I might spend the 3 bucks for this ebook, but we'll see when I finish the excerpt.

Based on that article he is barely even touching the surface of a problem he simply doesn't understand. The shiv isn't the problem.

Nobody used to complain about these 'gamey' elements in their games. Now that complaint is rife. The reason why, is that the aesthetics of games have advanced so much that the mechanics have yet to catch up. We can get these wonderful beautiful worlds to be in, but be hampered with the incredibly limited interactions the game provides. It's like the uncanny valley in a way. The world looks real, but as soon as you try to 'touch' it you see the limitations and reject it as fake.

It is a problem of the mechanics and aesthetics not being compatible.

I know I'm rehashing old ground here, but reading this excerpt reminds me of how much I enjoy ODST. My daughter and I have been playing through it again, so it's fresh in my mind.

There are very few "game mechanics" that get in the way of the story, and instead there are a lot of key gameplay decisions that mesh seamlessly with the narrative. The choice of guns, the "open" world", the non-linear story, the environment, even the visor... so many little gameplay design decisions work to enhance the film noire concept that drove the production. This marriage of storytelling and game mechanics seems to be the "art" to which the author refers.

My daughter knows nothing about film noire storytelling or video game design, so I find it very telling that she refers to the game as "Halo Mystery". She gets the concept without being told it explicitly because almost everything in the gameplay works with the story narrative to create a cohesive whole.

And dat music!

My problem with his argument, is this incredibly narrow definition he has for art and what it can be.

I started making a list, and I realized that I was just rehashing this piece in polygon from a year ago.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/10/6101639/games-art

While the piece here is a bit over the top, I think the basic premises still stand. Meaning is more than just message, art is more about social context than the art object, and games transmit meaning in very different ways.

His argument seems to be that the Last of Us is flawed because it contains game elements? I'll be honest: If the gameplay in The Last of Us wasn't compelling, that game would have been a painful experience. But they got the combat down to be fun and interesting. Sure the game is linear, but the lines are broad, so you can advance down the street, or through a building, or by jumping a fence and taking a side alley. And there are often large, square areas where you have to get from one corner to the opposite one with a host of enemies in the way and loads of cover to hide behind. The choice of stealth vs. assault is also nearly always available, which means any "linear" area can actually be traversed via two wholly different gameplay experiences, or a combination of them.

A linear map is not the same as a linear game, and the author seems not to get that.

Then, at the end, he extolls on the virtues of Gears of War which is (seriously) almost identical to The Last of Us in terms of combat gameplay. This guy is getting distracted by the non game elements and holding the better story up to a higher standard than the more pulp action game, even though they both play in similar fashions.

The end result is, at least from this excerpt, the author comes off as someone who hates video games and was assigned to write this by his editor. It's not a critical examination of gaming as art, so much as it's a critical examination of games with the expectation that compelling stories are better told via a different medium.

I wholly disagree with what appears to be the premise of this excerpt, and i think that author does himself a disservice by speaking in absolutes rather than acknowledging that his own opinions are not facts, his findings are not scientific, and his concept of game mechanics is inconstant.

Is it something that requires skill? Or evokes emotion?

I mean we have seen the concept art for Destiny, and everyone can agree that it looks beautiful.

Sample concept art

Many of these images have been pretty faithfully rendered into the actual game. Does that change in media lessen them somehow? Reduce them to something less then their creators intended?

Does the interaction of the person playing with the game enhance or reduce these places? How about the fiction surrounding them?

If we can see the art and appeal of a precise, minimalist cup or glass why can't we enjoy the rich tapestry of a AAA title?

Videogames are becoming the cathedrals of our time, now that all ornamentation and displays of pride and status are ruthlessly removed from our actual buildings and replaced with ugly concrete and glass abstract cubes. Each game encourages players to find that particular look or place, to show off something.

Yet it can't be art, because it isn't in a museum where art snobs can go, drink a little and pretend they liked it before it was cool.