people argue that video games are an entertainment product and therefore can't be art, while 80% of movies coming out since the advent of cinema as a medium have been complete entertainment products whose sole focus was on making profit. "artistic" movies are not the norm and you can find more art focused games aside from all the AAA blockbusters too. your thots Gankerbros?
Movies don't have in theater slot machines yet like genshin impact.
Because men are the primary audience of video games. Our current society can never say anything positive about men or what they enjoy.
>PC
>37B
Why's it so low? I thought PC gaming was bigger than console
PC is infested mostly by pirates and third world monkeys who again don't pay for games
The selling point of PC is free games for pirates, getting games for 2 bucks on Steam sales for buygays, and a shitload of F2P games like CSGO for third worlders. PC is a huge demographic but everyone is cheap or just steals everything
also miners were a thing but that's gone to shit lmao. Used to be able to pay off your computer in a year
The guys below are boot lickers
PC gamers are mostly old school gamers and adults that dont suck corporate wiener.
Its harder to take advantage of pc gamers.
But barrier to entry of pc is also higher.
Also consoles games at launch also end up being 30%+ price tag at launch on sony and xbox because steam offers regional pricing.
Being a mobile/console player is essentially selling your anus to corporations.
Dont worry i own a ps4 still to finish up on some exclusives.
Ill never buy another console. Here is a good example
Baldurs gate 3
PSN: $70
Steam: $40.
Now why must i pay nearly double the price to play on an inferior platform?
pc is bigger than the single consoles, but ALL consoles combined are bigger than pc gaming for now
Because they made a number up as they don't have any way to actually calculate it.
Because besides you having micro transitiojd on PC games they don't even come close to mobile market
>the box office
The entire video game industry in all its forms is bigger than the movie industries antiquated, dying, short term release method? Absolutely incredible, wow
This game is objectively art. Most games (and movies) are just profit-driven formulaic slop.
12 dollars for a movie ticket + service fees+ tax 16~ dollars, for one person. Which is a terrible price given the quality of movies today. Even if you really like a movie and want to see again. that is still lower price than recent AAA video game at $20-$70. Obviously there are cheaper games but the vast majority of games on steam are in this price range.
Actually going the theater is horrible overpriced experience and it actually cheaper to buy a month of any one streaming service. No wonder nobody wants to go anymore. Which I say good! let it die.
>while 80% of movies coming out since the advent of cinema as a medium have been complete entertainment
those arent art either, there is nothing artistic about a marvel film, they are glorified toy commercials
>therefore can't be art
artistic games are art, but they are the equivalent of fingerpaintings or comic books, still very infantile in themes and dont explore much in the way of life and death, just think how many funerals are there in games? how many births? videogames are extremely shallow, even the artistic ones
and they wont be formally recognised as art until another gen grows up with games
movies have existed for 135 years
good films only started to appear about 80 years ago
videogames have existed for 60 years (pong til now)
and videogames only really became good 40 years ago
it's still a baby medium and most devs are manchildren so the games focus on baby tier themes
something has to exist for a long time for it to be considered art? cave paintings must be the absolute peak of human creativity and expression then
>how many funerals?
you're 5/7ths as smart as you think you are and 1/4 as interesting.
>good films only started to appear about 80 years ago
dumb shit
Final Fantasy VIII is a work of Art.
Most other games are not.
Similar cases exist in Film.
>Final Fantasy VIII is a work of Art.
only the intro movie
There are no "artistic" movies.
Just snobs.
>box office
ppl just watch the same movie a few months down the line anyway or pirate it & don't have to listen to morons rustling their popcorn or whooping at some shit CGI
Why doesn't "Gaming" include gambling and casinos?
Most movies are shit and most games are shit. The reason movies are more commonly viewed as being capable of being art is that they came first and that they're non-interactive.
Video games can't be used for massive money laundering operations, at least not nearly as effectively as movies or other types of "art."
What happened in 2020?
>What happened in 2020?
What was the world doing in 2020?
Quite the mystery
Mobile games are cancer.
It’s just a matter or time. Eventually the boomer who don’t consider video games art will die out.
I will replace them
I will continue to shit on videogames until they improve
Probably because a lot of video game directors had aspirations of being film directors. It's a second rung industry for talent. James Rolfe wanted to be the next Tarantino, but when he proved to be too milqiuetoast and untalented, he resorted to reviewing shitty games for the rest of his life. Kojima has had more success than most, but his fixation on getting chummy with c list actors is equally pathetic.
that's the only thing I agree with cinemakeks on, videogames attract too many failed Hollywood wannabes and it's pathetic
>IF WE CAN'T HAVE HOLLYWOOD
>WE WILL TURN VIDEOGAMES INTO HOLLYWOOD!!
games are toys, deal with it.
See, this was the case up until the N64 / PS1 era. When I go back and play those consoles, the reason they feel so very different from modern games is that they were designed to be toys, whereas modern games are designed to be addictive, immersive experiences that often take more risks than the average Hollywood movie. Games are not really toys anymore -- they are much closer to interactive movies.
However, games =/= movies. If devs fully grok the importance of the interactivity aspect, you can have genuine artistic experiences like Dark Souls. The plot is basically unimportant. Instead, the player's experience of conquering the game is the key artistic component, and that's not the same mechanism as a film. In my opinion, the main reason games are not yet broadly considered art is that they're a younger medium than film.
The objective of video game is to entertain, that is it.
For the most part I agree, that general entertainment value is the most important part of any game, but that is not mutually exclusive with the idea that games can be art. Other kinds of art also are made with consideration for entertainment, for example, films, music, books. So the idea that the objective of games is to be entertaining does not negate the idea that games can be art.
Cause art is inferior
>do not play videogames, goy! We still haven't completely posted them!
>yes, yesss, watch movies, they are the right propaganda for you, goy!
When based devs will be relegated to obscurity, only then video games would suddenly become art.
ironically games were better when they WEREN'T considered art
Do you think the quality of "art" can be an emergent phenomenon? For example, I think Starfox 64 was designed to be a toy for kids; however, I think it rises to the quality of art in terms of the player's experience. Somehow, I get the same sense of emotion or meaning that I get from very good art -- from what was almost certainly designed to be a toy. Starfox 64 simply succeeds in giving me the sense of, "I did it. What a fun game." Could it be that there is some kind of pure "quality" or "success" in the game's execution of its intentions, and crafting that experience rises to the level of being artisanal or artistic?
Nintendo started as a toy company, and they probably made Starfox 64 as a toy. For the purposes of argument, let's say it's the best toy ever. Does that rise to the level of art, or is it still "just a toy?"
I dont consider the slop that's put out art. I havent been to the movies in like 8 years
Because the "art world' is a social/historical construct that has a long history of dialogue and interaction with cinema as a medium. Artists, academics, and art critics have been making and discussing film with varying degrees of success since the medium has existed. There isn't really any equivalent in video games as of yet, so they aren't broadly considered to be art, even if they obviously involve artistic elements and some people have attempted to make artistic games.
It's harder to launder money with video games so it's not considered art.
Art requires a curated, specific vision. If you can manipulate it it's not art. Minecraft isn't art. The cinematics in the last of us is. If someone can do something, at any point, that wasn't the artists intention, it's not art.
Arts one and only requirement is that it has an artist. Viewers/players aren't artists. It's why a mountain, despite being one of the most emotional and beautiful things you can see aren't considered art.
>dance is considered an art
Yes.
The viewer of the dance doesn't manipulate it. Improv art is still art. It just needs an artist.
a mountain isn't art because it's not made by humans. it has no artist. it is not a form of creativity / expression.
>If someone can do something, at any point, that wasn't the artists intention, it's not art.
I can pause the cinematic / movie. I can look away. I can talk over the dialogue. I can play music in the background.
You can throw paint on a painting. Doesn't mean the artist didn't have a specific vision.
Exactly.
You can jump around and be moronic in a video game.
Doesn't mean the dev didn't plan out an intended player experience.
An intended player experience still involves a variety of outcomes. Is this conversation even talking about games or VNs at this point?
>If you can manipulate it it's not art.
>Arts one and only requirement is that it has an artist
Those are two requirements. Why can't you manipulate art? Isn't developing the game world and the player interactivity artistic?
vidya exhibit a severe lack of kino across the board
the obsession with trying to turn games into art turns people into hack directors who couldn't stick it out in any other medium
it will be art if people are willing to give it enough time but I swear on some level, the west is especially having trouble with this concept between people who try to make movie games and dev teams generally encouraging boring and risk-averse practices with design and writing or letting everyone be a cook instead of having an auteur like the east more commonly has, although some of the japanese auteurs are better about making gameplay integral to the cinematic experience which even death stranding does surprisingly well even if the majority opinion is that it's to the detriment of death stranding as a whole, while Neil grugman (i forgot his name) made TLOU2 where the gameplay is at odds with the writing, which the story is also at odds with the player, though at its core it's just a mishmash of existing TPS mechanics with crafting and stealth, just linear instead of open world
say what you want about kojima but having multiple ways to beat bosses immediately puts it leaps and bounds ahead of other cinematic slop. just hearing that someone can beat a boss with a different method from yours is part of the gaming experience
puts MGS* leaps and bounds ahead
isn't the movie industry just 80% a few handfull in hollywood, and then the rest like netflix / streaming sites get the scraps?
That chart should include things like Netflix and other streaming revenue, not just box office ticket sales. Its a lot closer than indicated here if you include streaming.
Because boomers have the power to decide that and they don't play games
The trick is to stop caring about their opinions and establishments.
>why is cinema considered art while video games aren't?
Cinema is the vision of a man, video games are digital toys, that's why they're called Video Games.
There's pseuds who want to censor or control video games as a medium so they're pushing for them to be something which they're not so that they may later "criticize" them because they're fricked in the head weirdos. That's all that's behind this push to make toys appear more important than they really are.
Do the mobile numbers include advertising? As in, I see an ad in candy crush, and then whoever pays king $0.01. Is that part of the 93 billion, or is it only when the player spends money?
Meanwhile morons here think the entire industry will crash globally. Which would probably cause a fricking depression.
This doesn't even get in to the fact the first "crash" was localized and not global.
Most people consider various games art. Le video game not art is just a meme because a dead film critic said it. A critic that is a decade later already pretty forgotten. And one who during his career, gave tons of now classic artsy films bad reviews because he didn't get it.
Cinema was a thing while boomers were young adults, while video games are newer. Boomers currently run the world and refuse to take video games seriously because they're new.
>PC
what's lil bro doing?
>“The business of art lies just in this, -- to make that understood and felt which, in the form of an argument, might be incomprehensible and inaccessible.”
well Ganker, what is it?
That's the true reason why israelites are exploring w*sterBlack person gayming even further as their usual work area (cinema, an overrated, circlejerky and pretentious piece of Black person shit) keeps dwindling profits year after year, and how: spreading movie-like homosexualry and cancer info w*sterBlack person gaymes.