![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
In my opinion the "See also" section seems a bit bloated. Some of the entries (e.g. "Machinima, the use of games for storytelling" and "Visual novel, an independent art form within the video game industry") are not directly related to the subject of the article viz. the question of video games being art (rather, in these cases, they are just arbitrary examples of the use of video games as an expressive medium).
My concern is that the number of entries reduces the usefulness of the "See also" section as a pointer to more information directly pertinent to the subject.
I think a lot of these entries would benefit from being given sections or being otherwise referenced in the Video game art article.
In any event, I propose trimming the list to just the following entries:
* Classificatory disputes about art * List of video games considered artistic * Game studies * Video game art, artistic expressions using video games as a medium
BirdmanOfHorseradish ( talk) 22:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from Mr. Ebert's Wikipedia article, he had a focus on movies. I am unable to understand how that would qualify him to have such a big block of text about his views in an article about video games. Especially when there is such a huge selection of actual game developers, artists playing video games, as well as specialized game journalists who have qualified views on the matter. (You wouldn't quote a video games critic or food critic in the article about The Princess Bride either.) What they have to say on the matter would hold more weight that someone who does specialize in neither video games nor art and thus should be (at the very least) listed above his section, rather than under it. -- 91.22.88.32 ( talk) 00:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)