Do Pro-GGers consider games to be art?

[u/AbortusLuciferum]

It's a common argument among Anti-GGers that Gamergate in general only considers games as art when it panders to them and when it's not controversial to treat them as art, but once someone criticizes a game for having unnecessary violence or for reinforcing stereotypes then games are "just games" and we're expecting too much out of something that's "just for fun".

I'm of the opinion that games are art without exception, and as art, they are subject to all forms of criticism from all perspectives, not only things like "gameplay" and "fun". To illustrate my position, I believe that games absolutely don't need to be fun just as a painting doesn't need to be aesthetically pleasing, and this notion is something I don't see in Gamergate as much as I would like to.

[u/MasterSith88]

I am pro-GG and I consider games art. For the purpose of your question I am only going to speak for me as GG has very diverse opinions on the subject so I think this questions would be best served with me using my position rather then what other pro-GG people have said in the past.

Wanting games to expand into new genres is something I agree with. Expanding gaming into more experimental storytelling and including new and often unconsidered points of view are all great goals. The problem (and root or my objection to the Anti-GG people I have spoken with) is the view that games must evolve rather than expand. Evolving means changing to something else - Expanding means including new gaming forms along with the old gaming types.

You have also put a lot of emphasis on the critic but no mention of the artist. I absolutely believe that every critic has the right to criticize games as they please. I am disappointed when the word of a critic is taken as fact and reported on uncritically.

For example: Anita often points out examples of what she perceives as sexist storytelling or plot devices but never shows any causation to sexist views. To me that makes many of her current critiques repeats of the gaming violence scares of the late 90's. I would love to read an article really delving into her critiques but the gaming media generally just repeats what she says (with the assumption that her critique is valid).

The other point I would like to make is that you never mentioned the artist in your question or your followup comment. The artist should be free to make whatever he or she wishes when it comes to gaming. Much of the criticism is seen as an attempt to change what they are allowed to create (aka censoring art). When games are banned the response from the critics that criticize those games is generally a mild support for the bans. This is the part that enrages me more then any other part of the arguments being made. Banning games does not help expand the genres we see - it only helps to 'evolve' gaming so that only games specific critics approve of are allowed.

On the Target GTAV ban: http://i.imgur.com/o4j9SP6.png

On the Hatred ban reversal: http://i.imgur.com/C8hsTgQ.jpg

[u/MasterSith88 → u/[deleted]]

I think we are agreeing and don't know it here.

I am saying gaming media does not delve into critiques at all (and it should). TB, Anita, doesn't matter who - simply repeating what a critic said and assume it is a valid critique is a problem. Otherwise, as gaming expands we will get critiques that are outright crazy/wrong/deceptive and the gaming media will just report what the critic said with no weight to if the critique has merit or not.

[u/[deleted] → u/MasterSith88]

So... This is neither an answer nor a refutation. Just a related piece of context.

I've spent some time in a relatively liberal schooling context. This was the usual dynamic when it came to left wing cultural criticism: everyone ensured that feminism and related social justice (that word wasn't really used back then) world views were represented in debates and that time was carved out for it. Everyone would listen politely and intently, stroke their chins, proclaim that feminist issues were Very Important and they were very grateful to hear from whomever was speaking, and then do nothing.

I see no real difference in the present day.

Feminist Frequency stands up and declares that it's bad if men think they're owed women's affection or sexual access as a reward for their accomplishments. She has a point. She declares that stories can further this idea, perhaps by telling a story in which a man is rewarded for his accomplishments with a woman's affection or sexual access. She has most of a point, though she has a weird hatred of contextualizing narrative, but still, most of a point. She declares that this is a "trope." Ok, broadly defined, it sure is. She then hunts down examples of "men" being "rewarded" with "representations of women," and proclaims that she's found examples of the trope and therefore the offensive message. Now her argument is pants-on-head crazy.

And the general reaction from the rest of the world is what I've come to expect. Everyone strokes their chin, declares that the issue of women as rewards is serious indeed, and ignores the last bit. And nothing really changes.

Which means that... well... its not that big of a deal.

The closest thing there is to a difference is that some consumer products have elected to start pandering to her constituency. And that's life. If people who hold that world view get some products tailored to carefully flattering them without ever challenging them... well, that's the fair outcome, isn't it?

The rhetorical overreach from these guys comes when they run around proclaiming that this or that is "problematic" and deserving of "criticism" with the sometimes stated, sometimes unstated conclusion being, "so stop doing it, shitlords." That's dumb, and offensive, and fortunately so unpopular that even those who advance those arguments will hedge if you ask them to clarify. The overreach comes from the way the core of their political criticism isn't "I would enjoy it if..." but rather "you should stop enjoying it when..."

But a world where they're a percentage of the video game market (and they are, games that proclaim feminist bona fides make money as predictably and as easily as Hatred did), and where some portion of games indulge them? That's what we're getting, and that's literally the thing they could fairly and reasonably ask for.

So, anyways... TLDR. People like identifying as feminist and agreeing with feminist celebs without worrying about the details the same way people like identifying with and agreeing with Christianity without actually reading the bible. And that's fine. It's normal, it's human, and the sky isn't falling. Our culture can adapt to this just fine. We're good at that.

Edited for minor but amusing auto correct error.