Quoting: Mountain ManMore simply, if you take the art out of a game then the game will still exist, even if just as an abstract mental concept. Take the rules out of a game, and you're left with the art assets, but it's no longer a game. Thus, games are not art.

If you takes the rules away from the game assets then the expression that the art was meant to convey is lost. Therefore only the game with both its rules and assets can be considered a complete form of human expression, which is by definition a work of art.

Quoting: JuliusThis discussion is turning in circles, but it really baffles me to see that people seem to not understand that there is an essential difference between an operating system (or a word processor, browser, 3D modeling program etc.) and a "10h-play-through-once-entertainment-experience" aka most games.
Yes those can be art, and one can rightfully care about the experience a lot, but the fact remains that it is not really necessary to be able to be able to "open up the engine and fix issues yourself" as it is for complex tools like a OS. And yes, most users don't have the ability to do so, but at least in theory you are able to do so with Linux.

To try another metaphor: I don't expect a Picasso to be available for me to modify and disassemble, and while it would be of course nice to borrow one to put into my own apartment (without the rights to alter it), I can tolerate the fact that the museum charges a modest amount for me to see it only during certain hours (=DRM). Non of this reasoning has anything to do with disrespect to the art done by Picasso. (Note: I am aware that the metaphor doesn't fully hold because we are talking about digital copies that can be replicated without loss, but the idea is still the same).

P.S.: I see only one grey-area where these two overlap (besides the tools and libraries to make games, which should be FOSS also): competitive multiplayer games or MMORPGs, people spend hundreds of hours with, are important communication devices for this sub-culture, and some people even earn a living from. But for those only DRM-free really isn't sufficient.

Edit:
Maybe another way to see it: Art/games/movies mainly transport an idea, and once you got that in your brain it can not be taken away from you again by restricting the access, while operating systems are essential tools you need to have access to all the time.

Edit2: To avoid missunderstandings... the best would be of course if all games were FOSS :p

The discussion is turning circles because it is already the same as always: We are talking about DRM at all, we are talking about the basic problems and it does nothing more. What is changed for now? Has anybody quit Steam for now? Even if most participants here have a common sense for DRM after writing in the forum here the next step is therefore to login in the Steam-profile searching for next release. Indeed that does not change anything and turning circles. Indeed a game is not comparable to an operating-system but to be clear: What about the activation of Microsoft Windows? What about the forced cloud-usage of the so-called Adobe Creative Suite? What about dongled software from Autodesk? Even if DRM is mostly used for games it won't stay there as it also demonstrated through beloved AACS for example. And it would be horrific if the companies have the complete power to intend what should be consumed or even which information should be known. We are already there! Do we have to support that voluntary by using tools?

Quoting: Mountain ManYou would still have the entire game left in its most essential form even if the art was reduced to simple stick figures and objects were represented with text labels. For that matter, an adventure game could be conveyed entirely through text -- like the good old days of Infocom -- without significantly impacting the essential rules that govern the gameplay.

Hey, no cheating. The text is art as well. So that goes with the rest. If the visuals are replaced by stick figures, you need to replace the text with minimal placeholders. Sure, you can still call it a game if you want, but not the same one. This would be a bit like melting a statue down to a lump of bronze and calling the result basically the same thing.

My point is: Even if chess isn't art, you simply cannot extrapolate that no game is art. A piece of art is still a piece of art even if it is somehow functional. And most forms of art require rules, materials or other "non art stuff" to exist. But there's no universal definition of art, and no clear distinction between art and entertainment. Just like there's no objective definition of "good" art.

Quoting: Hamish[...] but I really do not see what can be achieved by either of us getting any more emphatic over this.

Agreed. No offense meant at any point of the conversation or course. My less than stellar social skills (and more often than not my dry sense of humour) sometimes make others assume hostility. On the contrary, I tend to like people, and what little I've gleaned of your character here on GOL makes me inclined to like you as well. So let's just amiably agree to disagree, although I'm still not sure we actually do.

edit: typo

Quoting: Hamish

Quoting: Mountain ManMore simply, if you take the art out of a game then the game will still exist, even if just as an abstract mental concept. Take the rules out of a game, and you're left with the art assets, but it's no longer a game. Thus, games are not art.

If you takes the rules away from the game assets then the expression that the art was meant to convey is lost. Therefore only the game with both its rules and assets can be considered a complete form of human expression, which is by definition a work of art.

A rather self-serving definition since not all human expression is art.

Art in games is used as a means to an end to convey the rules that define the gameplay. This does make rules themselves art. Therefore, games themselves are not art.

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Mountain ManYou would still have the entire game left in its most essential form even if the art was reduced to simple stick figures and objects were represented with text labels. For that matter, an adventure game could be conveyed entirely through text -- like the good old days of Infocom -- without significantly impacting the essential rules that govern the gameplay.

Hey, no cheating. The text is art as well. So that goes with the rest. If the visuals are replaced by stick figures, you need to replace the text with minimal placeholders. Sure, you can still call it a game if you want, but not the same one. This would be a bit like melting a statue down to a lump of bronze and calling the result basically the same thing.

My point is: Even if chess isn't art, you simply cannot extrapolate that no game is art. A piece of art is still a piece of art even if it is somehow functional. And most forms of art require rules, materials or other "non art stuff" to exist. But there's no universal definition of art, and no clear distinction between art and entertainment. Just like there's no objective definition of "good" art.

Text can be used to convey art, but text in and of itself is not art.

And again, what makes a text adventure a game? It's not the "art", it's the rules, and a ruleset is not art.

Quoting: Mountain ManText can be used to convey art, but text in and of itself is not art.

You're funny. By text I'm obviously referring to the content. I'm hardly talking about the font or the grammar. I thought we already covered this nonsense. Next you'll be telling me literature and poetry are not art. After all they're both just text.

Quoting: Mountain ManAnd again, what makes a text adventure a game? It's not the "art", it's the rules, and a ruleset is not art.

We're not discussing the relative importance of a game's constituent parts, or even which of these parts have artistic value, but if their combination can be viewed as art. The ruleset might be vital to make a text adventure into a game, but the art is essential to make it worth our time. A game is not a concept you can cover with a single rule of thumb, as evidenced by you lumping chess and Gone Home into the same category, so your mileage may vary.

Sorry, double post.

Quoting: tuubiAgreed. No offense meant at any point of the conversation or course. My less than stellar social skills (and more often than not my dry sense of humour) sometimes make others assume hostility. On the contrary, I tend to like people, and what little I've gleaned of your character here on GOL makes me inclined to like you as well. So let's just amiably agree to disagree, although I'm still not sure we actually do.

No one in this thread has anything to apologize for. Any hostility that can be inferred is just the risk that comes from fronting an argument.

Quoting: Mountain ManA rather self-serving definition since not all human expression is art.

I would say that all abstract human expression qualifies as art, which could even be argued to include a cohesive rule set which would make your entire argument invalid to begin with when coupled with my definition.

Quoting: The Free DictionaryThe conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated

Nothing in this definition disqualifies the inclusion of a rule set either.

In the end though all this argument is really attempting to do is degrade games enough in order to justify your apathy, which I still can not help but find strange from someone who is invested enough to be active on a gaming focused forum.

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Mountain ManAnd again, what makes a text adventure a game? It's not the "art", it's the rules, and a ruleset is not art.

We're not discussing the relative importance of a game's constituent parts, or even which of these parts have artistic value, but if their combination can be viewed as art.

Just because there is art in a game does not make the game itself art. Going back to the chess example, you can argue that the pieces represent art, but the game of chess in and of itself is not art. It's the same thing with video games. Like chess, they use art to make the presentation of the rules more intuitive and entertaining, but the game itself -- that is to say the rulesets that mark the division between a work of art and a game -- is not art.

To put it another way, the closer a game is to art, the less it looks like a game.

Quoting: Hamish

Quoting: Mountain ManA rather self-serving definition since not all human expression is art.

I would say that all abstract human expression qualifies as art, which could even be argued to include a cohesive rule set which would make your entire argument invalid to begin with when coupled with my definition.

But as I've noted, I reject your definition as adhoc and self-serving.

Quoting: Hamish

Quoting: The Free DictionaryThe conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated

Nothing in this definition disqualifies the inclusion of a rule set either.

And, as such, that is a very poor definition of art, otherwise you're placed in the absurd position of arguing that the rules for chess are a work of art.

I think a much better definition can be found with a simple Google search: "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power".

I do not think games qualify as art based on this definition, which is a more widely recognized understanding of the term than the ridiculously broad definition you dug up at "The Free Dictionary" (and why do I get the feeling that you kept looking until you found a definition that suited your argument?).

Quoting: HamishIn the end though all this argument is really attempting to do is degrade games enough in order to justify your apathy, which I still can not help but find strange from someone who is invested enough to be active on a gaming focused forum.

I'm not trying to degrade games at all. I appreciate them as a form of entertainment, but I don't try and make them something they're not. What I find baffling are the people who feel the need to falsely elevate games to an artform in order to justify their interest in them. Isn't it enough to say that I enjoy playing games? For that matter, I enjoy watching football, but I don't need to convince anybody that the game of football is an artform in order to justify my interest.

I think the late Roger Ebert put it very well:

"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.

[...]

"Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care."

"Do they require validation? In defending their gaming against parents, spouses, children, partners, co-workers or other critics, do they want to be able to look up from the screen and explain, 'I'm studying a great form of art?' Then let them say it, if it makes them happy."
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/video-games-can-never-be-art