Hmm...
I'm a dork who hunts down the people directly responsible for aspects of a game I enjoy: I can spot the works of an favorite artist (like most people here) or hear a few bars of music and know a particular musician. The programming end, I'm not so keen on; seeing and appreciating masterful code I'm guessing isn't as easy as the stylistic mark of an artist because of either the group process (which applies to artists too, I know--but the lead usually gets the credit) or it may just be an element I'm not keyed into as much...
[devil's advocacy]
I'm not so sure about video games *needing* credit as a legitimate art form, as Sqoon mentioned-- there's a give-and-take that comes into play. Most collegiate interactive and digital art courses do make mention of games as a prime example of interactive design; it's not like they're TOTALLY abused by the art community, and every semester I see morale and acceptances go up, not down.
*Personally*, being a comp. art student, I wouldn't want video games to be 100% entrenched in the art community because it can comprimise it's definition as a game.
I play games for the elements that make it a game (not talking genres here): coordination, strategy, simulation, or simple brain exercises.
I'm all for quality in production and presentation, but most every game I buy, I buy for fun over than artistic merit.
Art (depending on your definitions) grows from an observation of cultural/social/political elements, critiques them, (re)establishes worldly points-of-view, or acts as a vehicle of expression (despite the fact games can be EXCELLENT vehicles for these concepts.)
Blegh, just stating opinion.
[/devil's advocacy]
Eh, I say, if you want to know more, go and find out more.
I like headhunting who-does-what in games, and I'd recommend people do the same. Makes for interesting conversation.
CB
[insert witty signature here.]
embrace mass death
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks