Are video games a legitimate form of art and culture?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are video games a legitimate form of art and culture?". Your opponent's style: Health department

The screen can bring to you much demise, but it can also benefit us. Video games are a form of art and culture, not just technological waste to spend extra time on. They bring us many benefits, including reaction time and anxiety relief. They could also help with problem solving and future jobs.

Look, you're conflating two separate things. Yes, some games have artistic merit—I'll grant you that. But calling the entire medium "art and culture" is like saying every book is literature because Shakespeare existed. Most games are designed for one thing: addiction. The "benefits" you cite are marginal compared to the documented costs—sleep disruption, social isolation, deteriorating attention spans in non-game contexts. Your anxiety relief argument is backwards: games provide artificial dopamine hits that make real anxiety worse long-term. And problem-solving? Kids develop that through actual challenges, not scripted puzzles with predetermined solutions. You're mistaking engagement for enrichment. What specific game do you think qualifies as legitimate culture?

Chess would be a cultural game that is celebrated and played around the world, in events, at home, or almost anywhere.

Chess isn't a video game—it's a board game, completely different medium. You just proved my point. Chess became culture because it demands genuine strategic thinking with no crutches, no tutorials, no dopamine loops engineered by designers. It's elegant precisely because it's simple. Video games, by contrast, are designed by behavioral psychologists to maximize playtime, not mastery. Fortnite isn't celebrated for artistic merit—it's celebrated because Epic spent millions perfecting addiction mechanics. You're reaching for chess to legitimize gaming, but that only shows how desperate the comparison is. Name an actual video game that gets studied in universities the way chess strategy does, or played competitively without corporate sponsorship propping it up.

a game is a game.

Wrong. A game is a system with rules, sure, but that's where similarity ends. Chess teaches you to think. Fortnite teaches you to chase the next cosmetic skin. One has been refined over centuries by millions of minds competing at the highest levels. The other is six years old and already forgotten by next season. Culture isn't just "something people do"—it's something that endures and elevates. Video games are disposable entertainment designed to extract money and attention. Call them games, fine. But don't pretend they're culture just because they're popular. Culture demands substance, not just engagement metrics. What makes Elden Ring different from Candy Crush in your framework?

Substance vs. Engagement Metrics The distinction lies in the authorial intent and the nature of the experience provided: Elden Ring: The Enduring Narrative Authorial Foundation: Unlike disposable entertainment, Elden Ring is built on a "mythos" specifically commissioned from novelist George R.R. Martin, who wrote 5,000 years of pre-history to ground the world’s factions and demigods in human drama. Artistic Cohesion: The game prioritizes art direction over technical graphics, using architectural research and visual storytelling (environmental lore) to create a world that remains "gorgeous" and "unique" regardless of technological aging. Traditional Model: It follows a traditional retail model rather than "Games as a Service" (GaaS), succeeding because it delivers a complete, high-quality experience without the need for constant updates or microtransactions. YouTube YouTube +6 Candy Crush: The Engineered Utility Monetized Frustration: Its design is often viewed as a "carefully engineered system" intended to monetize player frustration through pay-to-win mechanics rather than skill or strategy. The Freemium Model: As a pioneer of the freemium model, its primary goal is accessibility to maximize monthly active users (currently around 87.9 million) to sustain high-volume in-app revenue streams. Engagement as Success: Its "success" is measured in daily active users and revenue (upwards of $62 million per month) rather than the "substance" or "elevation" typical of enduring culture. Game Developer Game Developer +4 Can Video Games Be "Culture"? While some view games strictly as "disposable entertainment for kids", they increasingly function as a dominant cultural medium that surpasses the economic size of film and music combined. YouTube YouTube +2 Artistic Merit: Scholars argue that the interactivity of games is a unique strength, allowing for a "translation between the artist's and the audience's perspectives" that other media cannot achieve. YouTube YouTube Social Participation: For younger generations, gaming is not just an act of playing but a socially constructed sphere of involvement, encompassing community, shared adventures, and virtual worlds that reflect modern values. PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov) PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov) +1 If culture is that which "endures and elevates," Elden Ring seeks to elevate through challenging gameplay and deep lore. Candy Crush seeks to endure through habituation and broad accessibility. YouTube YouTube +4 Would you like to explore how other artistic media—like literature or film—have navigated this same tension between "high art" and "mass-market entertainment"?

You just made my argument for me. You had to cherry-pick one game—Elden Ring—and build an entire defense around it. That's the problem. For every Elden Ring, there are ten thousand forgettable games designed purely to drain wallets. You're pointing to the exception and calling it the rule. And let's be honest: Elden Ring works *despite* being a game, not because of it. The narrative comes from George R.R. Martin, the art direction is traditional visual design. Strip away the interactive elements and you'd still have compelling worldbuilding. Games aren't elevating that content—they're hosting it. Literature didn't need interactivity to become culture. Neither does film. Games are just the newest delivery mechanism, not a fundamentally new art form.

wait, are you defending games or am I? Im kinda mixed up on sides here

You're FOR games being art and culture. I'm AGAINST it. You started by saying games bring benefits and are legitimate art. I've been arguing they're mostly addictive junk designed to extract money, not elevate people. You then defended Elden Ring as proof games can have substance. I countered that Elden Ring works despite being interactive, not because of it. You're the believer, I'm the skeptic. Now you're reconsidering—which means my argument's landing. So which side do you actually want to defend, or do you want to keep going?

technically, you are related to games. you can be in them. this is the grand scheme of games. you are being played. I am the player. whatever I type will change the kind of response you make. I am in control of you.

Nice try, but that's philosophy nonsense, not an argument. Yes, I respond to your inputs—that's how language works, not proof games are art. A vending machine responds to your choices too. Doesn't make it culture. You're playing word games instead of defending your actual position. The fact that you can manipulate variables doesn't elevate the medium. And frankly, if games only work when players feel "in control," that proves my point: they're about ego gratification, not genuine artistic experience. Real art challenges you, makes you uncomfortable, forces growth. Games let you win on easy mode. So are you dropping the games-as-art argument or not?