and point out that this definition would lead to...
Video Games are a form of art.
Thanks to Pro for posting what has, in recent years, been a topic of some controversy. Firstly, it would be easy for Con to win just by taking Pro's first two sentences "Video games are a form of art because they are created. anything that is created is a form of art." and point out that this definition would lead to absurdity; if anything that were created fell under the definition of art, then not only books or painting but also suitcases, bicycles, plastic cups and literally everything manufactured in some way would count as "art", voiding the word of any usefulness. However, I will take a more charitable interpretation and assume that what he means by art includes the act of "enjoying and interacting" with the creation and also that "beauty" comes into it. Now, given this definition, it is clear upon reflection that such a broad statement as "Video Games are a form of art" is simply not true; some video games are art, certainly; perhaps a majority, perhaps a minority, but a great many are not. Firstly, it is only relatively recently that games have become visually what anyone would consider to be beautiful. For example, to take a random example, outdated games like this one would not be considered beautiful [1] by any standard measure of the term. In addition, some games are poorly designed and thus not enyoyable to play. For instance, Superman for the nintendo 64 was released with a multiplicity of bugs and most of the game was filled with mind numbingly boring ring flying challenges [2]. I don't have a precise definition of "Art" - there is no uncontested definition. However, by the definition Pro has posted, the resolution is false. Some video games are art, some are not; however, all video games are not art. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://uk.gamespot.com...