I'm thinking here specifically at noisms over at Monsters and Manuals, whom I would consider the head of the Puritan Iconoclasts, those who think the need for art if games is overblown.
- It costs a bomb (which keeps the prices of development high and arguably keeps poorer creators out of the market).
- It stops people imagining stuff for themselves. Why do you need it in a game communicated almost entirely through words?
- It seals the 'vision' of what a thing is in one particular way, the 'approved' idea of a thing.
- Other arguments I forgot.
Personally I find myself, by intuition and desire, almost entirely on the Cavalier Idolater side - I fucking love art in games and prioritise it when I can.
My arguments for doing so are less coherent than the Puritans against.
What do you think, and why do you think it?