I think that video games can be art, but relatively few are, and most of those that do reach the bar of being considered art aren't particularly avant-garde. Like, taking a couple of artsy-ish games, how much does Return of the Obra Dinn or Outer Wilds really change the player as a person (even if the end of the latter is particularly emotionally poignant)? Or to put it another way, there's a good number of games that are Discworlds but none that reach the level of the Lord of the Rings: a lot that have a good, concise moral that will stick with you, but none that can change an entire culture. Of course, it could just be that my definition of "art" is too narrow and too high a bar, and there's something to be said about the interactivity of games that gives them greater impact than other media

▲

manuelmoreale 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> how much does Return of the Obra Dinn or Outer Wilds really change the player as a person?

That’s an odd bar to cross in order to define art, if that’s what you mean there. I’ve seen plenty of art in my life (not hard to do living in Italy) and most of it didn’t change me as a person. It was still art though.

▲

augusteo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Building on ranger207's point about transformative impact: I think the challenge is that game transformations are often invisible to outside observers.

When someone reads Lord of the Rings, they can talk about it with others who haven't. The shared cultural vocabulary emerges from discussion. But when a game fundamentally changes how you perceive systems or choices, that shift happens inside your head. You can't really show someone else.

I played Factorio for a LOT of hours many years back. For months afterward, I genuinely couldn't stop seeing bottlenecks and throughput problems everywhere. Traffic, grocery stores, my own work. It sounds silly describing it, but the perceptual shift was real. Nobody around me noticed because there was nothing external to notice.

Maybe games won't produce the next Lord of the Rings because their transformations are too personal and too hard to share?

	▲	Crespyl 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		All this is just "Games haven't(/can't) had their 'Citizen Kane'" all over again. What are you expecting? What would a "Lord of the Rings" of gaming need to do to be "real art" in your (the general you, I'm not really trying to call you out specifically) eyes? When someone watches a movie, or engages with any other art form, are they "transformed"? Games are certainly a unique art form, but I reject the idea that they are somehow unable to produce a "shared cultural vocabulary", or that the experience of playing a game can't be discussed to just as rich a level as, say, the experience of watching a movie, or listening to a piece of music. Ultimately, to fully engage in a dialogue about a work of art, you need to experience that work in its intended form, this should be obviously true of music, movies, painting, and games. But to set games apart as somehow less able to be fully discussed is nonsense.
	▲	throwaway17_17 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I’m genuinely curious, why is there a transformative requirement for something to be art. I think transformative works can certainly be art, but thanks just a possible characteristic of art. Where does this requirement come from, as in, is it somewhere defined academically, or is this a personal position?
	▲	fuzzy_lumpkins 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		we see games impact culture constantly, especially language. it’s spearheaded shorthand language we use online and texting, influences how people approach problem solving, created social groups and impacted lives. there is a quantitative measure that can show video games have impacted people not only at an emotional level (the standard barometer for determining what “art” is), but how they ripple into the zeitgeist

▲

vjk800 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> how much does Return of the Obra Dinn or Outer Wilds really change the player as a person (even if the end of the latter is particularly emotionally poignant)?

I haven't played those games, but, in general, I guess it depends on what kind of change do you mean? Playing first-person shooters certainly transforms your brains in some ways; you become better at tracking small objects on the screen; your spatial reasoning likely improves; the coordination between you hands and eyes develops to respond to events in the game; etc.