Gammon at GameSpew writes: I may be very late to the debate. It may be a fairly settled matter; most gamers and even the general public generally assume that video games deserve to be categorised as “art”. However there is one glaring issue that still bothers me about this debate and that is: most people do not agree on what “art” really is!
The story in part 3 of Sony Interactive Entertainment and Naughty Dog's The Last of Us series may explore a "congregation of immune people."
Former Naughty Dog artist Gabriel Betancourt explains why the "sweet spot" for game teams is under 200 people and how AAA "factories" kill creativity.
There’s definitely some truth to this. When teams get too large, coordination starts to outweigh creativity—layers of approval, risk aversion, and tight deadlines can turn bold ideas into “safe” ones. Keeping a team under ~200 people sounds ideal for maintaining clear communication and a shared vision. That said, massive AAA projects also come with huge technical demands and expectations, so scaling up isn’t always avoidable. The real challenge is figuring out how to keep that small-team creativity alive inside big studio structures.
More than that, it's logistically untenable. Inevitably, when teams get too large, how do you keep tabs on accountability? I suspect this massive team size is a consequence of the perfectionism streak Naughty Dog has.
I wish we could have so many people working on something and it turns out great because I'm all for collaboration in spirit - the problem is too many people as part of the larger team and smaller units. Suppose for example that you have too many people in the art department; you will very often come up against fiercely competing visions for how things should look. That competitive vision will cause friction between team members, team doesn't work as a unit, the back and forth can further delay parts that the other departments are waiting for, etc etc.
A 200-person team says, to me, that we need to scale back game development. Even if it means we go back to PS2 era costs and scale, why not? Those games are still great fun, the budgets were in check, and you could literally break the 200-man team into like 10 20-man teams working on different projects.
The Last of Us Part I PS5 review covering visuals, combat feel, accessibility, performance modes, and whether it is really worth the asking price of $69.99.
There is no debate for me , if some "douche" can decide that abtract paints that make no sense to many people , are art , people can just decide that gaming is art . Espacially when it does incorporate numerous already existing art form in its whole .
And i especially dislike in those convos , the trend of picking up quaint and unique or even obscure indie or retail games , to "show art" . Even deemed souless stuff like Call of Duty would categorize as art , no need to go dig up the one game where you don't shoot or attack things in some unique artstyle to make a point . If a michael bay movie is art , if a justin bieber album is art , if the most mainstream superhero comics is art , so are the call of duty , and other mainstream stuff of gaming
This guy should visit some "modern art" gallery or something. You can find everything from old shoes to garbage bags on display. Truth is the term art nowadays doesnt mean anything.