Talk:Video games as an art form/Archive 1

ref to add later

[3] , no time at moment to work into this. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice find. That's definitely an interesting and useful article. One thing we should start thinking about, though, is how much of this article should be devoted to the topic of the "art game" and how much to the topic of "games as art". The two concepts are related inasmuch as art games are often used as examples of games that are clearly art, but at the same time I don't believe anyone would call Contra an "art game" although certainly many would say that as a game it could be described as a work of art. I don't know, does that make any sense?

I've also seen the theory advanced that "art game" is a misnomer since all games fall somewhere along an artistic spectrum. My personal research on the topic has led me to the understanding that "art games" occupy a position equivalent to "high art" within art generally (which would also include the "low arts"). If that is the case then perhaps we should split the topic of "games as art" into its own article. Or if we leave it merged for now, then maybe we should consider renaming the article to emphasize the "games as art" topic and then start a specific subsection for "art games" distinct from general games that are interpreted as art generally. Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: There is also a subsection in the "fine art" article that briefly covers the topic of "games as art". We could consider shifting all discussion of "games as art" from this article into that one, although I don't think that's a very good idea based on comparison with the other subsections at Fine art. Yet another option would be to create a "games as art" subsection under Video game - something it looks like that article approaches in its "Theory" subsection which links to Game studies. I'm not sure if any of these are really appropriate homes for this information, though... -Thibbs (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we could split this up with one article covering the debate of "games as art" which would including the Ebert stuff and the above article, and a second article "art game" which is about games specifically designed or considered as works of art, which are not always created to counter the discussion of the "games as art" aspect. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Any thought on what would make a good title for that article? I've been using the term "Games as art", but is that the best? -Thibbs (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Video games as an art form" (with redirects from "games as art", etc.) would seem to be the most descriptive at a glance. "Video game art" implies something else (the art assets of a game). --MASEM (t) 16:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK that sounds good. I think that right now this article is focused more on the "Video games as an art form" aspect and that we should expand the "art games" portion a bit before splitting it. There is certainly enough information out there to make this into two full, in-depth articles, so I think we should consider this to be an incubator for the other article to be split off at some point in the hopefully-near future. I'll have more time to edit in the near future but I'm quite busy currently. In the mean time let's start collecting good refs for both articles that we can add when we have time and that will eventually lead to the split, OK? I'll start two subsections here in talk just below that anybody can add to if there are good references. -Thibbs (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest just moving this article to Video games as art, and only splitting the article if there if it is necessary down the road. I don't disagree that an art game is a real or notable thing, I just think more is gained by speaking on the broader topic. It is difficult to add insight to Art game without talking about Video games as art, unless you are simply writing a "list of art games". This article is already about video games as art, so let's go in that direction until there is a need to split. This is very similar to how adult video game was really a discussion of sex and nudity in video games, and now it works much better at that title.

There are very few games link to art game, and I am having trouble finding any that are actually sourced. Maestro is listed as an art game, though none of the refs actually say that. Trauma mentions that a reviewer compared it to an art game, though the reviewer actually said "artsy fartsy". It seems to me that most developers wouldn't self-describe a game as an "art game" as that would come across as pretentious (with the obvious exception of the interactive fiction community), just as most directors don't call their films art films. So many art games will never be sourced as being art games, and probably several games that aren't art games will be called that. However, many games have been discussed as being artistic, or for their artistic value, and we can easily refer to a game as being "artistic" without risk of pigeon-holing. Anyway, that's my reasoning for A)not splitting the article and B) moving it to Video games as art. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Renaming "art game" to "games as art" (or an equivalent term) may be the best option for now, as nobody has yet taken the initiative to expand this article much beyond "games as art". The topic is a rich one and a proper expansion requires sifting through and weighing a lot of material that has been written on the topic. So for now I'd be fine with a rename and an accompanying redirect. I'd not foreclose on the possibility that "art game" can later be expanded into a full article, though. There are sources for the concept of the "art game" alone (at least one is listed below) and in the end I think it would serve Wikipedia best to divide the information to give it a treatment similarly to film and art film. -Thibbs (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we make a quick stubby list of "art games" (games specifically and intentionally designed around the mechanic of art)? I would rather see us move this article to "Video games as art" and leave behind a stub to be expanded on the idea of "art games" but we should have examples that clearly define that term. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be fairly easy to build a list by searching for things like site:kotaku.com "art game" and doing a ton of sifting. I'll start a list of art games. Is there a better title for this article than "Video games as art"? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of a better name immediately ("Video games as works of art" or "as artwork" feels wrong, since we don't call movies or books that achieve the same type of level of appreciation as "artwork"/"works of art". "Video games as art" is probably the easiest and most common way to refer to these, once you remove the "art game" hits that mean something else. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

More members of the list can be populated from above and from Category:Art games. I'd prefer to see the article become more of a traditional article akin to art film but the list may be a good stopgap measure.

As for the new name for this article I'd be in favor of something that would emphasize that we are discussing video games through the filter of art rather than simply the artwork in the game. So I'd prefer something like "video games as art" to something like "video game art" or "art in video games". I'm not sure what the best title would be but Masem might be right that it is the most easily recognizable. -Thibbs (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess my main issue is that nobody questions whether film is art, and there is a century of history to pull from. For games, it is nearly impossible to describe an "art game" without almost being defensive or clinical - "An art game is game that is itself a work of art, because these people say that it is." I just can't see adding any more relevant content that isn't a list of art games or discussion of games as art. I don't oppose anyone writing even a stub for art game, but I see more value in redirecting to an appropriate section of Video games as art titled "Art games" until the content has reached a point where separating it from the broader topic will bring value to the reader. In other words, I'd prefer an entry for "art game" where the reader doesn't need to read "video games as art" and "list of art games" to understand the topic, because otherwise I think we are losing value to both topics by splitting (I'm not sure if that makes sense). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we're trying to get away from that, and in agreement. We just need to have a good definition of "art game" that separates it from "video games as art" as this page is currently presented. To me, when I think "art game" I think a game where the central mechanic involves art of some form, not just only present as game resources. You have "Rez" which I think is a good example, "Children of Eden" would fall into that as well. There's probably not a lot of these that are explicitly called out as "art game", and probably can be counted on two hands. Thus if we have a fresh article as "art game" to describe this, and move was it currently here to "video games as art" to describe games that are considered works of art (which could include art games) , we should be all good. the "List of art games" can be put in as a section of the fresh "art game" article then. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, that rmit.edu.au is a bit sketchy, or at least as I perceive what we take as "art game". The definition used there is For the purposes of this paper, I apply the term “art game” to describe an interactive work, usually humorous, by a visual artist that does one or more of the following: challenges cultural stereotypes, offers meaningful social or historical critique, or tells a story in a novel manner. Is that what everyone else has in mind? or can we confirm this? To me, this definition, while different from "video games as art", does overlap a lot to make the distinction hard, given that "art game" comes from the game developer's intention, while "video games as art" comes from the perception of the released product. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that's why I wasn't getting what you were saying. I have only ever thought of an art game in the context of a "game as art", not a "game featuring art"... Not that that is wrong, I just don't know how we'd cite that. We could easily cite a list of those games that were referred to as "art games", and readers could do the synthesis on their own. But I am having a hard time finding a definition of art game other than the ones below (the second PDF is an analysis of the first). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so to be clear: when we're talking "art game" here, we are talking about a game that is set out purposely by its creators to be a work of art (and not just happenstance that it is a work of art because its a video game and thus a protected form of creative expression), eg games like Braid (where Jon Blow specifically set out to deconstruct certain gaming tropes within it). Then we have "video games as art" which would be more a discuss of video games as protected forms of creative expression, and note games that have been considered by the community as works of art for the industry, even if this was not the primary intention of the developer. I think that's how I'm reading this, but we need to be clear. I agree that as I think I'm reading these separation to two articles is necessary, but let's make sure we're starting from the same split point. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha, ok, I can agree with that, though I still don't know what sources we can use that don't use the term "art game" while actually discussion games as art (other than the two PDFs). Those I found using Google scholar, and I've had no luck on the rest of the internet. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the distinction that I'm familiar with as well, Masem. The only thing that I'd add is that there are cases where the reviewers have characterized a game as an "art game" without any input from the author. Analogously with "art films", I think a decent definition for "art game" is: "a serious, often independent game aimed at a niche market rather than a mass market audience." And as you said, "video games as art" is exactly about the medium's relation to freedom of speech and artistic expression. So I think I'm on the same page as well.

JohnnyMrNinja, we don't have to avoid articles with that discuss "art games" while commenting on "games as art". In articles on the topic, art games are often used as classic examples of how games can be art. It's similar to how the 1964 film, Empire could be used to illustrate the fact that films may be considered artworks. Even though an article discussing the idea that film is art might discuss Empire as an art film example, it would still be useful in an article on the art-ness of film. The real reason that the "games as art" issue is notable is that it is a controversial topic and is sometimes contested by those that wish to censor video games or to restrict their sales. -Thibbs (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC) {reworded -Thibbs (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)}

The way to look at it, if we're ok on the distinction, is that most "art games" are considered "video games as art", but not all games that are representative of "video games as art" would qualify as "art game". (eg, "Another World" is often a "video game as art" but I don't believe that its developer set out to make it as an "art game", just a story/game to present.) To Thibbs, that's why there's a distinction that needs to be made. "Video games as art" should be a broad picture of how video games are (now) taken as works of creative expression and not just "murder simulators". We definitely would mention "art games" that are specifically set out to be considered as such, but there are non-art games that fall into the discussion of video games as art ("another world", "okami", etc.) --MASEM (t) 21:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but my point is that I think the definition some authors use is slightly broader than that the art game's creator's intention was to create art. There are some political games that have been classified as art games despite the fact that the author's point was to create a serious game and not necessarily a work of art. I think a broader definition such as the one I listed above (emphasizing niche markets) may be the most useful. Either way I think the distinction is clear between "art game" and "game as art". -Thibbs (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I think I agree with what you're saying. I see the term "art game" as one that has to be an intent of the developer; they are doing what they can to make a game that should be treated like a work of art. If anyone else outside of the developer calls the game an "art game" but the developer believes that wasn't their intent, it really is a "vg as art" categorization. As long as we require the developer to assert what is an "art game" , with anyone else that insists a game as art pushing that to "vg as art" we should be ok. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I moved the article, and just put a section-header on the "art game" stuff. I don't know what content you guys want to move, or if you want to keep list of art games separate. We can create a new stub at art game or move list of art games there. For now I'm just going to work on expanding list of art games. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My thought would be to:

1. Move your List of art games to Art Game
2. Move the section on this article about Art Game to Art Game to preceed the list. (So now Art Game will be a discussion of the term and a list of games that are considered by their developers as art games.
3. Add a clarification in lead here that this is about appreciating games as works of art, and while they encompass the idea of art games, Art game is a separate topic. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Art games

• [4]
• [5] (definition of art game v regular game or regular art)
• [6]

Video games as an art form

• [7] ()
• [8]
• [9] (with [10])
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14] David Jaffe blog-rant that was picked up by several sites

another ref

[15] came up yesterday. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

merge "Video game art" into this article?

Please provide your feedback at Talk:Video_game_art#Merge.3F Shawnc (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the talk page

Considering that art game was split form this article, I think we should shift out all comments from this talk page prior to Masem's comment of 12 July 2011. And We should import them into the art game article. All of the talk page contents prior to 12 July 2011 refer to the topic of art games. I've boldly shifted this material now, but feel free to revert and we can discuss it if anyone disagrees. -Thibbs (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Time to rename?

Can we change the title "Video games as art" to either Video games as works of art or Video games as an art form? This is to avoid confusion with the too similar Video game art and Art game. I tried to clarify the context for each article with the Template:Art and video games. But watching lists like Category:Art genres, it's clear that the titles are not descriptive enough to tell the difference from the title alone. Diego (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Of those two, I'd prefer the second one because the first one seems to have just as much potential to be confused with "art games" as the current title. But I'm not sure what the best title is and I'd like to hear other input. This may be a good question to post at WT:VG. -Thibbs (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Video games as an art form" seems appropriate. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I support "Video games as an art form". Just to make the consensus clearer, as it's already been moved. --PresN 19:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Migrations from art game

I'm starting this thread to serve as a repository for games that have been listed in the list of art games despite the fact that the sources (if any are presented) do not describe them as "art games". The games listed here should be reviewed and potentially added to the list of games demonstrating video games to be art within this article. So without further ado here are the games. Anyone should feel free to add to this list. -Thibbs (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC) (Added 2 entries 12:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC); Added 1 entry 16:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC))

• Dys4ia (2012, Anna Anthropy, Adobe Flash) - A game about the developer's experiences with hormone therapy explained with a abstract 8 bit art style.
• Leaving (2013, Mimicry Games, iOS) - A poetically charged artistic game about saying farewell, featuring poetry of Antonio Machado.
• LSD: Dream Emulator (1998, Asmik Ace Entertainment, PS1), a dream world explorer released for the Sony PlayStation.
• Analogue: A Hate Story (2012, Christine Love, PC) - Analogue: A Hate Story is a feministic visual novel that revolves around marriage in a particular period of Korean history.
• Yume Nikki (2004, Kikiyama, PC) A independently produced surreal game by homebrew developer Kikiyama. (added to list w/ RS source)
• Dinner Date (2010, Stout Games, PC) A game in which the player performs the physical motorics of a man being stood up for a dinner date.

Why is this man being cited as a reliable source?

"Alex Kierkegaard" is an inflammatory internet-blogger responsible for such well thought-out criticisms, such as: "Listen to me carefully now, you little abortions of fagots: 'art games' has never been and never will be a valid category!" (I can't even link to his site because it's on the spam blacklist.) I personally don't think he should be cited as a legitimate critic of the form, his over-reliance on profanity and false equivalencies to the overall "rant" stylings of his work come off as incensed ramblings, not genuine, reliable criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.232.87 (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

He's a prominent critic of the art game as a form. I agree that his writing style is offensive, but his views represent a notable perspective shared by a significant number of people and for this article to fail to present this perspective would be for it to lose its neutrality. The source cited is a published book and Kierkegaard is certainly reliable concerning his own opinions on the matter even if he can't be cited for factual claims. If you have a better source then we could swap this one out. Completely censoring the anti-art-game perspective doesn't seem helpful to me, though. There's no question that the issues of "video games as art" and "art games" generally are controversial. -Thibbs (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why I have to discuss this on the talk page, even though the argument was clearly laid out in the edit summaries. This guy is not a "prominent critic", he's a self published internet no-one, all his opinions are pretty much stranded on his own personal pages. That the source is a book is irrelevant, when it's self published. It's a reliable source for his personal opinions, but it's just that his personal opinions are as worthwhile as that of a forum rant. A forum rant which you have somehow elevated to being the only source in the lead. - hahnchen 10:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You have to discuss this because this article is maintained through consensus. As you can see from the existence of this thread, the issue is one which has been discussed in the past and so is clearly not a minor or uncontroversial edit. Regarding the source itself, it's clear that it's being used to source a fairly common claim within the sphere of those who discuss art games and games as art. It would be difficult to conduct any amount of research into the topic of this article without running across views like those expressed in Kierkegaard's piece. As it represents a strong and distinct viewpoint held by a large number of people, I believe that the perspective is definitely worth including in this article.

Alex Kierkegaard is well-known and discussed by RSes. Felan Parker's article, "An Art World for Artgames" published in Simon Frasier University's Loading... Magazine, Vol 7, No 11 (2013) is a perfect recent example of this as it discusses Kierkegaard's "On the Genealogy of Art Games" (the sourse used in this Wikipedia article) specifically. But there are plenty of examples where the RSes have discussed Kierkegaard's writings. Here are just a handful: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. As Masem pointed out earlier, the article is not citing Kierkegaard's piece for its factual content, but rather for its opinion content. I'm not sure what its being a self-published work has to do with its reliability in this regard except that since it's self-published the odds are perhaps even higher that the views expressed are a reliable reflection of the views truly held by the author.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of Kierkegaard on a rhetorical level. And I don't think he's some profound and original thinker or anything like that. He's not personally important to this article at all. What's important is the perspective that his book here represents. If there is a better source for this perspective then I'd certainly be open to swapping the Kierkegaard source out and replacing it. But from a close examination of the topic I really think that to censor this perspective entirely is a real mistake. And doubly so if the main reason comes from (a frankly understandable) personal disgust at Kierkegaard himself. Until a better source can be located, it seems clear that Kierkegaard's opinion piece will suffice because this is a claim based on opinion and Kierkegaard is an RS-cited author who has written at length on the exact topic of our article. -Thibbs (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

He is not remotely prominent. There's no way he could make it into WP:VG/RS. Kieron Gillen, Charlie Brooker, even Jeff Gerstmann could make it as a self-published source, because they've been published by reliable sources. Kierkegaard hasn't. According to you above, at best he's been cited in several news posts. And the way that art-games are attacked in the lead, as not being art, isn't even a widely held criticism against art-games. The stronger, more prominent argument against art-games, is that they're not games at all. Here are some examples by actually prominent sources [16][17][18][19]. Here's Raph Koster(reliable even when self published, but appearing in Gamasutra anyway) describing Dys4ia as "could be built in PowerPoint and isn't a game"[20]. - hahnchen 12:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, the approach to this has been the antithesis of how Wikipedia should work. Instead of reflecting what reliable sources have to say on the matter, there's an assumption that a view held is a "notable perspective", which we then go to trawl the internet to find a source for. That kind of barrel scraping approach would place Time Cube into our time article, after all, Gene Ray has written at length on that exact topic. - hahnchen 12:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's you who is taking the opposite approach of how the reliability of a source is determined? You start with the assumption that Kierkegaard is not reliable, and therefore conclude that its usage in the article is opposite to WP:RS. But when sources already considered reliable are appraising Kierkegaard's opinions on the topic as "interesting", "unfairly ignored", "luring" and "making some decent points", in my book that counts toward the man's reliability and support using it as a source for his views and critical commentary on art games. Diego (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly true. If no one spoke about his opinions, including his ideas would probably border on FRINGE. But the author is pointed out as having the counterpoint to "games as art", even if he is not well-renown critic. That's sufficient to have one sentence to balance out the POV of this article on that opinion if video games can be art. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) "Even art games, games purposely designed to be a work of creative expression, have been challenged as works of art by some critics." - I've already mentioned above that the argument against art-games has been that they're not games. That they're not art is pure fringe. If it wasn't, you'd be able to find better sourcing than this, "we need a specific POV, let's scrape the barrel" approach. - hahnchen 13:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that the "art-games are not games" perspective is lacking then of course you're encouraged to enhance it by expanding it with sources. Removing a self-published opinion source reflecting a not uncommon criticism from a writer whose ideas have been discussed by numerous RSes under the claim that "he's a self published internet no-one" indicates to me that no enough care went into the removal. A modicum of research would reveal that Kierkegaard is not a no-one (since his ideas are discussed in multiple RSes) and that "art-games are not art" is in fact the rallying cry of those who subscribe to his perspective on the issue. Personal disagreement with this perspective and personal distaste for Kierkegaard must not be allowed to cloud our judgment here. -Thibbs (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If "art-games are not art" is such a rallying cry, then you'd have reliable sources other than this self-published piece. And the RSes that discuss his work are mostly irrelevant to his views on games as art, or art games as not art. The sources I've quoted aren't internet no-ones, they've been published by reliable sources so much so that even when they do self publish, their views are notable. Kierkegaard's isn't. - hahnchen 15:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked for additional reliable sources because the current source is sufficient. As I explained, the author is demonstrably not a "no-one". He's obviously controversial, but he's equally obviously not an unknown. I am saying that if you want to exclude a sufficient source like this then you should only do so subsequent to the presentation of a superior source. I am happy to agree that there are more significant and prescient writers than this Kierkegaard. As I said earlier, he's not personally important to this article at all and could certainly be replaced by a superior source that bolstered the same claim. That doesn't mean that Kierkegaard is a no-one, though. I see you've expressed admiration for Kieron Gillen, Charlie Brooker, and even Jeff Gerstmann. If these authors have something to say on the "art-games are not art" topic then please introduce the relevant sources and we can swap out Kierkegaard. The mere existence of superior sources writing on irrelevant topics, however, does not touch the question of whether it's acceptable to exclude a controversial writer who has been repeatedly cited by a wide range of RSes, and who is writing on the exact topic of the article here. -Thibbs (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"If these authors have something to say on the "art-games are not art" topic..." - Completely the wrong way around to look at it. Looking in the article history, editors came up with an unfounded claim, that "art-games are not art", and then went hunting for a "sufficient" reference years later. It's not an "admiration" for the writers linked, it's a recognition that these established writers have been published widely by reliable sources. Kierkegaard hasn't, if those links above are the best you have, certainly not his views on art-games as not art. - hahnchen 17:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The timing of sourcing is of course completely irrelevant. Are you disputing that the Kierkegaard article makes the claim for which it is used as a reference here? Hunting for sufficient sources for unsourced claims is actually extremely helpful to Wikipedia. Again, if these recognized and established writers have written on the "art-games are not art" topic then because they are superior they could perhaps be used to replace the current merely adequate source. If they have nothing to say on the issue, however, then they are completely tangential to the issue. -Thibbs (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The timing was about motive. Are you looking for what sources have to say about games as art? Or are you fishing for whatever you can find to justify a POV? It looks like the latter. Because recognized and established writers haven't written about "art-games are not art", is exactly why it shouldn't be included in the article. - hahnchen 17:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

What motive are you ascribing to the people who added the ref? Do you think it was promotional in nature? Or are you actually objecting to the concept of searching for acceptable sources that back up unsourced claims? Your invocation of WP:FRINGE suggests to me that you are concerned that the ideas are given undue prominence. It's hard to believe that a single line making up 0.6% of the article (0.3% without the source) gives the issue undue weight, but perhaps you are unhappy with its placement in the lede? Would it be better if it were repositioned within the body of the article somehow? I would be open to a suggestion for a better placement of the line within the article. I'm definitely opposed to stripping it from the article though. Kierkegaard is obviously a divisive figure. He's unpleasant and controversial. For obvious reasons, though, none of these character traits are sufficient to exclude his writing from Wikipedia. The claim that Kierkegaard is completely unknown in the world of RSes has been fully refuted as have the suggestions that he is unreliable in this (opinion-related) context. His views on art games specifically have been covered by Simon Frasier University's Loading... Magazine, and that was a source I discovered after only a 5 minute search. There are bound to be others. Nobody here is saying that this is the best source in the world, but it is an acceptable one for what it covers (namely a significant and critical minority opinion related to the topic). If it is to be removed then it should be replaced with a better source, not just excised on the bunk theory that nobody important has ever taken notice of the writer. -Thibbs (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Instead of querying reliable sources and reflecting those opinions in the article, editors first proposed an opinion, and then went out to find a source for it. That the best they could come up with was that of a self-published internet polemic clearly shows it to be a fringe theory. His book has been covered in passing, by one reliable source, the Loading journal. In a paper that's 20 pages long, Kierkegaard is given ~40 words. In the entire published field of the games-as-art debate, all you have are those same ~40 words, that's all there is.

Instead of querying what the reliable author, Felan Parker, has to say, his work is reduced to propping up a fringe theory. Kierkegaard's theory is far from a significant minority opinion, there are more citations for Time Cube, and yet Gene Ray, self-published internet genius, and greatest thinker of all time does not get a mention in the time or cube articles. - hahnchen 19:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's ideal to start with cited claims from the outset, but reality frequently conflicts with our ideals. The act of adding sources to bolster unsourced claims cannot be then used as evidence that the claims are defective. The claim in this case is a controversial one held by a significant minority and the current source is a controversial writer who has been cited several times by several RSes. Nevertheless the perspective as outlined by this writer (controversial and minority as it is) is entitled to coverage in Wikipedia provided that it is properly sourced. In this case we have a self-published book (acceptable here as a reliable reflection of the author's opinion) and a corroborative paper published by Simon Frasier University. The paper (which you have above acknowledged to be an RS) makes the explicit claim that "Some critics and commentators have questioned the status of artgames as games due to their short duration and limited interactivity, thus questioning their claim to art and legitimacy" (emphasis added). The author gives several examples of which Kierkegaard is only one. Although it's not mentioned in the Loading... journal, I know that Tale of Tales have also argued at the Art History of Games conference that their art games are not yet art and that in order to become art they have to cease to be games. Roger Ebert was also famously presented for play an array of games broadly considered art games and declared them all to fall short of art. The claim that "art games are not art" is controversial and the source for this controversial claim in our article is a controversial writer, but it's clear that it's a view held by a significant minority and the fact that the writer of our current source has attracted the attention of several in the RS sphere and has written a book that is directly on point here suggests to me that it is an acceptable source. Improvable? Sure. But usable until we agree on a superior source. -Thibbs (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Then how about you cite those reliable sources then. Roger Ebert argued that games are not art. Tale of Tales have argued that games are not art. The claim "art games are not art", of which you can only find one source, from someone who's opinion has only generated 40 words in reliable coverage does not make it a "significant minority" view in the slightest. The debate over whether games are an art form is already covered in the first two sentences of the article, the third sentence is only used to illustrate a fringe theory. - hahnchen 21:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't care which reliable source(s) get(s) cited. It's the loss of the information that I object to. Specifically when it's premised on the plainly incorrect theory of a total lack of RS-based interest in the currently cited author's views. Regarding the Ebert and Tale of Tales anecdotes, it's really quite clear if you read the sources that the games they were offered to comment on and which they ultimately determined not to be art were in fact offered as art games. Is it just a coincidence in your estimation that Ebert was offered Shadow of the Colossus and Flower as games to test rather than Call of Duty? By saying that these games had failed to live up to the definition of art that he posted, he was indeed saying that "Even art games, games purposely designed to be a work of creative expression" were not art. He used specific art games as a good way to extend his theory to the entire medium, but that doesn't mean that he held a special exception for art games. No, even art games were challenged as works of art by Ebert. And of course that's just what the claim in the lede says. The Tale of Tales example is also illustrative as they were responding to the fact that their art games were held up as examples of art by the audience. By saying that even their own games were not art, they were clearly suggesting that even what we describe as "art games" are not art. These aren't giant deductive leaps. It's pretty straightforward really. -Thibbs (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Do not conflate the "games are not art" argument with Kierkegaard's fringe theories. I'm actually going to have to delve into Kierkegaard's arguments, and they really don't warrant any kind of examination whatsoever. 40 words in 3 years is more than enough. Ebert argued that games are not art, he argued that all games were not art, so obviously that includes art-games. This argument is fairly widely held, it might even be the majority position. Kierkegaard's argument isn't that at all. He claims that video games are art, but only art-games are not. This is fringe, this is why you only have one source. - hahnchen 22:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

At no place in this article is the claim made that "only art-games are not art". If that's how you've interpreted the sentence in question then I can understand why you think it's fringe. The actual sentence is this: "Even art games, games purposely designed to be a work of creative expression, have been challenged as works of art by some critics." Ebert provides a good example of this as he was specifically given art games to play after he initially made the claim that "no games can ever be art." On examination of the art games, Ebert found that none of them were quite art. Ultimately he conceded that although he didn't see games as art, others might. It's true that his examination of art games was only a restriction of his views to a narrow band of games that he had already broadly put into the "non-art" basket, but the point is that in specifically examining even art games (Shadow of the Colossus, Flower, Braid, etc.) he found them to still fail to live up to his definition of art. Kierkegaard's book goes over the notion that "art games aren't art" much more explicitly and forcefully (in a juvenile kind of way), but as Felan Parker points out in the Loading... article, he's not the only one who holds this general belief. Parker claims that "Some critics and commentators have questioned ... [artgames'] claim to art and legitimacy." That's a close paraphrasing of our claim in this Wikipedia article. I'm sure there are fringey elements of Kierkegaard's book that should not make their way into the Wikipedia article, but his general sentiment is not unique to him and it represents a distinct minority viewpoint that I think belongs in this article to satisfy NPOV. -Thibbs (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"At no place in this article is the claim made that "only art-games are not art"." - If you ignore the citation you give to the opinion of a non-notable individual in the lead, this would be correct. Referencing that "only art-games are not art" polemic validates it, and it alters the meaning of the sentence. Why is that the rest of the lead lacks references? The lead does not require references, and the entire "games as art" debate is well covered in the body. Why then, instead of using one of the sources in the body, have we then decided to elevate an otherwise unused self-published fringe theory into the lead? Because you happened upon those 40 words? In the first two sentences, you already cover the controversial nature of the "games as art" debate. If you want to single out art-games, the main debate, is whether these are games at all, as I've shown with links to the Boston Globe and Raph Koster references. If you want to single out art-games, and call these out specifically as not art, which is what you did in the lead then either its a redundant subset of the "all games aren't art" argument, or its Kierkegaard's fringe theories. The latter, is unacceptable. - hahnchen 23:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no requirement that sources be notable, only reliable. We're talking about an opinion piece from a writer whose work has been discussed in numerous RSes. Secondly, providing citations for a controversial claim or a minority viewpoint only validates its accuracy, not its content matter. Wikipedia isn't in the business of selecting sides in controversies. The reason the only cited line in the lede is this one is because it was the only one that was challenged. I agree that ledes don't need specific citations because they are intended as summaries. As I suggested above, the line in question could easily be shifted out of the lede and into the main body if anyone proposed a better location for the claim. And third, it's not a redundant subset of "all games aren't art" because it highlights a surprising subset of all games. To use a completely arbitrary example, it's like saying "The doctor forbade the patient to move a muscle. Even using the remote control would be off limits." Clearly using the remote control involves the use of muscles but it's surprising and bears singling out. With a claim like "no games are art" many would consider this in relation to games like Mario, Doom, Mortal Kombat, etc. To say that "Even art games are considered by some not to be art" highlights a surprising fact that perhaps bears singling out. We're talking about editorial discretion at this point, but I don't see any problem with the way it's currently phrased. -Thibbs (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You start with an assumption that sources are unreliable. Look at both the quantity and quality of the sourcing that cites Kierkegaard, compare that to Erik Wolpaw, someone actually prominent. When you have critics such as Roger Ebert debating games as art, citing this guy's opinion is a flagrant violation of WP:FRINGE. - hahnchen 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A self-published source of a person expressing their opinion is not unreliable about their opinion - it's pretty much impossible to be that. Of course, if the person if of dubious credentials, that source is not very strong and should not be used to support highly controversial point on its own, but that's not what is happening here. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what's happened here. You've fished for a POV and these dubious credentials are what you're left with. The argument that games are not art, is not a fringe theory - and has notable adherents. The argument that art-games are not games, is not a fringe theory - and has notable adherents. (Tadhg Kelly is an Edge and Techcrunch columnist, so even though his opinion is self published, it is a notable one). That art-games are not art is clearly a fringe theory, given that the best source you've come up with is Kierkegaard. - hahnchen 14:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that art games are a niche topic on themselves. There isn't any mainstream POV about arthouse games, so there can't be fringe POVs either. Any opinion that stands out above the average is significant in such small pool of commentators, in special when this critic is noticed by sources that are reliable in other related areas. This is how reliability is gained for these small niche topics, a sort of Google's pagerank where importance is inherited through links from other important sites. This man's opinion has been marked as significant by his peers, and WP:NPOV requires that all majority and significant minority views be covered with due weight. Diego (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen the links I've posted? Raph Koster? Tadhg Kelly? Writers whose opinions are respected enough that they're published regularly in reliable sources. I've linked to The Guardian criticising games-as-art. These sources have actual Google pagerank. If Kierkegaard held even a significant minority view, you'd have better sources than you do now. And the reliable sources discussing Kierkegaard's idiosyncratic theories, other than the paper in Loading, do not discuss his views on art at all. Rather, he's cited for more mechanical means, such as where to find arcade games in Japan. Giving his art-games are not art argument due weight in this article would be to not give in any at all. - hahnchen 15:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's the Boston Globe, a "mainstream POV" discussing art games - http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/movies/2013/06/15/from-proteus-dys-when-video-game-not-game/as6BLQOlUxCQsb4I5vWXzL/story.html - questioning whether or not they constitute games. Which is really the argument to be made. Not whether art-games are in fact art. - hahnchen 15:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That the sentence in the lead begins with "Even" suggests that it's a fringe theory, an edge case. If you do not have any other sources for this other than Kierkegaard, then the phrase "some critics" is misleading. All you're left with is, this internet self published guy believes that art games are not art. - hahnchen 15:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop with the time cube red herring. Gene Ray has not been praised by theoretic physicists as having an interesting point of view with respect to spacetime nor geometry (at least not with a straight face). Can you spot the difference? Diego (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Kierkegaard has not been praised by art theorists, or game theorists as having an interesting point of view. In fact, the best defense of his work is that his book has been cited once in the three years its been available, where it was given 40 words. Gene Ray has done a lot better than that, that's the difference. - hahnchen 21:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The main difference as far as I see it is that the Time Cube theory relates to pseudoscientific criticism of hard (establishment) science whereas the Kierkegaard book presents a pseudointellectual critical opinion of social/cultural topics (art and video games). They're not particularly comparable, but I assume the point was to exaggerate a bit for illustrative effect anyway. A kind of reductio ad absurdum. -Thibbs (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible solution

It was suggested above that Alex Kierkegaard would not pass the requirements of WP:VG/RS. While probably true, this is a red herring because WP:VG/RS is only a general guideline specifically with regard to factual claims. As WP:RSOPINION makes clear, opinion material like that used here is reliable as to the author's opinion. And there's no question that "even art games are not art" is an opinion and not a factual claim. So the Kierkegaard source is not properly assailable via WP:RS. We've seen the evocation of WP:N as well, but notability is really a limitation on articles and not sources. In general I think it's obvious that the more renown and clout that the cited opinion-giver has, the better the coverage and in this sense Kierkegaard, though probably adequate, is not an ideal source at all. I've suggested that replacing the source with a superior one would be perfectly acceptable, though, and I did mean that honestly.

So in thinking the issue over carefully I've had something of a change of heart on the Kierkegaard source and it has to do with something we haven't discussed yet - the issue of how the source is used here. The basic claim in our article is "Art games are challenged as works of art by critics." If we look at the Kierkegaard source, we see a lengthy and vigorous argument that challenges the idea that art games are art. In this sense the basic view is bolstered, but not necessarily the specific claim. The Kierkegaard book is a single person's opinion. It is an opinion that is shared by a significant minority, however Kierkegaard makes no mention of this minority. His book is simply an example of one instance of the minority opinion. A proper source in this context must at least make reference to the basic claim that "Art games are challenged as works of art by critics" where "critics" is used in the plural. To my memory the Kierkegaard source does not cover any other critics that share his view.

So I think this leads us to an obvious solution. The Felan Parker article makes the direct claim that "Some critics and commentators have questioned the status of artgames as games due to their short duration and limited interactivity, thus questioning their claim to art and legitimacy". Here the exact claim from our article is backed up. Parker speaks of critics and commentators and in the plural and with "thus questioning their claim to art" he addresses the fact that they challenge the art status of art games. Parker even cites Kierkegaard's essay as an example. I'd stress that removing the Kierkegaard article for reasons related to censorship of his unpleasant ideas would be unacceptable. The mere fact that he is controversial and that multiple editors have arrived here with the express purpose of removing this source and without making any fuss about the other few mediocre sources used should not have any impact on this question. It is acceptable to cite him for his opinion, but in this case his book doesn't make claims that are expansive enough for our purposes and Parker's does. Since there seems to be broad agreement that the Parker article is reliable and since I believe it more closely bolsters the exact claim made, I think it would make sense to swap out the Kierkegaard article for the Parker article. Does this sound like a good idea? -Thibbs (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The censorship/controversy argument, that's irrelevant, Kierkegaard's arguments are significantly more readable than anything Tim Rogers has produced, yet only the latter has been published extensively in reliable sources. Removing Kierkegaard's pieces from Wikipedia does not constitute censorship at all, the reason I picked it out, was that it was the only source in the lead. I then went at took a look at it, and found it to be a self-published work by an internet no-one. My early experiences on Wikipedia were dedicated to excising self-published internet no-ones. My position on censorship was quoted in a reliable source at ZDNet, so maybe we should be referencing my talk page posts in the censorship article. The censorship/controversy argument is a straw man.

As to "reliable as to the author's opinion", I acknowledged this in my first post on this page, it's just that Kierkegaard is not a notable writer, he is not a recognized subject matter expert. His entire book has been given 40 words of coverage, in one source, in its three years of publication.

Parker is a reliable source. But the argument you wish to put forward in the lead is but a snapshot of the paper. If you want to explicitly stress that "games are not art", which I've suggested is probably the majority opinion, then why say something like, "Critics such as Roger Ebert have argued that video games can never be art."[21] The subset of this argument, that art-games are not art, is redundant - and while it might have a place in the body of the article (after you clearly introduce what art-games are), it should not sit in the lead. - hahnchen 16:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Moot commentary. As explained above, the proposed solution wouldn't even use the Kierkegaard source.

There is nothing strawman-like about bringing up the dangers of censorship given the clear fact that the writer in question is controversial and that this is the only source questioned when there are clearly sources of equal or less quality used in this very article. It might be a strange coincidence, and I'll take you at your word that it's just a coincidence in your case, hahnchen, but it's worth keeping in mind for anyone who comes to this discussion that there may be ulterior motives for some of those seeking to silence this one view and that censorship is something Wikipedia normally eschews. In other words the censorship/controversy issue should be irrelevant. That's my only point. As far as Kierkegaard's possible lack of personal notability, I'm sure this would be a good argument against writing an article on him, but it's not a good argument regarding his usability as an opinion source when it's been demonstrated to you that he has been several times referenced and indeed discussed by several RSes. You insist that he is an internet no-one, but to do so you have to completely ignore the fact that his views have been discussed in multiple reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - a true rarity for actual internet no-ones. You're clearly exaggerating here. He may be a no-one compared to Søren Kierkegaard, but that doesn't make him a no-one compared to actual no-ones.

Regarding the unusability of the Parker source to ref the claim in the lede, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you there as well. You appear to be objecting to the fact that the Parker article would be used to bolster a claim that does not represent its central thesis. Let's be clear that there is no rule limiting the use of sources in such a draconian manner. You've acknowledged that the Parker source is reliable. And yet for some reason one of the claims it makes is unfit for Wikipedia? Have you uncovered countervailing evidence that contradicts the claim? As I pointed out earlier, the highlighting of this semi redundant issue is a perfectly acceptable editorial decision as it's a surprising fact that bears stressing. If you think it belongs elsewhere in the article then I invite you to suggest a better placement for it. -Thibbs (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

A book that has generated 40 words of coverage is the work of an internet no-one. As I mentioned above, I've been discussed by reliable sources, I am clearly an internet no-one. I think Parker is a usable source. I don't think that claim should be in the lead. You do not need to be covering edge cases in the lead. The argument that should be covered is that "all games are not art". The main argument against art games, is that they're not games - I have demonstrated this with multiple reliable sources. The art games are not art subset on the other hand, has 40 words to it. - hahnchen 17:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes reliable sources. I hope that you don't take this personally because from my observation of your activities in the past few years I'd certainly consider you to be notable on a peer/editorial level, but Websnark.com is really not comparable to GameSetWatch and UGO.com (or Joystiq or Silicon Era, etc.). Anyway I understand your objection to drawing attention to the surprising fact that even art games aren't considered art by some critics, but I do disagree that it's problematic. The main argument against the legitimacy of art games may well be that "they are not games" and not that "they are not art", but this is an article about "video games as an art form", so unrelated objections (i.e. those going to their game status) shouldn't really have a place in this article. The minority view that art games are not works of art could appear in this article because it relates specifically to the art status of a kind of video games. I understand that you don't think it's necessary or helpful to emphasize the fact, but I do think it's helpful because it's surprising. The argument that there are only 40 words to the minority perspective directly contradicts the claim made in the Parker source which you have acknowledged to be reliable. Do you have a source that contradicts Parker's claim that "some critics and commentators" have questioned artgames' "claims to art and legitimacy"? -Thibbs (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with using Parker's article as a source arguing against art-game's claim to art and legitimacy. I would rather it also questioned these games status as games at all - Parker quotes Alec Meer making this argument. Meer is a co-founder at Rock, Paper, Shotgun and has been published extensively by reliable sources.

You're saying that because there are those who argue that art games are not games (backed up with multiple reliable sources of which it is the subject of the article), they should be ignored because they're not games? Despite most of the article treating them as games? That's ridiculous, if you're going to claim that video games are art, because Michelangelo's David is a video game, then the counter-argument, that David is not a video game (yet, anyway) must be presented. - hahnchen 20:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC) (Shifted material specific to Alex Kierkegaard lower to keep the solution thread and the unrelated academic discussion separate. -Thibbs (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC))

I'm afraid I didn't really follow your newest objection to the line in the article. And I'm afraid it's my fault for not being clear enough with my last post. So as I understand it you are saying that the original:

• "...concept that video games are works of art remains in question ... Even art games, games purposely designed to be a work of creative expression, have been challenged as works of art by some critics."

should properly be replaced by the following:

• "...concept that video games are works of art remains in question ... Even art games, games purposely designed to be a work of creative expression, have been challenged as games by some critics." (emphasis added)

My point is that whether or not art game are in fact games has little to do with the topic of the article. The fact that art games are highlighted (with "even artgames") as examples of video games that are also not considered art by critics is because it is a dramatic example. You've argued that it's redundant and in some cases I'd agree. If the line stated the following:

• "...concept that video games are works of art remains in question ... Even racing games, games that simulate a driver in a speeding car, have been challenged as works of art by some critics." (emphasis added)

or perhaps:

• "...concept that video games are works of art remains in question ... Even MMORPGs, games that allow players from all over the world to come together for a simultaneous event, have been challenged as works of art by some critics." (emphasis added)

then yes, that's just redundant. There's no reason to isolate racing games or MMORPGs from video games generally because there's no expectation that they're especially artistic and highlighting them serves no purpose. Art games, on the other hand, are considered by some to be "high art". When such a reader hears the argument that critics claim that video games are not art they may easily think "Oh well Ebert just didn't play the right games. They probably offered him Gran Turismo and World of Warcraft. They should have offered him an art game like Shadow of the Colossus or Flower!" But no, it turns out that even art games have been identified as failing to qualify as art by some critics. That's a potentially surprising and certainly a relevant point to make in my view because art games are actually designed to be artforms. The negative evaluation by critics of putative artforms within the medium for their art content is something that I think would be of interest to the readership. More so than perhaps any of the other genres in the medium which would rightly be summed up in the general sentence preceding the sentence in question here. -Thibbs (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"My point is that whether or not art game are in fact games has little to do with the topic of the article." - It has everything to do with the article. If you're going to argue that video games are art, because Michaelangelo's David is a video game, and also art - then you need to present the counter-argument. If you want to argue whether games are art, you need to have definitions for both.

I think art-game is an edge case, I wouldn't have described Shadow of the Colossus as such for example. The reader might think of Doom and Mario when you describe all games as not being art, but I don't think they'd even know what an art game is, even after appending the phrase, "purposely designed to be a work of creative expression". Which is why I suggested it be moved into the body and given more context. - hahnchen 15:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"If you're going to argue that video games are art, because Michaelangelo's David is a video game, and also art..." - I'm sorry but I honestly haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. I've never made the Michaelangelo's David argument that you're attributing to me. In fact I'm making no argument about art and video games whatsoever. All such claims come from the sources. The sources use their own definition of art and games and I don't think it's at all appropriate for me to craft my own definitions. The topic of the article is "video games as art" and not "art games as games" so it would be worth considering the addition of RS-based claims like "all games are art except FPSes" or "no games are art, and that includes art games", but it would generally not be appropriate to introduce RS-based claims like "art games are not even games" or "some consider life sims like Sim City not to be true games" or even "art games, games intended as art, are not games." Whether or not a program is a game is at best tangential to the topic of "games as art". As far as providing an explanation for what an "art game" is in the first place, the fact that it's linked to a large article on art games should provide all the explanation the reader needs. A brief explanatory clause like the 9-word phrase you identified above should be sufficient to provide inline context. It could certainly be tweaked as needed. -Thibbs (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK we seem to have made progress. Hahnchen has recently agreed to compromise on the question of swapping the Kierkegaard source in this article for the Parker source. As I suggested at the start of this thread, I think this source covers the claim more closely and is superior for that reason. Does this sound like a good idea then? Can we close the book on this whole thing? Unless there are any objections I'll make the ref-swap tomorrow. Or anyone else can do it before then. -Thibbs (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Alex Kierkegaard: An academic discussion on whether he is controversial but known or an entirely unknown internet nobody

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As for Kierkegaard's level of coverage, it's pathetic - there's a fine line between my level of coverage and his, but a gulf between that and a noteworthy opinion.

• WP:SPS - "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." - Kierkegaard has never been published.
• WP:EXCEPTIONAL - "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources... challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources" - Kierkegaard's theories do not have multiple high-quality sources.
• WP:FRINGE - "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is." - In the entirety of its publishing history, Kierkegaard's art-games thesis has received only 40 words of reliable coverage. Not a single review.

We've already agreed that Kierkegaard is not to be used as a source here. I'm just restating my arguments so I can use it as an anchor for any future discussions. I don't want to go through this again. - hahnchen 20:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC) (Shifted from above to keep the academic discussion of Kierkegaard separate from actual issues of article content. -Thibbs (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC))

WP:SPS relates to factual matters whereas WP:RSOPINION clearly applies for opinions. I don't understand how the claim could be exceptional and/or fringe when you've repeatedly argued above that it's a redundant and obvious claim. Either it's redundant or it's exceptionally fringe. Clearly it can't be both.

The multiple RS citations to Kierkegaard for writings related to video games generally is clearly sufficient to qualify him for speaking on art games. There are perhaps only 3 or 4 experts in total who specialize in art games specifically but mandating such a stringent standard for expertise (especially on an opinion issue) is akin to requiring that the sources at speedrun be experts in speedrunning only or that the sources for gamepad be experts in only gamepads and disregarding their general video game writing credentials. There is no requirement that any such standards must apply at any of these articles. Seeking to imposing them would be ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is the claim that Kierkegaard is not notable enough to be cited for his opinion on games because although his video-game-related writings have been discussed by numerous RSes in the past (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.), he's only been given 40 words in relation to his art-game expertise.

Rather than the two of us converting this solution-oriented subthread into an anchor for future academic discussions on the topic of Alex Kierkegaard, though, I suggest we carry on the Kierkegaard discussions in a new subthread or back in the parent thread. That will allow others considering the proposed solution a better chance to participate in the issue at hand. As you say, we've both agreed that the Parker source is superior to the Kierkegaard source in this case so the Kierkegaard arguments are purely theoretical at this point. I'll move the most recent Kierkegaard-related comments into the new thread below for now and I'll leave appropriate notes regarding the move. Feel free to make any corrections as needed. -Thibbs (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC) (Shifted from above to keep the academic discussion of Kierkegaard separate from actual issues of article content. -Thibbs (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC))

I'm not arguing over the redundancy over "video games are not art", "art games, a subset of video games are not art". My point is that Kierkegaard's artgames theory, that "only art-games are not art, other games are", and other comments since removed from the Art game article, is fringe and exceptional.

Kierkegaard is not notable enough to be cited for his opinion because he has only appeared in those 5 sources you point out through the entirety of his career. That level of coverage is pathetic, when you compare it to a published writer, as I have done many times above, only for you to ignore. - hahnchen 15:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how you jumped from the agreement that Kierkegaard is not required to support a sentence at Video games as an art form to the conclusion that these sentences can be removed from Art game without discussion. I've reverted that removal. Diego (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I don't think I'm ignoring anything. "Pathetic" is a pretty subjective term. We both agree that there are more established, renowned, and authoritative writers than this guy. It would be impossible to argue otherwise. We both disagree, however, on whether the level of third-party coverage he's received is sufficient to allow him to be cited in Wikipedia for his opinion on games. Essentially we have different tolerance levels for the acclaim of the source. That doesn't mean that I think Wikipedia should be made up entirely of sources of similar quality to Kierkegaard, but I think it allows occasional citation to minor-league sources that have been cited by the RSes - especially when the topic they are writing on is intimately connected to the topic of the Wikipedia article. Regarding the edits to the "art game" article, I think there may be room for compromise there as well, but I don't think it's appropriate to go on a Kierkegaard-censoring spree when there is clear disagreement with your views on the usability of the guy as a source. -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No YouTube links.

I've been told that my reasoning as to why we shouldn't use YouTube links is flawed because, apparently, YouTube videos can offer more information about a subject in 10 seconds by a random guy (whose motives are entertain, not to educate) than a well-formated article written by someone who actually understands video games as "art".

"PBS Idea Channel is a YouTube video blog featuring weekly discussions about various aspects of popular culture, technology and digital art", according to Your Meme. By this logic, we can also refer to pop-science YouTube videos for information when writing hardcore science articles. The show doesn't even focus on video games. It's not reliable.

Stop posting hipster stuff, it rots people's brains.

I'm going to remove them until the end of time. Don't try to stop me. I will take this to Wikipedia's high court if I have to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.22.124 (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's start by recognizing that threats to engage in revert warring to get your own way on this issue won't get anyone anywhere and that efforts to carry through with these threats will result in account blocks and page protections against these harmful edits.

To address the substance of the above arguments, it's necessary to grasp the concept that the citations to the PBS' YouTube-based Idea Channel are demonstrating that the cited games are "games considered to be works of art." The consideration of a game as art is a subjective matter and it is obvious that individuals are always reliable concerning their own stated opinions. This article makes no claim that Heavy Rain is an artistic game, but only that Heavy Rain has been considered an artistic game. As the PBS citation demonstrates, that much is clearly true.

Secondly, the fact that information is presented via YouTube or in the form of a blog has zero bearing on whether or not the information is reliable. YouTube is not the source of the information but merely the medium through which the information is presented. And the blog format introduces no inherent reliability-weakening influence.

Your inference that the citation to a PBS-produced blog by a significant (frequently RS-cited) video game reviewer on a matter of opinion in a pop culture setting suggests that pop-science sources can be used (presumably preferentially over non-pop sources) in hardcore science articles is patent nonsense. Certainly if you can find serious well-formatted academic articles that demonstrate Heavy Rain to be considered an artistic game then by all means you are encouraged to add that to the article. This article has never been restricted to PBS-caliber sources. But removing material simply because it fails to live up to your personal reliability standards is misguided. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise. The question of whether sources are reliable or not usually relies on community-based consensus. Look at the evidence here - you are the only one who views this PBS-produced video as problematic. Three other editors have now restored this information. As I suggested on your talk page earlier, you are free to file a question seeking clarification of this source at WP:VG/RS or at WP:RSN (perhaps the best equivalents of "Wikipedia's high court" you mentioned above), if you imagine that the consensus at this article is inconsistent with Wikipedia's reliable source rules (WP:RS). -Thibbs (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thibbs has it right. You don't just look at the fact its YouTube, you have to consider what the video is, who uploaded it (more to the copyright issue), and the subject matter. The video may be a video blog, but it is by a person, hired by the reliable source PBS, to talk about how new ideas are coming about in the modern digital age. The host is a former meme researcher at Know Your Meme, so while he's not a professor or anything, he is qualified to talk about that, and the fact PBS hired him gives some credence to his background. PBS uploaded it, so the copyright issue is null. So as to this topic, as Thibbs states, what video games are art is going to be strongly opinionated, which means that almost any source that will affirm a video game as art will likely be an opinion piece to start with. We just want to avoid random-stranger-off-the-street opinions, eg, someone coming along and claiming Halo 4 is a work of art. As to the specific piece, when I added it I think I left off Tempest because of the other four, I would not be surprised to find collaborating opinions that each of those games would be considered works of art as well; Tempest was a bit weird but I see no problem with it being included. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Request to add The Last of Us

It is effectively gaming's "The Road". why its not here is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.51.104 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

We need sources that ID the game as a work of art. They may come in time (I haven't played it, but I've certainly heard positive praise in that direction), but we're careful to only add when we have that source. --MASEM (t) 04:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I do see some so I will go ahead and add it. --MASEM (t) 04:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The Last of Us his is disputed as an example, at least the "a masterful marriage of storytelling and game design" part. See http://www.errantsignal.com/blog/?p=525. 81.234.243.119 (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't need universal acceptance of a game being a work of art, just that reliable journalists have stated their opinion (as it will always be an opinion and not a factual aspect). --MASEM (t) 23:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the game doesn't attempt to "marry storytelling and gameplay", it's a very typical example of a story delivered through cutscenes and not by play. 81.234.243.119 (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, that's not a requirement. Yes, that implies there are probably lots of games with beautiful artistic cut scenes (ala many of the last gen Final Fantasys or other JRPGs) that could be argued. The core requirement here is that someone has actually called the game out on that - this could be argued why FF7 is on this list since that is definitely a separation of gameplay and story, but the story is that engaging to make the game a work of art. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Silent Hill 2

I think Silent Hill 2 would be a worthy addition to this list. It generated a good deal of discussion when it was released, and even today it seems to get mentioned in the videogames-as-art discussions. I've collect some links: [1],[2],[3], though it would be nice to see something other than a video game journalist commenting on it. If anybody has any objects, please speak your mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:5780:144:BCB7:3D88:41A6:EA98 (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's a few more I found, one in a peer-reviewed journal: [1],[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:5780:144:BCB7:3D88:41A6:EA98 (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately none of those links are considered reliable sources. While Venture Beat is a reliable source, that piece is specifically labeled as an an unassociated opinion piece. Mind you, if there's a likely candidate for "video games as art" Silent Hill 2 seems like it would be high up there so I wouldn't necessary say "nope", but we'll need better sourcing. --MASEM (t) 05:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Well Games Radar is actually considered a Reliable Source but the Games Radar article you've linked, 2601:C:5780:144:BCB7:3D88:41A6:EA98, doesn't explicitly connect Silent Hill 2 to art. The article places it at #1 for "Best Videogame Story Ever" and suggests that symbolism plays a big role, but we'd need the article to close the circle for us and say that excellent plot/story and symbolism makes a game worthy of consideration as art. It's not enough that we the readers believe that this qualifies the game as art. The source has to actually state that the game is an example of how games are artworks. If you want to search through some of the sources that Wikipedia considers reliable, there are some good tips and pointers at WP:VG/RS. -Thibbs (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with you on those points. I was hoping this search would be easier, but it's turning out to be trickier than I'd thought. Anyway, here's another link [1] which I think could work. Also, I noticed that The Escapist was on the list of reliable sources to use. While I'm very hesitant in using a Ben Croshaw review as a source, I think he makes a good case [2] how the experience in Silent Hill 2 is very difficult to achieve in other mediums. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:5780:144:8D2B:1D26:B2EB:B105 (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

If we can get another source comparable to the IGN, I would consider that fair. I'd avoid using ZP's reviews for something like this. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. There are plenty of sources describing it as a 'masterpiece', but I'm having difficulty finding one that follows through and makes the connection to art. I do like the academic article I found, but it would be nice to find a game journalist who also makes the comparisons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:5780:144:8D2B:1D26:B2EB:B105 (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Braid

I think Braid should be added to the List of artistic video games section:

• It is already listed in the list linked in the section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game#List_of_arthouse_games).
• It is a common example in games as art discussions, and Jonathan Blow (its creator) is known for defending games as a means of artistic expression (see his talks "Design Reboot", "Conflicts in game design" and "Video Games and the Human Condition").
• It is an incredibly important and influential game in the history of the games industry, being one of the games that revealed the existence of independent games to the mainstream public.

As it is such a notable game, I feel someone casually browsing this article should see this game listed without having to open the longer list of arthouse games.

Hgby (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be added, just have to find the right sources, but a point to be made: just being listed as a arthouse game does not make the game a work of art, much less a listed example as such. The other points are valid, though. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Machinarium

I'd love to see Machinarium added to the list of games - it's a small, accessible game with hand-drawn art, an incredible soundtrack, and wonderful, subtly revealed story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.34.148 (talk • contribs)

It's definitely a great game and shares some of the artistic sensibilities of its forerunner, Samorost (listed at the list of art games), but these are all just personal opinions. To be added to any list we would need to find a reliable source that backed up the claim that it was an artistic game or an "art game". More info on the kinds of reliable sources that would be needed can be found at WP:VG/RS. -Thibbs (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Dishonored

I think Dishonored should be on the list. It has one of the most immersive environment. Even the paintings appearing on the walls are real. The developers put a lot of work into the game. The aesthetics really makes a distinction from other contemporary games. The dark and gloomy city got some of the best aesthetics, from the big iron bars covering some big gateways that we cannot interact with, big luxurious artwork in buildings, Notes and dairies left by those now dead, immersive back story, Books which have their own fiction to moody music that sure makes us remember that we are really in the game.

Here are the few quotes and sources i am able to find.

"unifying vision and design that stands apart from its contemporaries as something different"

"a triumph for the medium ... that sets the benchmark for visuals, story, and character performance"

"The steampunk-inspired technology is fascinating, and the art direction superbly establishes a distinct visual style to accompany the dark and disturbing lore lurking behind the city. I hope this isn’t the last time I play a game set in Dunwall"

And of course! it is inspired from both Bioshock and Half Life 2. TGageND (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The basic requirement for addition to the list is that the entry must meet the listed inclusion criteria. Specifically the game must be "considered to be [a] work[] of art by art critics and video game reviewers." If you can find reliable sources that back up the claim that Dishonored is considered to be a work of art then feel free to add it to the list along with the supporting ref(s). -Thibbs (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

As you requested, this is a article completely about Dishonored's Art,and this, i don't know whether it is enough or do i need to submit more sources?

-15:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)15:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TGageND (talk • contribs)

And this is a page where you can find artworks(most of them are not concept works) from Dishonored. TGageND (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Evaluation

This is a very useful article. I especially like section that features "Controversy." It mentions the Roger Ebert article in which he state that video games art not art. Although I noticed a typo in the section "History," the game Resident Evil is misspelled as Resident Evil Creek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.13.204.118 (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Excessive Examples

The examples section is overpopulated with examples being included on baseis which are not legitimate, this page appears to have been edited by biased individuals in order to include select titles.Jpmcruiser (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Every example is required to have a source to an RS that states the game is an example of a VG as a work of art. There might be a need to review some of those sources to make sure they are RS, but that's the basis for inclusion in the list. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that the article doesn't need what it has, or at least requires cleanup of the examples. Beyond Two Souls for instance has just a plot synopsis, with zero mention of it's contribution to art or art games. It doesn't even say what genre it is, or who made it. That is unprofessional, and only the worst. Half of what is doesn't need I be there, and is in desperate need of a rehaul. Zmax15 (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Video games as an art form. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://archive.gamespy.com/reviews/october01/ico/index.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V not considered art?

I don't get it, Grand Theft Auto V received widespread critical acclaim and there were multiple publications openly accepting and discussing it as art, why isn't it covered on the list? I mean, there's at least some consensus not just among critics but also on the public opinion that the world building in GTA counts as some form of art, correct? I don't see why it doesn't deserve to be noted for that.

As a matter of fact, does this page even require a "list of artistic video games" in the first place? The "List of arthouse video games" in the Art game page already covers that in the first place. Henriquedematos (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

If you can find sources that say that they consider GTA V as a work of art, we can include them. We're looking past the critical acclaim as a video game but more so as a thought-provoking piece.

And the difference between video games as art, and the arthouse games is that the latter are games purposely developed to be "arthouse" aspects much like arthouse films, while video games as art are any games that have been said to push the ability of games to be works of art. That is , the different between the intent of the game, and the reception of the game. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, here are some publications discussing GTA V as art:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/10315566/GTA-5-the-video-game-that-gives-you-the-world.html

Mic Wright on The Telegraph: "Grand Theft Auto V is a fine piece of art, a satirical entertainment with few modern betters. But I would argue that the moment you purchase it for a teenager – the games are rated for use by 18-year-olds and above – or play it with them, should be an opportunity for a discussion on the distinction between occasionally offensive art and our moral obligation to humans in the world beyond the screen."

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2013/sep/27/grand-theft-auto-digital-art

Jonathan Jones on The Guardian: "There is creativity, wit and art in Grand Theft Auto V – but it's from the game's makers. In the digital world, the real creative work is confined to a tiny minority of designers who work for games companies and software giants. This just confirms what has always been true, from the Sistine Chapel to Hollywood: art is made by the few, for the many. It takes rare gifts, disciplined skills and an original mind. Artists are developers, not players."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2013/09/art-grand-theft-auto

Prospero: "GTA V is caught between the need to appeal to casual gamers and an ambition to create a deeper and more meaningful experience. At its finest GTA V reaches the loftiest levels of art. But in its more prosaic moments, when it nudges players to follow a line on a map and neglect the living, breathing treasures of Los Santos, it is simply a video game, albeit one of the very best."

The usage of the game by artists is also worth noting, especially when it comes to in-game photography and filmmaking:

http://www.shortlist.com/tech/gaming/street-photography-of-gta-v

https://killscreen.com/articles/artist-uses-gta-v-to-investigate-the-motivation-behind-modern-terrorism/

http://www.bjp-online.com/2016/04/a-psychiatric-understanding-of-grand-theft-auto-5/

(Henriquedematos (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC))

That's more than sufficient to include, so I've added it. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Video games as an art form. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130910000800/http://gamescanbeart.com/2010/03/25/grim-fandango/ to http://gamescanbeart.com/2010/03/25/grim-fandango//

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Video games as an art form. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130420092835/http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/dac/papers/Holmes.pdf to http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/dac/papers/Holmes.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141029074320/http://podcast.cbc.ca/spark/plus-spark_20101107_spark126c.mp3 to http://podcast.cbc.ca/spark/plus-spark_20101107_spark126c.mp3
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100811003526/http://blogs.suntimes.com:80/ebert/2010/07/okay_kids_play_on_my_lawn.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07/okay_kids_play_on_my_lawn.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100811003526/http://blogs.suntimes.com:80/ebert/2010/07/okay_kids_play_on_my_lawn.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07/okay_kids_play_on_my_lawn.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100811003526/http://blogs.suntimes.com:80/ebert/2010/07/okay_kids_play_on_my_lawn.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07/okay_kids_play_on_my_lawn.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

But there's no art history?

I can't help but feel that there isn't actually much art history in this article (which is strange, because it's an article about art...). I'd love to do a major rewrite (which would take some time) looking at the various art theories (and theorists) which could be applied successfully to videogames (and of course, those theories that might suggest that videogames aren't art too).

I'd urge the long list of games to be split off into another article (or potentially just got rid of). A seminal essay written by Linda Nochlin in the 1970s called 'Why have there been no great women artists?' suggested that simply naming women artists only served to highlight the fact that there are not many considered 'great'. In the same way, simply writing a list of videogames that some people think are artistic doesn't add validity to the article's premise that videogames are art - it only serves to highlight that most people still think that videogames are not art.

In addition, many of the sources noted as suggesting that the individual games art art have not demonstrated that they know much about art as individuals (at worst some of the sources are just the creators saying that their games are artistic). This list is kind of like having a list of paintings that people think are artistic on a page called 'paintings as an art form'. It sounds absurd because it is.

Videogames are art. We don't need lists of games on a Wikipedia article to justify that. So lets use established art theorists to tell people exactly why videogames are art on this page.

CharlotteM85 (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the topic here has not be addressed in the manner you have described, in contrast to more traditional art areas. It's also where the field has had to struggle to show why it is art, rather than letting it be art and develop since. In some years, it might be possible to write it that way, but we're still at the stage of making the concept of VG as art be an acceptable concept, rather than actually how that has expanded since. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm finishing up my dissertation on this subject and about to start my Research Masters. There is actually lots of this kind of discussion about if you look for it. Most of it is offline in books and so forth, but it is there to be found. I would imagine my dissertation would serve to solidify some areas of approach - hence me noting it as a long term project. The field has only struggled to show why it is art because there are very few art historians working with the subject matter - but there are starting to be more and more pieces written on exactly that subject. CharlotteM85 (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have additional print sources, that'll be great. I still think that here we have to have some section devoted to the legal aspects of video games being protected speech as a work of art, and I think it's necessary to provide noted examples of games that exemplify the nature of video games as art as identified by sources (much as one would demonstrate art from a specific school of art elsewhere). --MASEM (t) 22:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

But videogames are the medium, not the style/school. It is like giving examples of what a painting or a mixed media sculpture is. It's also important to remember that barely any of the sources listed have any credibility in the art world. The list largely seems to work on the premise that these games are art because they are pretty, which is only one very minor part of what might make something art. CharlotteM85 (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Well this is also only a list of "artistic" games. There is a list of art games that may be more on point for you. There is also Video game art which is in great need of help. -Thibbs (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you perhaps talking about the art of video games? That is, the evolution from pong-style to ascii to vector to 8-bit, 16-bit, etc.? That's a topic ripe for discussion that I am not aware of us having either which would be good. But that's specifically looking at the graphics, and not the nature of the entire video game as a singular piece of art that this article is focused on. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

CharlotteM85, there has been some discussion of the utility of the embedded lists in the past. The talk page here is actually kind of only half of the whole picture with the other half located here at the "Art game" article (more specifically in this and this subsection).

Regarding the proposed re-write: I'm interested in your ideas, but I would hasten to caution that the goal here is to present information neutrally. So we should be clear that the premise of this article is not that videogames are art. Wikipedia should not be taking a position on that question. We're merely here to report what the reliable sources have said. -Thibbs (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes for sure, and there are arguments for and against of course. Although I'd hasten to add this is the page "videogames as art" not "are videogames art". while neutrality is important and there are indeed several good arguments against, the title of the page really does establish the argument. I will start pulling ideas together on my draft pages and perhaps in a few weeks have something for better discussion. CharlotteM85 (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

useful source

This article in the London Review of Books could have a number of potential uses here. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n01/john-lanchester/is-it-art Rhoark (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

While I do think the thought provoking narratives of video games are especially important, I'd love to see more about how video games are made and the process of creation. I realize that video game creation could be discussed in another wikipedia article, but I think the collaborative effort and process from start to finish would show the extreme amounts of effort put into making games that are collaborative works of art. Referencing that amount of art colleges and schools that teach video game making as an art form would be an interesting related point as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5B12:C400:A1C1:AC0:D3D1:38D5 (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with that video games are arts, and I appreciate that Escapist editor-in-chief Greg Tito said, "Games are amazing pieces of art because they allow you to succeed or fail in goals that are separate from your own." However, I disagree with that Kojima argued that video game creation is more of a service than an artistic endeavor. I do not think video games just a service of player, it can also learn a lot from the designer's thought and artwork.

Besides, I think maybe should add more different person's opinion and argument about why video games are art or not instead of information of artistic video games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindy-li (talk • contribs) 08:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Subsection: Artistic expression in games today

What purpose does this subsection serve apart from bloating the article? I was just reviewing the article this morning and I can't what this section adds. If we look at the first few sentences (which should be establishing what facet of the topic is to be discussed and situating this facet relative to the topic as a whole), we see:

"After many years of debate, the conclusion of incorporating video games under the "Arts" category has been drawn."

Really? The King of the World has finally made a pronouncement on this issue and games are now conclusively considered to be art? Sounds extremely unlikely.

"As mentioned above, ..."

If it's mentioned above then why bother repeating it?

What follows seems to be a number of general statements about how the video game industry is large and growing larger and about the ubiquity of video game playing among youth. The next two paragraphs are primarily devoted to highlighting the works of two obscure art game developers, and the final paragraph recycles content about the Smithsonian Museum display already mentioned earlier in the article.

This subsection seems to be an attempt to provide a nice conclusion for the article as if it were a position piece instead of an encyclopedic entry, and perhaps it suggests expanding our lede, but I don't find that it adds anything of value to the article. The sources for the two obscure game devs seem reliable and could probably be merged into the List of arthouse games, but otherwise I think the whole subsection should be removed as POV-heavy and needlessly duplicative. Any objections/thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

OK I've removed the subsection now. I don't have any problem with working some of the sources not already present into the rest of the article or with shifting mention of 1979 Revolution or That Dragon, Cancer to either the list of artistic video games or the list of art games, but I don't think it adds anything to be mentioned in prose and the other material is either duplicative or simply OR. -Thibbs (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Indie task force

Whereas nearly all art games are independently designed, the typical discussion of non-artgame games as art revolves around traditional triple-A games in relation to their artistic content. As such I was just about to shift the indie flag from this article to the "art game" article, but I'd like to get some feedback first. I've already added the indie flag to "art game", but is it a good idea to remove the indie flag from this article? -Thibbs (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

New art games added

Owlboy, A Boy and his Blob and Dragon Quest are in my opinion pieces of art Would you guys think so?

I added a few games to the list. If you think they are lacking of the necessary reference sources, please, don't remove them, but let me add the sources. I'm the administrator of a project devoted to video games as a form of contemporary art. I manage several account on Steam, Facebook and Twitter. It's called: Video Games & Art. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucafg74 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources cannot be Steam posts, and they need to be sources that meet WP:VG/S. Otherwise its original research. Also keep in mind games that have good art are not always classified as "video games as an art form" (that morelike falls under "art game".) --MASEM (t) 03:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed Steam links, sorry. And added reference sources to witness the art quality of the games.

Obviously it's difficult to define what is a art game; in my web pages i talk about this issue. If you are interested, search for Video Games & Art on Steam, Facebook, Twitter. I'm not a beginner, i read so many academic book about the argument. I practice art (music, cinema, etc.) and science (physics) since i were young.

I think that Doom is not an art game, and i think that there are a few games in the list that are not artistic. Just my opinion!

Could i insert links to facebook pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucafg74 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh i forgot! My group comes in two version, italian and international, you have to search for Video Games & Art International on Steam. Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucafg74 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You can find my original thoughts about art and videogames here: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/VgArtInt/discussions/0/ I think my articles could interest you! Lucafg74 (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Facebook is generally not considered a reliable source although there are some rare exceptions (e.g. when you are citing a post from a developer's website or something). Usually there are other better sources for the same information or it is too trivial to mention in the article in the first place. -Thibbs (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Am i allowed to open a similar page in italian language? A sort of translation of this page. Lucafg74 (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course you can. For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Traduzioni :) --Dk1919 (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you think i should add Firewatch by Camposanto? Lucafg74 (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The Lion's Song, Half Life 2 and Super Mario World 2

These games I most defiantly would consider art look up artwork for both of these game and tell me you would not want to these in a museum.

Review of the list

I just removed Metal Gear from the list because when I read over the source that was listed I could find no mention of it being considered as a work of art. There is a lot of discussion covering its design elements that elevate it to the status of "modern game", but that's not what this list is intended to collate. I just looked at the sources for Deus-Ex as well and the closest we come is an offhand question at the start of the first source: "Why is this talked about like it's the Mona Lisa of game design?" The rest of the 4-page review is a description of enemy AI and the humorous dialog options that the game has. At no point does it corroborate the claim that the game is a work of art. The second source for Deus Ex at least covers the topic of "works of art", but it twice describes the game as falling short in that area: "...some rough edges restrain the game from becoming an irrefutable work of art." and "This is my only gripe about the game; an excellent plot could have easily become a work of art had it been produced in Japan." Given the balance of the sources, I don't think there is enough support as required by WP:V to support the claim that it is considered to be a work of art so I will remove it as well. I have no prejudice against restoring these games to the list, but it's a requirement that the sources in fact describe the game as a work of art or that the games are at least considered by art-related sources (e.g. the Museum of Modern Art, etc.) to be works of art. I think the list needs to be weeded through. -Thibbs (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is the diff for my removal of Deus Ex in case anyone wants to restore it with proper sourcing. Which, per WP:DUE by the way, might require the additional use of the RPGamer source to provide an important Cf. citation as well in the interest of neutrality. -Thibbs (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Among mainstream titles, Deus Ex Human Revolution has interesting artistic features concerning storytelling, writing and aesthetics. A good compromise of mass entertainment product and art, a game for mature audience. You could be interested in my analisys: https://vgartsite.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/deus-ex-human-revolution/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucafg74 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

My concern was whether any "reliable sources" described the game as art. The source that had previously been used was "reliable" but it did not describe the game as art. Your blog is very nice, but it probably wouldn't be considered a "reliable source" by Wikipedia's standards (which you can read about at WP:RS) unless you can establish that you are a recognized expert in the field (details at WP:BLOGS). -Thibbs (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Criteria used by Wikipedia are good, they are the same used in science literature or in academies and university. But such criteria fails when applied to videogames and to mainstream magazines. The latters are not reliable sources. I cannot estabilsh myself as recognized expert, but even many mainstream critics are not experts. Simply because actually there is no foundation for expertise in videogames art field!! :-) I can only give some info about my expertise and declare my criteria in my website.Lucafg74 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Now i'll give you a pragmatic proof of my expertise: have you played The Town of Light? Well, it is a work of art, but completely ignored by mainstream critics! You can read my analisys in my website. I cannot state my expertise, i let the others do it. I'm writing since 2015 (on Steam) innovative critical concepts about videogames art; and i have anticipated few courageous mainstream critics that only now are replaying my concepts!Lucafg74 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your concern here. Are you suggesting that we should add Deus Ex back to the list despite the fact that we don't have a source to support the claim? Or are you just expressing your personal opinion that the game is art? -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Deus Ex has some artistic features, but it's very difficult TODAY to find a reliable source underlying such features, because TODAY mainstream critics are used to approach videogames as electronic toys and virtual challenges, expecially triple A mainstream titles like Deus Ex. No, i'm not forcing to put it in the list, its artistic value is not so evident and strong because of the compromise with mass entertainment purposes. Lucafg74 (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

DX is definitely an influential game, but that's what we need to distinguish are influential games that have affected many others following, and games that are consider works of art. Also keep in mind we don't dismiss older sources like print mags, just harder to locate and use. --MASEM (t) 01:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm referring to Deus Ex Human Revolution. And i underlined TODAY because i think that in the next future videogames will have a better artistic and academic foundation. Well, now changing subject, i think there are a few titles that should not be in the list. I'm just trying to help with some suggestions, you are free to agree or not. Silent Hill 2, at least it would need some reliable sources Music VR, not suitable, no sources Yume Nikki, not suitable, no sources The Endless Forest could be ok, but it needs reliable sources Mother 3, not suitable Dwarf Fortress, not suitable Amnesia, not suitable Papers, Please, not suitable Hyper Light Drifter, not suitable Hollow Knight, not suitable Doom, not suitable Grand Theft Auto V, not suitable Lucafg74 (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Some of these could certainly be removed, but please be aware that the standards that are applied to these entries must be applied consistently to all entries including Firewatch, Beyond Eyes, The Unfinished Swan, What Remains of Edith Finch, etc. Currently the inclusion criteria require direct support for the claim provided by reliable sources. So the list should be weeded to remove entries that either don't have an RS as a source or whose source does not directly corroborate the claim that the game is art. The entries which do seem to be supported by reliable sources but that just don't feel right to us as individuals cannot be held to a higher standard than every other entry, though. So if you require an artistic analysis of Doom using established artistic criteria by an internationally recognized art expert in order to it to be considered suitable for inclusion, then these same requirements must also be applied to Firewatch, Beyond Eyes, The Unfinished Swan, and What Remains of Edith Finch. -Thibbs (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as said we have to respect wikipedia criteria. But before erasing any entry, we have to allow a research for reliable sources sustaining the art of such titles. Yes, such research should be made before any insertion in the list, but first of all we have to estabilish the criteria for the reliable sources. Just now you are claiming for reliable sources explicictly underlining artistic features of the game. But what words or phrases are to be accepted?? Not all critics are willing to use words like "it's an artwork", they sound uncritical!! E.g. in my articles i'm not used to explicit and measure how many art there is in a game! Most of critics tend to underline some features. As said many critics inappropriately uses "work of art". E.g. if a game has a certain visual beauty, they say that's a piece of art! Masem doesn't agree, and i think he is right! Lucafg74 (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Could we use BAFTA AWARDS as reliable sources?vLucafg74 (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Luckily Firewatch, Beyond Eyes, The Unfinished Swan, and What Remains of Edith Finch are all games whose artistic value is recently sustained by many reliable sources. If we decide to restrain reliable sources criteria, i'm able to find reliable sources underlining explicitly their art with clear words. Lucafg74 (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we have to tighten the criteria for inclusion, and I'm open to alternatives to the strict explicit RS claim standard that I favor as long as it doesn't lead to overly interpretive personal analyses or synthesis. The BAFTA idea may be something we could incorporate. But rather than spreading this conversation across several subsections, let's try to centralize some of these discussions. I think a better place to discuss this specific issue (i.e. reworking the inclusion criteria) would be in the section below (here). -Thibbs (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, forget the BAFTA. It's impossible to distinguish artistic value of the several categories. BAFTA have a good sense for art, but artistic games are rewarded also in not-artistic categories; there is only one explicit artistic category, we could only refer to it. Today there is not an explicit artistic prize in videogames industry! Mass entertainment rules! Lucafg74 (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Rewriting advertisement-style content

@Masem: sorry for not being clearer in discussing how the contents of this page need to be rewritten. Some examples of ad-sounding include the blurbs for Contrast, Brothers, Vanishing of Ethan Carter, and Virginia. Perhaps a better tag would have been the encyclopedic tone rewrite, as there are also issues with formatting (Papo & Yo, Cat Lady, Contrast, and Unfinished Swan), general consistency (should blurbs be basic summaries of the game, references to their reviews, characterizations of their nature as art games, or some combo? whichever the case, I believe it should be consistent across each/most entries), and citations (I would argue that each entry should feature a reference to a third-party specifically characterizing the given game as an art game to maintain objectivity and precision for the list). What do you think? --Paradoxasauruser (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I have added the "advert section" template to the list so that its clear thats the section of concern. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Shared criteria

Some of the reliable sources in the list are not so reliable when talking about art. Mainstream magazines are centered around market needs, are strongly influenced by big companies; they make abuse of term "art". If you want to talk about art you have to refer to estabilished forms of art: cinema and animation, painting or drawing, music, literature, drama, etc. etc. And also to estabilished and recognized artworks: e.g. Citizen Kane by Welles, Othello by Shakespeare, Guernica by Picasso, Rachmaninoff's Piano concerto n. 3, etc. etc. There are not estabilished artistic criteria for videogames. Mainstream magazine claim for art even when there is no art! Only a comparative analisys referring to recognized forms of art could be helpful to estabilish shared artistic criteria. You can identify three main features that characterize art: aesthetics, contents and storytelling. Storytelling has to be intended in its wider meaning: artworks must have something to express, to transmit, to tell; also more abstract forms of art, such as music, implement a sort of implicit and abstract storytelling. Just as other recognized artworks, an artistic game has to ensure a unique, coherent and holistic experience where contents, interactivity, gameplay, aesthetics, storytelling, etc., they must intersect inextricably so that the emerging result is greater than the sum of the parts. Masterpieces can be recognized for innovation and experimentation opening new frontiers. I wrote some articles about art and videogames you could find interesting: https://vgartsite.wordpress.com/artgames/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucafg74 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC) Lucafg74 (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It would help if you could be more specific. Which sources are you challenging? -Thibbs (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Mainstream magazines: Kotaku, Multiplayer, Polygon, Gamespot, IGN, Everyeye, etc. etc. Videogames have not a reliable academic and art critic foundation yet. You can find a few good critics with a certain sensibility for art, and so many critics ignorant of art approaching videogames as electronic toys and virtual challenges. Mainstream magazines are strongly influenced by big companies interests. And big companies generally, with few exceptions, are not searching for art in videogames, but only for low or mediun quality mass entertainment. Even for movies is not so different, but Cinema has a well estabilished academic and artistic foundation, popular recognition of Cinema as seventh art is a fact; critics and people can easily distinguish a low quality mass entertainment movie production from an authorial artistic movie production; not the same for videogames. So, today ordinary crtics are generally ignorant of art and cannot distinguish a low quality mass entertainment product from an artistic product. They often look only at technical skills, visual beauty and mainly at challenges. Mainstream critics invented the derogatory term Walking Simulator, because unable to recognize the artistical skills of games as Dear Esther, Gone Home, Firewatch, The Path, Beyond Eyes, The Unfinished Swan, What Remains of Edith Finch, etc. They are not ready for art in videogames yet.Lucafg74 (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Of the sources you've listed: (1) I don't find any mention of Everyeye in the article at all, (2) the only use of Multiplayer.it seems to have been added by you in this edit, and (3) Kotaku, Polygon, Gamespot, and IGN have all been vetted for general use by experienced editors at WP:VG/RS.

I understand the argument that you are making, but I find it strange that you would express concern that mainstream video game magazines are unable to recognize art in video games when the sources that appear in this article all seem to recognize art in video games. For example, Kotaku is the source used to support the inclusion of The Path in the list. Furthermore, it seems to be your position that non-art-oriented sources cannot be considered reliable on artistic claims, but then the alternative would be to remove the list entirely. To be honest I wouldn't really have a problem with that since it is sprawling, a frequent target for original research, and because it is difficult to maintain. But is that what you had in mind here? Or did you have some reliable art-related sources that could be used to better support the claims made in the list? What is your end goal?

For now I think it would be appropriate to remove the one entry based on Multiplayer.it given that it does not appear at WP:VG/RS and given that you are the one who originally added and are now challenging it. We should seek input from others, though, before removing all entries based on Kotaku, Polygon, Gamespot, and IGN, or indeed removing the entire list. Do you have any thoughts on this issue, Masem? -Thibbs (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I generally agree with Thibbs, but I do agree I think we need to trim out entries where the game is not clearly called out as an example of a work of art for VGs, or a masterpiece, or similar language, regardless of source. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

As said, there are few good critics with a certain sensibility for art even in mainstream magazines. We are witnessing an artistic evolution of videogames, so critics are adjusting their criteria. It's a dynamical process. In the future we'll have more an more reliable sources and videogames will have the same academic and artistic foundation as cinema. I'm saying that recognition of art in videogames has not started from mainstream critics. And yet TODAY, mainstream critics tend to understimate art in videogames. Just look at metacritic or others reviews collectors: most of artistic games have ratings lower than low quality mass entertainment titles. It's as Fast & Fuorios had a bigger rating of 400 Blows by Truffaut; that's impossible in any serious pubblication about cinema.... Lucafg74 (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

And no... obviously i'm not saying to remove titles in the list whose art is sustained by mainstream magazines. As said there is an evolving process and a few critics are more sensible to art even in such magazines. Even art is going to have a market in videogames because of the evolution of audience. Children growth while playing Pac Man and Space Invaders are now adult and are demanding for more mature games able to give deep sensations as best movies. For now referring to mainstream magazines considered reliable sources is the only criterion adopted by wikipedia, so we have to respect it. I'm going to change my reference to multiplayer.it in The Cat Lady edit, but in my country it is considered a reliable source. And i'm going to search for reliable sources for The Town of Light; i think i will not find them for now; but i'm sure in the next future many critics will change their minds about such title. Lucafg74 (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

In the end i found the today only one reliable source claiming explicitly for the art of The Town of Light!! That's the proof that artistic evolution of videogames market is running fast! Lucafg74 (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Games i disagree in the list

I don't think Grand theft auto 5 should be on this list it feels so out of place compared to the others

I don't think Resident Evil 7 is a proper entry Lucafg74 (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The same criterion applies to Doom, i don't think it is a work of art; otherwise also Cannibal Holocaust (a movie) is art!Lucafg74 (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

There are no intentions of doing art in Doom! Lucafg74 (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Techinical improvementa are very important, but they are not art for themselves. The first movies that implemented 3D or the cinemascope or audiotrack or high tech cameras etc. are very important movies, but non necessarily work of art. Lucafg74 (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Other games before Doom implemented FPS and 3D graphic engines, e.g. Maze 3D, Wolfstein 3D; Doom added only extreme violence and a better engine. Doom consciously stimulates the player's lower instincts. It's pure commercial speculation not aimed to deep content, narrative, design or aesthetic research. You have only to fight your way through hordes of invading demons. Its legacy is a collection of equally violent games aimed to trivial entertainment. You can think that's good, a great achievement for the entertainment industry, but it's not art! Lucafg74 (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You have to be careful not to allow your own personal feelings color your edits. There is some good advice on this topic covered at WP:OR. The only question that you should be asking is whether or not the sources support the claims. By listing a game on the list, the implicit claim is made that the game has been considered to be a work of art by reliable sources. To check if this is true, all you need to do is to read through the source that is listed. In several cases there is no claim made in the source that the game is a work of art. Those list members should probably be removed until proper sources emerge. -Thibbs (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I have not expressed my feelings, but a deep critical analisys. I disagree with mainstream critics claiming that Doom is a piece of art. There are not estabilished criteria for art in videogames. Many mainstream critics are ignorant about art, they judge videogames only for mass entertainment purposes. Lucafg74 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about arguments like "I don't think Grand theft auto 5 should be on this list it feels so out of place". How a game makes you feel should not be a consideration when contributing content to an encyclopedia that is based on reliable sources. Personal analysis and disagreement with reliable sources is fine for a blog, but it's not acceptable at Wikipedia. Imagine if someone didn't feel that humans had any impact on global warming so they removed all mention of anthropogenic influence from the article on climate change. It doesn't matter if their own personal study of the subject has led them to this conclusion, the content in Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. I take your point about the shortcomings of "mainstream" sources, but the discussion about whether these sources have the credentials to discuss art should probably be kept centralized below. -Thibbs (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey other guys, if modern art is art, how is doom not art compared to a walking simulator game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolven1 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Do we need to tighten up the criteria for this list?

Given several recent additions or attempts at additions, or removals, I wonder if we need to have a strong criteria for inclusion on this list. Maybe even to the point where an entry needs to be proposed with supporting sources and gain consensus to include?

The reason I say this is that it is relatively easy for many games to search on the game name and "work of art" and find a source even from a reliable one. That really doesn't prove a game has industry-wide recognition of being a work of art, and this list should be much more precise that a game really is broadly considered a work of art, rather than piece-parting the comments from individuals.

Something like the MOMA list would be a sign that shows this industry recognizition and there might be other factors too. But there can be other games that don't have that recognition yet. Take an example of That Dragon, Cancer. Google searching on the name and "work of art" gives a good number of RS hits, including outside the gaming sphere, so I would argue this has industry-wide recognizition, but I think we should have a process to review an entry, gain consensus, and archive that on this talk page so there's no question why something was added - and for the same reason why something was not. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If we were to weed through the list and mercilessly remove entries that don't describe the game as a work of art then we might already be more on track. I think there is a slow proliferation of borderline cases where the game is compared to an established artform - like a modern remake of Pong might be called "minimalist" in its artistry. There is a temptation to leave such an entry on the list because minimalism is a form of art and the source supports the assertion that the game employs visual minimalism as an artistic technique. In the list we see several examples like that - e.g. Doom compared to splatterhouse cinema, Max Payne compared to neo-noir, etc. It would make sense to me to tighten the requirements so that no interpretation was necessary. Does the source describe a game as reminiscent of cubism? And is cubism a form of art? Maybe so, but to be listed on this Wikipedia list the source should explicitly say somewhere that the game is a work of art. I'm open to other ways of tightening the inclusion criteria as well. Ultimately it may make the most sense to split the list off into a list article and just link to it from this article on the concept. -Thibbs (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I definitely think we can establish criteria; some would be automatic inclusion like the MOMA games, but others would start with "have X sources called it a work of art or similar language", as then to have a discussion of how strong that conviction is. RSes often say "this game is like a work of art" in passing which is bad form for us. I really would like to have a situation here that each game that would be on the trimmed list is one that we can have editors search through the archives to understand why it is included and what was not included. We definitely want to make clear "arthouse games" != "works of art", nor are games with great art necessarily works of art, in terms of the video gam where it is the entire experience and sum of the parts rather than just visuals or the like. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with that. Cross- or inter-industry recognition such as recognition from the art world (e.g. MOMA) does greatly strengthen the case for inclusion. And I agree that simple in-passing RS mentions of a game as "like a work of art" that don't cover the work-of-art nature of the game as a whole are poor candidates for the list. A case by case evaluation might be a little difficult to accomplish while being fully objective, but to the extent that it's possible that would be the ideal situation. I used to check the sourcing for each new addition to the list, but I've lapsed in my attention to this task. We definitely need to re-evaluate. I've invited the IP editor who has recently been adding games to the list to join our discussion and I hope he does. Some of the comments left in other threads gives me the impression that the user needs help with some of our guidelines. -Thibbs (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

MOMA selected a few videogames for their design, not for art intended as sublime expression. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzGjO5aHShQ Lucafg74 (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as said we have to respect wikipedia criteria. But before erasing any entry, we have to allow a research for reliable sources sustaining the art of such titles. Yes, such research should be made before any insertion in the list, but first of all we have to estabilish the criteria for the reliable sources. Just now you are claiming for reliable sources explicictly underlining artistic features of the game. But what words or phrases are to be accepted?? Not all critics are willing to use words like "it's an artwork", they sound uncritical!! E.g. in my articles i'm not used to explicit and measure how many art there is in a game! Most of critics tend to underline some features. As said many critics inappropriately uses "work of art". E.g. if a game has a certain visual beauty, they say that's a piece of art! Masem doesn't agree, and i think he is right! Lucafg74 (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Could we use BAFTA AWARDS as reliable sources? Lucafg74 (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

We could restrain reliable sources to a few critics specialized in discovering artistic side of videogames. That's what happens in cinema and in other estabilished forms of art. Reliable sources are not generical magazines, but specifical critics with high expertise in art. What do you think? Lucafg74 (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Recently this list has gained more attention even thanks to my promotion on my social channels (steam, facebook, twitter, website). I have an audience of more than 3500 people sensible to videogames art. So i'm not surprised that more and more people are going to add new entries! :-) We have to estabilish clear, shared but tight "scientific" criteria for the list. Referring to specific art critics and experts is what happens in other estabilished forms of art as Cinema. We should select specific art critics writing for reliable sources. Lucafg74 (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

There are various new-media-art-centric outlets that might be of use if we are to adopt this standard. Rhizome springs to mind, as do authors like Ian Bogost and Matteo Bittanti. In some ways this begins to drift much closer to our article on art games (where we have frank art theorists like Tiffany Holmes, Celia Pearce, and Rebecca Cannon) than on "games as art". And your point about MOMA is also well taken. Even explicitly art-oriented organizations like modern art museums may not be strong enough to support inclusion of some entries on the list. In the end you may be correct that there are simply no modern sources strong enough to corroborate the claim that the games on the list are properly considered as art, although that does suggest that we should reconsider whether we want a list in this article at all.

If we are brutally honest with ourselves, the current list has been developed in a pretty ad-hoc and subjective manner and as mentioned it has the potential for growth that could overwhelm the main article. This article is intended to be about the concept of games as art rather than to function as an index of all artistic video games and video game artworks. Few other video game genre articles on Wikipedia have embedded lists like this (see e.g. Casual game, Serious game, etc.) and those that do tend to either split out their lists (e.g. Christian video game) or are riddled with problems and have big cleanup templates displayed at the top (see e.g. Crossover game, Traditional game, etc.). In fact even the list here has a cleanup tag. If we don't want to just delete the list, and if no sources can be found that meet our standards for expertise in art and so we are forced to continue with the current loosely-enforced "explicit claim by established RS" standard, then I would suggest moving the list to its own article (a list article like List of Christian video games) as a half measure. Thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorta in the same position as Thibbs. I'd rather see us TNT the current list (The rest of the article is fine) and then establish criteria like we have on other lists that involve subjective opinions (like games known for negative reception). The titles on this should be few and far between, keeping in mind that we have the art-house games page for games that were developed to be evocative like art, though not necessary considered highly selective "works of art". --MASEM (t) 15:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Science is founded upon continuosly empirical proofing by scientific community. I'm a physics teacher, i know how science works. Art critic has no empirical proofing foundation, can only be founded around critical discussions among academic community. Discussions concerning comparative analisys with estabilished forms of art and historical experience in the field of art critic. That's all. Videogames as art TODAY has no academic foundation, there is no community of experts or critics specialized in videogames art. For now this list has to be founded upon shared criteria stated by wikipedia community. We could discuss about reliability of the sources. That's my intention. As said, i don't think mainstream magazines centered around needs of mass entertainment market and industry are ALWAYS reliable sources. So we could identify a few critics specialised in reviewing artistic games. Lucafg74 (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It's wrong to give up the list. We are pioneers of the new wind of art in videogames. Obviously when you are starting something from scratch, without external references, it is always not easy. We have not to give up. We could try to involve other experts, other reliable and recognized critics, to found a new community of videogames art experts on wikipedia Lucafg74 (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, i agree to move the list to a page of its own. Lucafg74 (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Move/remove list

I would recommend either deleting the "List of artistic video games", or moving it to a separate page. It's clearly promotional for some of these games. I'm not sure how it differs from Art_game#List_of_arthouse_games. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, let's move the list to a separate page. But then we have to define tight "scientific" shared criteria and reliable sources. Lucafg74 (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• This sounds good to me. I won't be able to be too involved for the next several days due to work, but I'll try to look in from time to time to see how things are progressing. -Thibbs (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Arthouse games are those where the creator set out to make a game they felt would be a work of art, and typically emphasized by some unique production value that stands out. Games that are considered works of art should be those seen as masterpieces by critics (not the developer) that actually are recognized as the pinnacle of the video game medium. This list should arguably be very very short. --MASEM (t) 12:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Masem for shrinking the list, but TODAY videogames masterpieces according to mainstream critics are NOT necessarily artistic titles! TODAY mainstream critics put in poleposition titles oriented to mass entertainment not necessarily artistic. See reviews aggregators as Metacritic or GameRanking. We should define very narrow criteria on our own, using comparative analisys with other forms of art and making a comparison with other specialised critics. We are founders, pioneers, we have to create a community of videogames art critics from scratch. We have to involve the most sensible critics and academics. Wikipedia could be a good aggregator! At first we have to start discussions about art criteria! Lucafg74 (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

We will found Les Cahiers des Jeux Videos (a pun for Les Cahiers du Cinema founded by Truffaut) :-) Lucafg74 (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Y Done. -Thibbs (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 15 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AMToler.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lack of philosophical support for the argument that game is an art form.

There were many historical facts on the struggles through which games were accepted as art in legal terms. However, there should be more support from critics and philosophy from professionals that are familiar with the field. The article focused more on criticism and interpretations that support the idea that games are not art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.223 (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Kotaku's Patricia Hernandez wrote this inspiring note regarding the unique values of interactivity for shaping games as an art form, explaining one notable section of the interactive fiction Photopia. It's not strictly a third-party source, but I think we can use it as an expert WP:SPS. The point it advances is relevant to counter the criticism by Rogert Evert, that gameplay cannot be artistic on itself. Diego (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There is now quite a lot of philosophy (i.e. books and peer-reviewed philosophical journal articles) written on this topic. I have added some references and could add more references and actual theoretical details if needed.--Hardtorememberusername123 (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure the portion you added was positioned properly. The History section is roughly chronological in nature. The 2018-2021 publications don't really fit well between "the late 1990s and early 2000s" (paragraph 1) and 2003 (paragraph 2)... I've moved it to the end of the history for now, but perhaps you intended it as a supplement to the theory of legitimation? -Thibbs (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The change in location is fine, though the philosophical literature has its origins in the mid 2000s. Your edit introduced a number of inaccuracies (e.g. Tavinor and Robson's book is an edited collection of the work of other philosophers). This material does not belong in theory of legitimation because that section makes an assumption that arguing for the art status of video games amounts to a legitimizing process, which doesn't seem to be an idea common in the philosophical literature. I will add to the paragraph to give a better impression on the work that has been done. I wonder if a new section on academic work on the issue is warranted.Hardtorememberusername123 (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Proper names/institutions like "University of Utah" and some of the jargon like "philosophical aesthetics", "philosophy of the arts", "disjunctive definitions or cluster accounts", etc. might be made clearer to readers if we use WP:Wikilinking. -Thibbs (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Assignment

Starting with the beginning, I think it would be in everyone's best interest to define what an "indie game" is. Giving them a link is great, but it would be nice to just have a simple explanation afterwards. Next, during the Empathy Game section, it would be nice to quote other games that are known for dragging the player through an emotional experience, like The Static Speaks My Name or Don't Take This Risk. While reading I though your Controversy was strangely placed, that in might of been better to put the critics after or move it down to be above the critics. In the Other Notable critics some words repeat so much to the point of boredom. Last note, I believe the title should be capitalized to say "Video Games as an Art Form". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.222 (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

(1) The Empathy Games section could possibly benefit from specific examples, but I would caution that we had just recently removed a large list of titles from this article and shifted them to List of video games commonly referred to as artistic. We are trying to avoid this article turning into an indiscriminate collection of artistic games, so the list article devoted to listing these games may be a better place for The Static Speaks My Name or Don't Take This Risk.

(2) The "Other notable critics" subsection is presented in a loose list format. While I don't think it's especially repetitive, I definitely think that a proper prose format would be an improvement.

(3) The policy regarding article titles is found at WP:TITLEFORMAT. We shouldn't use "Video Games as an Art Form" as the new title because it is not written in "sentence case".

(4) The two "critics" subsections currently falls within the "Controversy" section. There is overlap because the most notable critical response to date has come from the controversial position taken by Roger Ebert which was widely disputed within some sections of the gaming press. Other critical commentary has largely been discussed in relation to Ebert's notable stance. The "Legal status" subsection deals with a related concept inasmuch as the lawsuits all covered free-speech-related disputes, but I agree that the "Theory of legitimation" subsection has rather broadened the scope of the "Controversy" section as it really isn't much related to controversy per se. I feel that if the "Roger Ebert" and "Other critics" sections were removed, that kind of cuts the heart out of the "Controversy" parent section so I would be opposed to that alone, but it might be time to consider simply doing away with the parent section and reshuffling the subsections. For example, the "legal status" section could be shifted to the "history" section; the "Theory of legitimation" subsection could become its own section, and the two "critics sections" could be relocated under a new "Critical response" section. Does that make sense?

I have no opinion on the suggestion of a simple explanation of what an "indie game" is. Feel free to add it. -Thibbs (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)