No. Unless they're explicitly designed to be so, at which point they're not a game because they're trying to be art, and not a game.
The two can't exist simultaneously. Fez is a great example. It's not a video game. No skill, no technical requirements on the end of the player, it's all about just going through the motions, it just as well could have been a twenty minute flash movie about dumb hat faggot collecting cubes.
But it doesn't fucking matter and I wish this debate would die. Anyone who has ever seriously argued over whether something is or isn't art should shoot themselves
Also does she have a dick OP?
>Not all of them.
Something doesn't have to be good to be art, anon.
And the fact that people think being art is a status symbol is fucking laughable.
If they're making a game with the end-goal being art, it's not a game, it's an attempt at being art.
If they're making a game, and it happens to be received as art, it's not art, it's a fucking video game.
The developer has total control of this. What's hard to understand?
Art is nothing more than a human expression made to be observed/listened/played etc. So yeah, they're art.
Even if you're some asshole who thinks video games can never be art, the fact is that video games are comprised of several layers of other types of art people widely accept as art. It involves making music, drawing, animating, voice acting, writing, blocking, etc etc. All of these things an art unto their own and combined they continue to make art; they do not magically stop being art once combined. To suggest this would also suggest that film is not art because it's collaborative, and suggesting that is retarded.
You're doing a poor job of conveying your point. Maybe it's just the delivery, but what I'm reading is, "something can't be art unless it was intended to be art", which is very wrong.
I think art debt are dumb but I respect your post and thank you for making it.
You know what's art? A video game that is actually, genuinely art?
See, art isn't about story or graphics or shit like that. Not for video games. The key thing for a video game is gameplay, and in that regard, Ikaruga is perfect.
Whether or not something CAN be considered artistic is irrelevant. Thanks to modern art anything could be considered "art" for the sake of the discussion. So, the short answer is yes. The long answer is that's a stupid question that underlines a fundamental misunderstanding of what "art" is in most contexts.
A real question would be is game X "good" art or not. If you can even ask the question "are video games art" I can guarantee you've had little to no contact with art academically or otherwise and have a skewed or outright personally fabricated understanding of the word.
I'm not much for debating usually, but I figure it's the easiest way to break it down for people.
I love you both. Merry Christmas, anons.
The video game aspect of a video game, as in the gameplay, is more of a simulation of a puzzle or competition. You wouldn't call a game of soccer art, nor would you call solving a problem art. Cutscenes and dialogue are art, but the gameplay, the most integral part of a game, is not.
Sure it is. It's the way in which you're interacting with the medium. No different than eyeing a book of film, or listening to a song.
Making compelling and interesting gameplay is an art unto itself, because games can certainly contain varying qualities of gameplay.
>you wouldn't call a game of soccer art
>you wouldn't call a game of sports art
there is video game art
but video games are art as well