Bioshock is a work of art

I will let you start the arguments because you are the pro. I will argue more on the side of that video games in general are not art, which Bioshock is included in. Also we can argue on the definition of art, because there is much controversy and debate on the actual definition of art.

I am thoroughly disappointed by my opponent's response. In Round 1, I explicitly asked that my opponent not use semantics or other forms of silliness. I think completely ignoring my case, and claiming video games are architecture, is such a form of playing with semantics or other silliness. I really don't feel like wasting my time with a debater who explicitly ignores the terms of this debate, so I will briefly explain what is wrong with Con's arguments, and leave it at that.

The claim that Bioshock is architecture is a non-starter:

1) There is nothing that prevents architecture from being art, and my opponent has not shown otherwise. Many works of architecture, for example the works of Catalan architect Antoni Gaudi, are considered art.

2) A central part of the game is its interactive fiction, which is further thematizes in the tension between freedom and control. As players realize that they have no control over their character, and that they have been under the illusion of free rational choice, when really, what they have been witnessing is the unfolding of a narrative that is independent of the player's choices, shows that the game is not solely architectural. Video games combine the mediums of many different art forms, including music, narrative, text, words, images, sounds, cinematography, etc.

In closing, it is clear that Con has not show that architecture cannot be art, and Con has also not shown that Bioshock is exclusively architectural, as the game also uses elements from many other artforms.

1) Con states: "Museums also combine mediums of many different art forms, because of this should we call museums art? No." Actually, putting together a gallery in a museum is considered a form of art, known as curating. Also, notice film combines image, text, and sound; it combines different art forms in one. Video games do the same thing. There is nothing about combining different artistic mediums that suddenly makes the end-combination non-artistic. On the contrary, combination of artistic mediums can itself be an artistic technique and form of artistic expression.

2) Whether you rescue the Little Sisters or harvest them, the game evokes emotion in the player in the same way a film evokes emotion from viewers and a poem evokes emotion from readers.

3) Con states that, once someone interacts with art, they do not receive the "maker's emotions." According to Con, "Once you actively change the art, it then stops being art." First: many works of art have been changed to create new works of art. There is no reason to assume art would stop being art simply because we change it. Second: what reason is there to believe "interacting" with art somehow makes it not art? Consider: When I see a film, I interact with it by bringing my own personal views and history, and combining my personal identity with the film's identity. There is a structure to the experience of ALL art: a creator, the artwork itself, and the person who experiences the art. For any artwork to be experienced, it requires all three of those structures.

Think about it this way: When you go to a museum and see a Picasso painting, do you have the same experience the 2nd and 3rd time you see the same Picasso painting? No, because each time you see the painting, you are a different person. Each painting affects each person differently because each person's history, identity, mood, and overall well-being influences the way the artwork affects people. The point is: the way each individual interacts with the artwork is different, and that way of interacting determines the experience of the artwork. But that doesn't mean the art itself "stop beings art." Con's claims are completely unsubstantiated.

4) When Con states -- "if he has to make choices and has options that affect the result, then it is not linear any longer. If a game is nonlinear, then it gives the audience options and these options then affect the result of the game, then it is no longer art" -- Con completely misrepresents what I stated in R2 and misunderstands what makes art art.

I was arguing that the player's "choices" and "options" were an illusion. BioShock thematizes the player's desire for freedom by creating the feeling and emotion that player's have made decisions for themselves. But in the key twist in the narrative, the player realizes that every single action, choice, and decision they have made was actually chosen for them. At the key moment, when Ryan utters the words, "would you kindly," he commands the player to kill him. The game takes away control of the player-character from the player, and the player watches as he kills Ryan without wanting to. The player realizes everything he has done up till that point was commanded by Atlas.

But the game doesn't stop there. It choreographs a narrative turn, where the player is freed from following commands, but the player is now brutally aware of the fact that this is a linear game. The player now knows that any illusion of choice and freedom in the game is just that, an illusion. Hence, the game plays off the player's desire for freedom, and uses that tension to force the player to reflect on free will, freedom, determinism, linearity and non-linearity.

Now, Con thinks that non-linear things cannot be art. Why not? There are a large number of non-linear artworks, including many films and poems. Anything written by the so-called LANGUAGE poets in the 80s and 90s is completely non-linear, and the non-linear post-modern novels of writers like David Foster Wallace. Or take the films of Godard and Tarantino, which are often non-linear. Or take a look at some of the great contemporary "time-artists," who create art that thematizes non-linearity in time. Or finally, the photography of Andreas Gursky, which is often considered non-linear. Clearly, art can be non-linear.

5) In closing, I bring readers attention to Con's final statement in R3: "I realize my first argument was quite weak." Con concedes that his argument in R2 was weak, and therefore, Con completely abandons it in R3. So, I clearly won R2. Now, in R3, my opponent again gives a very weak argument, as I have shown in this round by systematically addressing each of Con's points.

BioShock is a work of art. Nothing Con has claimed challenges that fact. The resolution is affirmed.