The author was an idiot for trying to make it a competition, but so are you if you think you have a point here.

The question is always if games even qualify as a medium by which to express art, for which the answer is of course. Once you accept it as a medium for art, there is no question of what is "better." That's just up to you.

Some of the best artistic experiences I've had have come from Portal 2, Ori and the Blind Forest, Papers Please, Okami, among many others. I'm not here to argue if Pynchon is better, to me he's not. There's no competition, because it's subjective, and a waste of an argument.

Yeah, I'm not saying they aren't art. They are, and like I said before, I'm excited about the medium. I just don't think there's anything with the intellectual depth or creative virtuosity as Pynchon-yet. It's a young medium with a high bar of entry.

There's no question whether video games are art. We need to move past that false dilemma.

The question is whether individual video games qualify as quality or "good" art.

Unfortunately, I think the answer is generally a "no". But the potential is certainly there. It's a very new medium.

I agree with you, but would also point out that the same is true for movies and books. In the general case, they're not any better off than video games. They've just both had much longer to accumulate classics and genres. You see this starting to happen in video games (walking simulators for example), and it will definitely continue.

I think you just haven't played enough games.

I won't get into any comparisons of books and games, but I can absolutely say that I have played games that, at the very least, can objectively (or as close to objectivity as you can get when discussing art) be considered good art.

So you're saying you have an opinion on which art is better? Not worth discussing IMO. Might as well argue about which religion is correct.

Yes, you can have an opinion on which art is better. You can also argue about which religion is better. If you've never done either, I recommend it some time. Having opinions and forming arguments can be very fulfilling.

I mean, that seems like a kind of important question to me.

__

Also, I don't really reject the possibility of there being a fact of the matter as to the aesthetic quality of things.

I don't really affirm it either, and if it is true I'd say it is entirely permissible to have aesthetic preferences that go against the true fact of the matter as to aesthetic quality.

And if it turns out that there is no fact of the matter as to aesthetic quality, then arguments that something is of good aesthetic quality could often be transformed into explanations of why that person has those preferences, which still seems like it could be worth knowing.

So, I think it could make sense to not reject all arguments for a thing being of good aesthetic quality

lots of people have opinions on what art is better. lots of people discuss it. if you don't want to discuss it, don't.

Yeah, and it's weird that he keeps insisting that games like DOOM and super meat boy wouldn't be considered art (while treating games like Gone Home and Firewatch like they've somehow betrayed the medium). I mean, if you don't consider those "gamey" games art, then why do you argue that games can be art at all? We often consider movies art based on qualities that only movies possess (acting, how it's shot) instead of pure narrative quality. So of course we can consider Super Meat Boy art, based on how well it is designed.

Yes. Different kinds of art use different tools. You don't argue instrumental music isn't art because it has bad dialogs.

Yeah, the author seems to be taking the modernist approach aesthetically (where the goal of art is to convey an emotion, idea, or state of mind) and suggesting that games can produce states of mind that other forms of entertainment cannot. He seems oblivious to the advantages of other art forms that just don't work as well in a gaming medium.

> I've never seen anything that compared in creative quality to something like Pynchon.

Try Undertale. Or Planetscape: Torment. Or Dwarf Fortress, but that one is a huge time investment to even begin to get into it.

Dwarf Fortress is art in the same way a paintbrush is. That is, it isn't. It can be used artistically, and can be used to create art, but the art generated wasn't in the brush.

Dwarf fortress is like a jam session or a performance. So - art.

I believe you have missed my point. Dwarf Fortress is an instrument with which one can create art, but it is not art. A guitar is not art - the jam session or performance is the art.

If you are saying that Dwarf Fortress is itself the product of a jam session, then I understand your point; I simply disagree.

Of course some people will argue that the best made guitars are a work of art in and of themselves, independent of any music that may or may not be played on it. In the same way one could argue the Dwarf Fortress is a work of art in itself.

Ah, so you're speaking about dwarf fortress as just the code sitting on a disk doing nothing. I'm speaking about dwarf fortress running on a computer with a player using it.

Both are art in my opinion, just different kinds.

Same as a play scenario is art, and a play performed on a stage with audience participation is art as well, but different.