This discourse was going around twitter today apparently and im curious takes from here.
Which is it for you?
For me i prefer playersexuality. I want to be able to romance any romance option regardless of my charachters gender. I dont want to be stuck with only Arcade Gannon if i want to do m/m
I agree that sexuality can be important to a charachter. But if you wanna do that, seems like the charachter can just not be a romance option.
That said. In RPGs devs can do what they want. You want a charachter to be monosexual and a romance option, have at it. (Unless theyre all straight, then fuck you).
I do kinda hate what The Sims did by adding monosexuality. Felt like such a virtue signal that made the game less fun. All Sims being pansexual was always more fun for me. Especially since i usually play that game as a pansexual slut. Unless i decide my player Sim is mono, but thats on the player's end.
Monosexual townies in the Sims should at least be optional (is it? Idk havent played Sims 4 since this update).
Yeah lets make video games sterile, loveless, and sexless thats the solution.
Cant let artists try to explore a part of life because some but not all of the attempts at it so far have been clumsy, hacky, or undercooked.
Sorry im just tired of getting this answer. Its not the question i asked. And this answer just feels anti-art.
Video games aren’t art.
Are you trolling lol? Its a medium of artistic expression. How is Disco Elysium not art?
Games aren’t art. Not everything has to be art. Things don’t start off as art and get dragged down to some other classification. Things are elevated to the status of art over time as people recognize their importance. Disco Elysium is literally too new to be art even if it weren’t made in a non-art medium.
Thats not what art is lol. Art has nothing to do with age of the work. Nor does it have anything to do with quality.
If that is so then why are all examples of art as taught (reproduction of the institution has its own problems but even if you were to go with the vernacular understanding the results are the same) in school represent the most communicative, moving works that express a culture and why are they always determined to be so many years after the fact? Why are even the works that use unconventional techniques judged using qualitative language is art has nothing to do with quality?
To put it more simply: why is Etruscan boar vessel art and disco elysium not?
Im sorry but none of this defines what art is. Yes, classics are taught in schools, but whats taught in schools isnt what defines art. Also art classes in schools teach kids to make their own art.
Art is any creative expression. Its not a superlative qualitive label. Philosphers have been writing about the concept of "bad art" (usually stuff that was contemporary to them at the time) for centuries.
Art criticism has to do with quality (and is an art onto itself). But the actual definition of what art is has nothing to do with quality. Are video games a creative expression? Yes. So they are art and can have artistic merit.
Your definition of what art is seems reactionairy to me.
No, I’m sorry. Art is not any creative expression. We can both recognize that neither of us is talking about such a generalized use of the word. We’re not talking about art class, we’re talking about art. Art represents a different qualitative class of expression. Quality is literally how you understand its unquantifiable nature.
Even if you were right, and art were just any creative expression ever, and I was able to gain the sublime transcendence and understanding of a visit to the lourve by recognizing a well balanced composition in my pre-flush =|dookie logs|=, games have another impossible to clear hurdle in their lack of elevation.
We can’t simply say that the Pepsi logo is art. For pop artists to do so required them to define and establish a context for that work to exist in. Pop art was also a cia funded psyop and absolutely not art but that’s neither here nor there for my purpose of taking the most obviously non art thing and establishing that games cannot rise to meet even its made up fake standard of artworthiness.
Games are not art and that’s okay. Not everything has to be art.
Art is any creative expression. This is how the term is used by the masses, by most cultural critics, and how the term is defined by dictionairy. Any academic wank about "what counts as art" is just that, wank.b
Anything else, especially your implied distaste for modern art, is fascism. "removed art" bullshit.
No its not. Art is not a qualitative superlative.