Talk:Video games as an art form/Archive 2

Making the "See also" section more concise
In my opinion the "See also" section seems a bit bloated. Some of the entries (e.g. "Machinima, the use of games for storytelling" and "Visual novel, an independent art form within the video game industry") are not directly related to the subject of the article viz. the question of video games being art (rather, in these cases, they are just arbitrary examples of the use of video games as an expressive medium).

My concern is that the number of entries reduces the usefulness of the "See also" section as a pointer to more information directly pertinent to the subject.

I think a lot of these entries would benefit from being given sections or being otherwise referenced in the Video game art article.

In any event, I propose trimming the list to just the following entries:

* Classificatory disputes about art * List of video games considered artistic * Game studies * Video game art, artistic expressions using video games as a medium

BirdmanOfHorseradish (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it could do with a little trimming, but I probably wouldn't cut it down as much as you've suggested. I'll go with whatever the consensus comes to, but I think the key guidance should come from MOS:NAVLIST. -Thibbs (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

A criticism on citing Roger Ebert and the order of paragraphs in this article
As far as I can tell from Mr. Ebert's Wikipedia article, he had a focus on movies. I am unable to understand how that would qualify him to have such a big block of text about his views in an article about video games. Especially when there is such a huge selection of actual game developers, artists playing video games, as well as specialized game journalists who have qualified views on the matter. (You wouldn't quote a video games critic or food critic in the article about The Princess Bride either.) What they have to say on the matter would hold more weight that someone who does specialize in neither video games nor art and thus should be (at the very least) listed above his section, rather than under it. --91.22.88.32 (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * When his 2010 essay "Video games can never be art" it caused a massive stir in the video game community to prove him wrong, which led the longer goal of trying to provide that video games could be an art form. It was an influential in that manner, which is why we give him extra attention here. (See for example Reason in 2013, Vox). --M asem (t) 01:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing this out, Masem. Having it for "historical reasons" actually makes a lot of sense. When I read the article the first time around I didn't quite catch that. Sorry for troubling you. --80.141.64.64 (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And I just made sure that we did frame it with that essay as the key point. We didn't just randomly pick Ebert, there was a whole period from 2010 through the ruling in Brown v. ESA that "video games as art" was raised as a key question. If you feel this needs to be stressed more so that others don't miss it, that's fine, but we know it needs to be be made here. --M asem (t) 19:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)