Exactly, so how can you easily label something as destructive? If its all relative, then how can you say something is destruction and not art or constructive and art when both contain elements of each other? For example, what about the simultaneous destruction of wildlife through construction of a city, or destruction of a city through the reintroduction of wildlife? I don't see how you can label either act as simply destructive or constructive, and so I do not thing that is a good basis to judge art on.
Yeah, I see what you mean, but like anything, the idea of destruction varies from person to person. I still don't think war is an art, no matter what the reasons or results. Nor is the destruction of a forest to make room for a city. (I hate cities.) Though the befores and afters of each situation may contain their own art, the actual action of destroying one for another is not art.
At least not to me. If anyone disagrees, then that's fine by me, and I respect that everyone's entitled to their opinion. After all, it's kind of fun scrolling through this topic and seeing how many different views of this subject there are. Now where would the fun be if everyone agreed on a single definition of art?
I think you are missing my point here, I think I should have clarified. Adding a storyline essentially turns chess into a conventional videogame, most directly similar to FFT or some other tactics game, but the analogy can pretty much extend to any other genre.
So do you consider the storyline in a video game to be a pointless embellishment with no additive artistic value? Is the art of video games solely in the gameplay?
Ah. Well, in a way yes, the story is a part of the art in a game, but also no, if the story is just like one of those things added for the sake of it. If the story in fact changes or impacts the gameplay
experience (not necessarily the gameplay itself), then it will hardly be pointless. When you said adding a story I was thinking along the lines of one of those slideshows that show in the beginning of shoot 'em ups, which are pretty pointless. Sure, they're still art, but they don't add much to the artisticity of the game. ("All your base are belong to us!') I mean, players can get the same experience from those games whether they know the story or not. But in games like FFT or Zelda or Mario, or even those shoot 'em ups where there actually
is a story between levels, when the story directly impacts the gameplay and the players' experience, then yes, the story is a major part of the art in and as the game.