In the past few years, an argument which has frequently come up is whether or not video games can be considered “art”, if they are a proper, legitimate form of artistic expression.
Talking to Gamasutra, Rockstar co-founder and vice president Dan Houser says they don’t really care. According to Houser, the argument is a “parlor debate”, and something which never affects the process or output of Rockstar’s games.
“We make something we think above all is going to be enjoyable for people to play. Otherwise they are not going to keep doing it — and the idea that anything could be artistic and not enjoyable is something that I am not sure I agree with,” he says.
Houser says that games are simply a commercial medium, such as pop music and movies, and can be considered artistic as easily as they can be exploitative. When asked if he thinks the average consumer will accept games as a legitimate form of artistic expression, Houser said that he think it’d be bad for the industry.
“In some ways I hope not, because we will become more and more controlled and Academy-sized [as an industry] and you’ll lose a lot of the freedom that we enjoy,” he says.
Rockstar is well known for pushing the boundaries, with almost all of their games being met with a fair measure of outcry and controversy from politicians and parents alike. Perhaps it’s not surprise then that their attitude to these kinds of abstract arguments is indifference – as long as they can maintain the freedom to make their games however they want, they’ll stay out of these kinds of “parlor debates”.
Loading ...
