this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
166 points (87.1% liked)
Games
31990 readers
2 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Maybe because most people experience the art? and don't feel the need to inflate their ego by thinking their interpretation or experience is the best way to interpret something?
this feels like a bunch of nerds sitting around complaining that gamers miss stuff, while not understanding that most gamers don't miss it. they just experience it and don't feel the need to externalize it.
Imo its the other way around. If you experience art, you think about it and try to get a meaning out of it (even if there is none, as in some modern art pieces). But if you just play a game you are not getting the art-aspect of it, you just enjoy it for the gameplay or maybe even the story but not for the deeper meaning.
Absolutely. If the value of art were just "experiencing" it without processing it, there's an argument to be made that soulless blockbuster movies are as significant a piece of art as something with actual substance because so many people like the "experience."
People who do more than just "consume" the art in front of them are not just self righteous nerds (though many are, sure)... it's also a prerequisite to, you know, actually creating something of artistic value.
No, it’s not. The prerequisite to creating valuable art is ability, not some stance toward intellectualizing visceral media.