>>31673811>No, it's just that the common definition of art is that it is the personal expression of the artist or artists.No, it's not a definition, it's not official, and not common. Some people run by it, some doesn't, there are no "common" definition, as I said before.
>Games aren't.Why not? It's can't be personal, or expression, or done by artist or artists? There are good games done by one person if you didn't know, and you probably don't.
>It's intended for the audience to derives enjoyment and challenge out of them. They instead SERVE their audience.Just like Stephany Mayers and Michael Bay movies! You just lack any insight and knowledge of the medium and judging it, just like I said before.
>Sure. Ingmar Bergman's Persona and Berlioz's Grande Messe des MortsThose aren't intellectually stimulating, but you made you examples - here's mine: Pathologic, Shadow of the Colossus. And I don't think you played that or know about them to provide opinion on my choice, unlike me who saw Persona. Here we go again: your lack on insight and ignorance.
>They can be, but that's sort of besides the point.Of course, but what are the examples?
>And yet the focus is still on challenge and interaction.No, the main focus of some games is on story and characters.
>My point is that games are focused on the mechanical aspect of interaction and challenge. Because you don't know games that focused on other aspects, again.
>They're meant to be fun. To engage and audience through challenges and competition>Movies, literature, and music are creative methods of personal expressionAnd here you just cemented your lack of knowledge and ignorance again. You don't know the medium, haven't played many games and know only equivalents of "Stephany Mayers and Michael Bay movies" or something better like John McTiernan and Cameron tier, but that's still ignorant to think of games based on such wrong and shallow terms.
You shouldn't argue about things you know almost nothing about.
