Consider the following argument: The question isn’t whether…
Consider the following argument: The question isn’t whether great video games can be art, but whether they can ever be great art. The argument against this view is based on the idea that all great art liberates a person for a time from the itch-scratching demands of petty desires. And the thing to realize about great video games, the so-called “addictive” ones, is that they’re all about this sort of desire satisfaction. They set up challenges that are fun to overcome — and that’s essentially what they are. Playing them is all about making choices, sometimes fascinating choices, and moving from challenge to challenge. But what makes these games great as games is what makes them mediocre at best as works of art. Think of what it’s like to read a great novel, or listen to a great symphony, or watch a great movie. You are swept up, transported, but transcended as well: you move beyond yourself and your self-centered concerns. This is what we mean by great art. If great games are built on itch-scratching, and great art delivers us from itch-scratching, then no great video game can be great art. Now consider this claim: Great art gives a person temporary respite from petty desires. Indicate two things: Is the claim an unsupported premise, a supported premise, the argument’s conclusion, or neither a premise nor a conclusion (NPNC)? And is the claim being made explicitly, implicitly, or is it neither stated nor assumed (NSNA)?