Magical Sailor Fuku

Ok i know this is sort of off topic and if it is im sorry.
But do you concider videogames a artform in some respects?
Again im new i dont know if this belongs here and if it is im so sorry.
I do concider videogames a true form of art because something that can show true human emotion like a videogame can be concidered art.
I mean if i made a game i would show my emotions in it but thats just me anyone else agree or disagree?

they should be treated as any other medium is. They can be used to convey ideas, or people can use games to just waste time. In itself, videogames aren't any more or less than a canvas or an empty page.

Aaron wrote:they should be treated as any other medium is. They can be used to convey ideas, or people can use games to just waste time. In itself, videogames aren't any more or less than a canvas or an empty page.

That is exactly what a videogame is a empty canvas anything is possible in the videogame world just as it is in hand drawn art or movies.
I never could draw anything but my ideas are there and i would love nothing more than let my ideas to be seen by a world wide crowd.

I would have to say no, seeing as video games are mainly released with the intention of turning a profit.

Zeph wrote:I would have to say no, seeing as video games are mainly released with the intention of turning a profit.

What about independent devlopers?
They sometimes dont even have a publisher but they have there ideas put into videogames.
Dont look at people like Ea or Square enix look at them when you think of this.

I think that I would like to think that most people do things mostly because they want to. Yes they have to live to make the games an such. When you ask this question you must ask yourself, what really makes art? Is it something you do for free or is it something that you make a living at?

Profit doens't make something less of an art.

Building a business is considered an art by some, depending on how you go about it.

If you don't give a #$#$, then it's not an art.

But if you try to create aesthetics, joy, convey a story, emotions etc. then it's an interactive story, or a moving painting, etc. etc.

But video games do have aroom, not that this topic should go there, I think it's fine to debate games as art in art, why not. But anything else would probably go in the video games room.

Coruscate wrote:Profit doens't make something less of an art.

Building a business is considered an art by some, depending on how you go about it.

If you don't give a #$#$, then it's not an art.

But if you try to create aesthetics, joy, convey a story, emotions etc. then it's an interactive story, or a moving painting, etc. etc.

But video games do have aroom, not that this topic should go there, I think it's fine to debate games as art in art, why not. But anything else would probably go in the video games room.

Ohh i knew i made a mistake im sorry.

No worrys, no worrys. It happens to the best of us from time to time. ^_^ Maybe a mod will move it or something. But, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. We still like ya. :p

Zeph wrote:I would have to say no, seeing as video games are mainly released with the intention of turning a profit.

So are books. Publishers release them because they think they will be a profitable venture. Under your reasoning, the only literature that would be art is that which is done for free.

Aaron wrote:

Zeph wrote:I would have to say no, seeing as video games are mainly released with the intention of turning a profit.

So are books. Publishers release them because they think they will be a profitable venture. Under your reasoning, the only literature that would be art is that which is done for free.

But in the same respects you have paintings that go for millions on the dime.
So i guess we cant call Picasso a artiest then?

sbdark wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Zeph wrote:I would have to say no, seeing as video games are mainly released with the intention of turning a profit.

So are books. Publishers release them because they think they will be a profitable venture. Under your reasoning, the only literature that would be art is that which is done for free.

But in the same respects you have paintings that go for millions on the dime.
So i guess we cant call Picasso a artiest then?

No, we can, because Picasso didn't paint to make money, he painted to convey emotion and other art-type stuff. Writers and artists may make money through their art, but they don't necessarily make art to make money.

Videogames are art in the sense that they bring many forms of drafting, fine art, engineering, music, litature, drama, and craft together to make something.

...How can something include fine art? Fine art is just a collective term for what the snobs considered real art back when impressionism started appearing. It can be anything from stone carving to theater. In any case i personally reject the concept of art. No definition of it can be made that that can contain everything commonly regarded as art, even among art critics. There is no way to unite greek religious sculptures made for cultic purposes, renaisance paintings made to glorify the reign of an Italian prince and avangarde poetry that manages to sell around 100 copies as sharing anything other than the label of "art".