- example quotation here... (copy the entire passage here and note the page number).
- example question/comment here... (short question and comment)
[click "edit" at top of this page when logged in to add you Q&Q. Just copy this "Name" section and paste below, and replace this placeholder content with your own!]
- "These are works that use game technology and game conventions but intentionally deter a goal-oriented mode of play."
As far as redefining play is concerned, who cares? A lot of our rhetoric about play is rooted in rules, and these rhetorics form rules of thinking about play. and that just sounds counter productive. Why do we need to define what makes play? It's something we do and it should be celebrated more in our society. I guess that's why we sought to define it, our society generally doesn't accept things it can't dissect the meaning of. But regardless, that attitude is outdated.
It doesn't seem like everyone debating and stating the things that this article covered are using the same definition for Art. I don't think any of us exist with a similar definition of art and that's fine we don't need to define something as open as art. At the same time people have a need to label, sort, and classify everything, but should we be doing that with art? Should we be doing that with video games? Or should we be doing that when one person says it is art and someone else says it isn't? Does it look pretty? Did someone experience something? Did the creator/s? Does it communicate something? Does it not? There are so many ways to define art and so many aspects and facets to art, so why do we need to define it? Is it because if we can't limit it everything can exist as art?
"In conclusion, here’s the problem: all these approaches and questions I just posed did not matter in the games vs art debate. Because that exciting, pedantic, fractal, never-ending dispute we call “art” was never the point of this debate. The point was to Upgrade the cultural status of video games as a whole: as a medium and as an industry." This is an interesting point, that art is merely a way to further the credibility of games so they may transcend the art world, and the world of play- to be recognized as far as I can tell from the argument presented as a totally exasperate category behind play and art. This is where so much of the back lash is coming from in my view- for anything that wants to become new, to change the norm and blow past the already established parameters of society will as all new and innovative things have encounter a wall of others wanting it to fail, or wanting to prove that it is already in existence. But I seem to agree with the point that games are much more then games or art, they are there own form, and of such should have there own critic, and be recognized as such, not just a game, or art. A video game is a melting of the two in one interactive experience that tells a story with every sensory sensation and with an active participation. No other form of play or art dose that.