I should've also said that they can't in the same way visual art, literature, or even movies are thought of as art. There are just too many variables when it comes to video games. For example, someone either appreciates a painting or they don't when they look at it. Now let's say five random people decide to play Bioshock, a great game that a lot of people consider "art", they might not fully appreciate the game for reasons that are specific to video games. Someone who plays it on a $200 laptop at 17 FPS won't have the same experience as someone playing it on the newest hardware or on a console.
The game will have minimum requirements to play as intended, so everyone from that point on is getting roughly the same experience.
If you watch Godfather on a small black & white TV with mono audio via VHS and someone else does on 4k Blu-Ray using a big, new, top of the line TV with surround sound then the experience will be different but not by enough to count. You both saw Godfather.
What if they play the original version or the remaster?
They're different pieces of art, just think of it that way. There's different versions of films and books too.
Will they think the bonus content adds to the experience because there's more stuff to do, or do they think it's a lazy inclusion that detracts from the linear experience?
This is basically asking "what will they think of this art?"
What if they have a higher/lower tolerance for bugs than the average person?
Technically it's not too different than a film or song's disc being defective and skipping, or a book having a misprint.
What if they think having to edit configuration files or having to install a community-made patch to make the game work ruins any chance of them thinking the game is a masterpeice no matter how good everyone else says it is?
Doing work to engage with art shouldn't impact one's view of it, viewing the Mona Lisa is a lot more work than that unless you live near it, but that doesn't diminish its status as art.
Will difficuly options described along the lines of "This is how the game is meant to be played" affect what they think of it if they think said difficulty is too hard or easy?
Playing on Normal is the intended experience, if they think it's too easy/hard then that's not a lot different than thinking a movie is poorly paced (too fast/slow). It's subjective interpretation.
Even though they played the same critically acclaimed game, it was a good time for someone, and was a waste of storage space for someone else.
There's admittedly more variability in experiencing a game vs literature/film/music, but it isn't so different that it shouldn't count as art if those do, especially film.
Personally, I think video games can be art, but they aren't by default. I don't think there's an ounce of artistic intent in your annual copy of Madden any more than I think MCU slop are artistic films.
Advance Wars is better than Fire Emblem, its just ashame that weeb niggers and whales shoved advance wars into the sideline.
It's not better than the FE classics, and only Days of Ruin is very good.
That's interesting. I think I have room in my head for one video game at a time and trying to do more than one simultaneously just ruins both for me.
It's funny that we're both on the opposite ends of this. Or at least I think we are, I'm assuming the average person probably bounces between at least 2 games. I don't have like any polling data or anything though, sometimes you need a change of pace.
