tangramman wrote:Completed the survey. Will likely do a follow up interview at a later date.
Also, as a devil's advocate in the "games are art" debate, here's
one fella's interpretation. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he's at least interesting.
Yeah, "art" is highly subjective, but I don't think it makes it a meaningless or unproductive conversation to have. I'd also say that Wittgenstein didn't "effectively deal with" the philosophical problem of what art is, any more than Socrates dealt with the problem of what love is, or Plato with what beauty is. Because those concepts lie in complex intersections of social/cultural realms and transcendent ideals, they're necessarily part of unfinished conversations.
But I agree, it's an interesting perspective. I think the question might really be, "When does the debate of games as art/not art become an unproductive one? What does it get us?" and by us I mean game-players, the industry, academics who think about games, game designers, the general public, etc.
Daitengu wrote: Action = Devil May Cry, God of War, Tomb Raider, etc
fighting = Street Fighter 2, Guilty Gear, Tekken, etc
Thus I propose to you that fighting infact does not equal action.
I have a friend who follows e-sports and he'd probably agree with you. I have to admit that's my own bias; I'm not a fighting game player. I've seen some responses to that question that argue for other missing genres (platformers as distinct from action games, for instance), and I take their point too. That's part of my hope for responses to talk back to the question in a way, and I have to say I'm pleased that's happening quite a bit.
May contact you to do an interview by e-mail.
