cat and the Coup".

http://www.moddb.com/mods/the-stanley-parable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cat_and_the_Coup

Maybe I agree a bit with you that concentrating on the artistic values (e.g. storytelling, music etc.?) may affect the gameplay part negatively, e.g. by making the game more linear. I'm generally not the biggest fan of games trying to be like movies (that includes Wing Commander 3-4), but I don't oppose games having good music and gripping stories, where applicable.

"Better" and "greater work of art"? Those are nice cans of worms you've got there.

"Better" is deeply subjective and the "greatness" of a work of art is more or less determined by canon, which you can also feel free to disagree with. And better still, you can appreciate something is a great work of art while admitting it doesn't really do anything for you. To give an example, The Day of the Triffids is to me a better book than To the Lighthouse. I appreciate Woolf's writing, and I do believe her to be a very skilled artist, but it's not exactly my choice of literature.

There are no hard answers in the soft sciences, you know.
I'm actually pretty sure that when you call everything art, then everything is art. Logic tends to kind of work like that.

Oh, I'm just saying that games, unlike other media, are necessarily interactive, and that's the one thing that makes them different. I think that, if one claimes that games aren't art, one has to focus on the interactivity, since the necessity of which is the only thing that makes them unique. I

You could, and that's a perfectly fine argument in my opinion.

The little I've seen in actual art studios, interactive works of art are not that uncommon anymore. In certain piece the viewer was supposed to be part of the art, ie. go in the middle of the spectacle before anything happened.

Interactivity doesn't automatically make them games though. I personally feel games should have some kind of obstacles and an object, so a piece of art which you just wade through by clicking a mouse every five seconds is not necessarily a game. The distinction is not clear and certainly there is a grey area.

I'm not sure if I consider e.g. Portal (1986) a game, or only an interactive novel. The "obstacle" in it is merely able to locate the next blinking icon or link where to activate another part of the story (or another link), so the gameplay part is quite minimized, but still there I guess.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/portal

You don't personally know any artists, do you?

No. When everybody's rich then nobody's rich.

Terms like "art" "rich" etc always mean something EXTRAORIDINARY. At least in my language.

Artistic theory gives some answers though - however its a very under studied area even in some artistic subjects. Many don't go beyond the "rule of thirds"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5n6iT2AqrI

**YES that is Donald Duck - now sush and watch it because its proper facts**

(I'm serious!)

It seems to me like art isn't well defined. We need some guy to come up with an axiomatic system for art. Maybe we could set up a list of things that are art or artistic actions, and then define the rest recursively, like "pictures of cats are art" and "adding sound effects to stuff is an artistic action", and there's like a rule that using artistic actions on art makes art, so "pictures of cats with sound effects added to 'em are art". :p

I don't think he's serious -- I mean he can't be - not in a modern commerce driven world - unless he intends all artists to starve upon the streets.

You probably know plenty, because everybody wrote a poem once or twice in their lives, LOL

please stop with ad hominem, because everytime I see this I see this forum goes to shit pretty fast.
FREE, motherfucker, as , LIBERTY, you know? Not the price. Learn how to read.

Now shut up if you don't have anything to say

Whatever you say, chief.

Does that not leave very little left? Art = uniqueness? If an artist sells his work he is no longer an artist?

All films, music, photography (games) etc. today is design for mass production, every artist I can think of really wants a big an audience as possible - is a musician or film maker an artist only as long as no-one buys their work, if it is successful and reprinted does it somehow stops being art?

Edit- or is art whatever hangs in a museum?

Bazilisek, You love responding to the text that is not directed to you, don't you?
No.

If somebody paints the painting from the scratch to sell it to as much people as possible, then it's not an art, because he is limiting himself. The art should describe what you think, feel, etc in the first place, not what your receiver would like to watch.

And no, not all movies are made for mass production. Many movies are showed only once on movies festivals, many are independent.

What I mean - if you do something extraoridinary and then everybody wants to buy it - good for you! But if you design something to suit the masses, you will never do anything extraoridinary, because tastes of the masses are oridinary.

Also, art in my definition should be universal. The impact, the feelings, etc about that piece should stay the same through ages.

This was totally uncalled for ... It's a public debate, everybody can answer to everybody in this thread. If people want to talk privately , there are PM's for that.

Please, be respectful toward others, otherwise the whole thread is useless, as Art appreciation comes after the primal necessity of respecting others.

PS: not talking especially about you keeveek.

Great artists who are also good with business (The two don't oft go together) develop their art and market it wide to the point where their services are wanted by those "with the money" and they are paid specifically for their creative ability.

You don't see this AS much with game design because its not primarily an art driven market; but go hire a photographer (as an example) and its not degrees people look at as criteria; its the portfolio (ie the artists creative vision) that is consulted.
True they might have to be slightly limited creatively in some cases, but within the confines of their area of work they'll show and display and sell their artistic vision