Why video games are indeed Art

No review of videogames as art should overlook Myst -- probably the first realistic, immersive world that allowed real interaction. Its atmospheric music and full environments set a standard that stood for nearly a decade.

I do not agree with the final statement that because of video games young "age" there can be no great art within - and there have never been a time when film "where merely nickelodeon pieces". One of my all-time favorite movies is The Phantom Chariot from 1921 - but perhaps one should remember that film was ~26 years old at the time. When film was about ten years old it created wonderful adventures like the vagabond with chaplin and Aladin ou la lampe merveilleuse in france.
So let us dismiss the idea that a means of communication must gather age to become great art - and return to video games. I can think of several titles that in my opinion would qualify as art, of course, the works of rockstar. The final fantasy franchise (VII in particular ofc). The Zelda Saga. But also titles such as Minecraft and Little Big Planet - titles that both do what great art so often do, look at itself and play with its roll - when we study a collage made by Picasso it is with the knowledge of how he is playing with the very foundation of what an art piece is (and even more so the further down the 20th century with the minimalists in 60s etc). This I would say is the very sign of adolescens in art. The introspective look that dissolves the boundaries of what an artpiece may Sorry for my poor english.

April Fools!

Bravo and well said.

I too have flown a space fighter in Wing Commander, and an X-Wing, and a Tie Fighter. I've done the trench run. I've conquered Arakis, I've driven the Zulus to world supremacy and even flown them to Alpha Centaury. I've rescued the princess, I've taken down SHODAN, I've been betrayed by an ally who was pretending to be someone else, I've defeated the Ultimate Evil. And I figured out how to get the damned Babel Fish from the dispenser.

I've laughed as my zerglings swarmed someone else's base. Ninja Gaiden Black has driven me to tears of frustration. And yeah, I felt pretty cocky when I was king of the Street Fighters for many, many rounds on our breaks at work.

These are things that I 'felt', the same way I 'felt' Rocky go punch-for-punch with Apollo. The same way I felt Frodo toss the ring into the pits of Mount Doom (both when I read it and watched it). The 'feeling' of seeing Ross at the window, looking down at Rachel. Or of Raskolnikov as he trudges through St. Petersburg.

Of course it's not real. But the art is in the feeling, and I think the description of video games (at least some of them) as liquid architecture is spot on. If you need to compare something to something else to understand it.

Thank you for sharing this, and dealing with this subject with the respect it deserves.

Thanks for putting these ideas out as concisely as you have. This is certainly a topic that has been beaten to death, but for good reason. Just as you say, movies once struggled with the same problems.

Once we can get over calling them "games" (as so many of them don't really fit that category accurately anymore) I think we'll know we're getting there.

The writer makes some interesting points, but fails in showing how a video game, as a whole, qualifies as art. Ebert was right that video games are not art but he was wrong about why. Authorship has little to do with it. Intent is the key. The purpose of video games remains, as with all games, to declare a winner at the end. This necessity profoundly hampers video games' petition to be included in the arts. Art, in its purest form, is a reflection of reality. Video games, while featuring some dazzlingly realistic graphics, fail to accomplish this because the primary intent is to declare a winner, which is fundamentally at odds with the purpose of art. As realistic as the graphics may be, the entire premise of video games will forever prevent them from becoming true art.

Here's how E.H. Gombrich distinguished art from games:

"For here the purpose of the image or symbol imposes strict limits on the fancy of the designer. This purpose demands one thing above all: clear distinctions. It does not matter whether the fields of the checkerboard are white and black or red and green so long as they remain distinct. And so with the colors of the opponent's pieces. How far the pieces themselves will be articulated by distinctive features will depend on the rules of the game."

As much as I'd like video games to be Art, I've yet to read a convincing argument on the pro-video game side from someone who is an expert in both fields.

Maybe we need to wait for the Establishment to pronounce video games Art. Since the video game generation is still too young to be the Establishment, this may take two or three more decades.

But craft is not Art, for the same reason no one cares if I make a perfect copy of a Morandi painting or sing Hey Jude just like The Beatles. If craft were Art, karaoke bars would be the new Cedar Tavern. For now it seems that all video games are craft.

Can all the gamerz stop whining now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgkf6wooDmw

Another World (1991), by Eric Chahi and Jean-François Freitas, was the first videogame that made me realize that videogames could also be another technological medium for artistic expression, just like photography or moving films. The gameplay and narrative, deeply helped by the minimalistic graphic and sound design, create an envolving atmosphere and experience that elicits in the player complex emotions of awe, isolation and even heartfelt friendship (towards a non-speaking alien than join us in the adventure). The game basically feels like an interactive sci-fi adventure movie. But I guess some people wouldn't consider sci-fi adventure movies art, I do though, some of them. Art really depends on what you do with any chosen medium an not on the medium's properties alone.

Games (especially modern games) employ the talents of illustrators, painters, composers, voice actors, musicians and engineers of many disciplines. To deny their individual or combined contributions artful recognition is just wrong.

Sublime game design itself (that which elevates and gives purpose to all those artful elements) is harder to relate outside of personal experience though and is what drives so much of this debate.

I think the video game that cemented it to me that they could be used as an art form was "Halo: Reach." Previously, I did think of them as art, but I felt none of them had quite conveyed that strong a message yet beyond what movies had already been said. Some would argue the same of early film, that initially it was having to draw heavily off of literature. "Halo: Reach" for me changed that by showing one experience it could perform that no film or book could ever do (for those who plan to play the game, do not read lower because this spoils the ending.)

The plot of "Reach" follows the familiar trail of "Military Human force against xenocidal invading aliens", and the previous Halo games have made it clear your defense of Reach, the 2nd most important Human settlement after Earth, is doomed to lose. You join in as a new member of Noble Team, a "Spartan" supersoldier squad, and while each have their own personalities and quirks, your armor's appearance, gender, and backstory(your face is never seen) is all left up for the player to chose.

The very end is the important part. Your team is now a shadow of its former strength, your teammates either picked off one by one, or forced to make a sacrifice. The final mission has your greatly diminished squad now delivering the AI to the Pillar of Autumn, the starship that spurns the events of the other games.

Then, the game forces YOU to make the decision. Your last teammate has just been killed, and the Autumn is going to take off at any second, but faces being destroyed by a blockading enemy fleet. You end up sacrificing your own escape to take the cannon, fighting off the enemy forces and destroying the blockade, letting the Autumn escape the invaded planet, but you are left behind.

The credits role, but the game isn't through yet. Your last objective is a final stand at the destroyed landing site, having to fight off infinite waves of enemies until they finally overpower you and kill you. And it's a terrifying sequence when your own view get switched to your character's discarded helmet, watching your body keep fighting until there are too many enemies for for you to be saved from. It's effectively watching yourself die.

The end of the game manages to assure us that we did end up being important, and that even a destroyed planet like Reach can be restored to its peacetime. Had the game not ended with that surprise final stand, I would have considered Reach a good game, but not a special one. After seeing what it did, and what it calls you to do, I would consider it an important one.

Here's a link to the relevant cutscenes just in case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpK0UEqdEhg

Very nice article. Well-written and thought out.

However, Michale Jordan played for the Chicago BULLS, not the Chicago Ox. LOL.

Perhaps you should help out your fellow gamers and write some criticism on video games. If it's anywhere near the quality of your film reviews, you'll help move that medium forward, and you'll foster a wider appreciation for video games as more than just an amusing pastime.

I am currently studying Video Game Art at university. That is all.

I always sorta figured that Mr. Ebert adopted his stance of video games not being art as a way of encouraging a debate he found interesting and which might be of interest to his audience. At least, I mainly hoped so. If he could seriously hold up the most revered video game of all time against the most reviled movie of all time and decree that only the movie could be called "art," then I'd suggest an examination of his noggin.

I watched as video games progressed and had my own observations about the form's "art." Early stuff was elegant in its simplicity and use of the available pixels. "Pong" was as simple as could be, but still found an engaged audience. Someone figured out how to create a character with personality in 8 bits; Mario and his moustache and overalls, maximizing the limited available resources. Art enables the imagination. The creator can envision what fills the space and the viewer can enjoy it.

Now, people have spent their lives being inspired by this "art form" and have trained at it to meet the massive consumption demands for it. The WBA and BAFTA gives out awards for excellence at it, and people are now "video game writers" who talk about character development, motivation, story arcs and so forth: http://www.scriptmag.com/2011/03/08/assassins-creed-brotherhood-game-honored-by-wga-bafta/

I hope Mr. Ebert gets to find that link and read the article there.

A drawing is art -- does it stop being art if it's done with something other than a pencil, pen or brush? Or if it's done for a commercial, for a corporate logo, for a video game?

You touched on this a bit in discussing GTA4 and talking about architecture — I think that as computer graphics have become more capable environment has joined narrative and gameplay as a central but distinct aspect. A lot of the fun in games like the Myst/Uru series is simple exploration of an astoundingly realized world (both the praise and the brickbats Myst received when it first came out were precisely for emphasizing environment as much as or more than narrative and gameplay).

I would argue that these virtual environments are an artform in themselves, even disconnected from narrative and gameplay — in fact, virtual worlds like Second Life blur the category "video game": Second Life is not itself a game, though many games are played within it; whether for narrative purposes, game purposes or just to show off, many beautiful and amazing places have been built there. Imagine being an architect unconstrained by gravity and stresses, a gardener unconstrained by growing conditions or the availability of seeds and clippings...

(Then there's Minecraft, which is a game whose objective is to build virtual environments.)

I've worked in video games for more than ten years and I was also stung by the "never be art" proclamation.
I'm not sure any games have made it yet, but "never" seems a bit harsh.
I like the points you made about the differences between the goals and limitations of each medium....and comparing "apples and steak"

I came from working in comics (another sad step-child of the entertaiment industy) and I was used to storytelling being the main thing. It's taken a while for me to come to respect the more open, fluid goal of video game construction. We create a world, an aesthetic, rules and an objective, but players would get frustrated if we took too much control (or at least the illusion of control) away from them with excessive constricting narrative.

I always liked storyboarding out the cutscenes in games...and I was a little hurt to see players skip those cutscenes to get to playing. But, that's what they want. They want to participate.
I think video games are more like a big interactive theme park than a film, but maybe they're something in between.

I guess it's just another medium. Given a free rein, a real artist can create art in any medium.
Maybe the art is incomplete until the player comes in...or until you pull back and see the whole social experience. What does Grand Theft Auto say? On its own..maybe not much, but what does it say once you pull back and look at how people play it?

Regarding the notion that games aren't high art:

I think one of the reasons that gaming geeks so vociferously defend the medium against detractors is that gamers overlap with another demographic who have been through the same battle before; graphic novel enthusiasts.

Comics and animation have both been derided in the West as children's media, a notion reinforced by studios like Disney (prior to Pixar taking the company by storm), and by the notion that comics only concerned fantastical super heroes.

Both of these media are just that, media, not messages inherently, and it's taken decades to reach some semblance of recognition of the power and freedom that drawn art provides as an abstracting medium. Art Silverman's Maus and Neil Gaiman's Sandman series are both challenging works which deal with weighty adult subjects, and have both the commercial success, and the literary awards to prove it.

Deriding video games as artless rings with the echoes of arguments over graphic novels. Detractors of graphic novels were wrong, and people who feel similarly about video games are wrong as well. The message is not the medium, nor the medium the message.

I've only read the first few paragraphs (not that I even needed to do that), but I don't think it's a case of "deriding." Just because something is not art, does not mean it is "derided." The fact of the matter is, the two are not comparable.

Video games are about blurring the lines of game and reality.

If you blur it well enough, you might say that games are better than art.

But just take a look at this scenario and you will see that they aren't comparable.

Books "vs" video games. That was a trick. In video games, you could, if the game designer wanted to, put a whole book into a game for the video gamer to read right there in the middle of the game.

You see? They aren't comparable. Video games are about blurring the lines between games and reality; if you just pick up a book and start reading, it's not a game anymore, and it's reality; in this case, the reality of experiencing art: something you do in reality, not a game.

So, you could argue that games are BETTER than art, but not art.

If you want to follow this "Matrix"-like logic, where artificial intelligence becomes superior to human intelligence, you could say that artificial reality is better than human reality.

So, in fact, saying games are not art, but potentially an enhancement (or an "enhancement", if it goes bad via a "Matrix"-like scenario), for the sake of argument, it is quite the contrary to being "derided."

Not art, but perhaps better than, or an enhancement to reality, the line of which video games are about blurring.

I agree with your assessment of Sucker Punch (that it is a bad movie), although, to me, calling a movie a video game, is not a compliment, and might as well be substituted for the word porn. My problem with the movie was that it was porn and was trying not to be; if you're going to be porn, you might as well be porn.

Oops, I forgot to say what I mean (in case it wasn't clear) when I said you could substitute the word video game for porn (when calling a movie a video game). So, for example to say that Sucker Punch, was an "action video game", I think it would be more accurate to say "action porn." So, to me, a "video game movie" is actually a (insert genre or what have you here) porn, and not a video game movie; there's no such thing.

Narrative was a gloss for many of the early arcade games, as unlike King Kong, Donkey Kong could never be sympathized with. He would always keep throwing barrels at Mario, and always flee with the Princess. Space Invaders would never have a Michael Rennie hiding within their ranks.

The inception of pathos in video games, however, began with Defender. The mission was no more complex than that in Galaga, with one important exception: If you failed to stop the descending aliens they would capture the people below, and turn them into more powerful mutants, who who then turn against you. The pixel-outline of alien and human could still be seen in the new unit, which was very fast and vicious. Mutants would attack like a swarm of hornets.

The implication was clear. The mutants were more vicious, because part of them knew that you failed to defend them. This reversal, and the emotions it brought, were the basics of genuine narrative. And yes, a new medium of art.

Dear Michael,

There's a difference between a game and a simulation.

Whenever games get closer to art, they also get closer to simulation. Whenever the strategy and competition part that defines 'game' is left out, it is no longer a game. It is either a simulation, an animated movie or something else that already is a medium of its own.

Let's be honest here: Gamers want to have fun, they want the strategy and competition part of games, but they don't want to be looked down upon. So they delve into games that, on top of the essentially strategical core, have an artsy surface, so as to trick both themselves and outsiders into believing that they are actually spending their time on something profound.

I don't mind gaming, I spend some time with it myself, I enjoy the fun. But I try not to be so damn dishonest about it.

Mike, I do hope that one day, you can be honest too.

I agree with this.

Although I do not think it takes any kind of skill/education to become a critic. Usually, in the case of Movies, I will only pay to see the ones that get very low scores in theaters and rent the ones that get good scores (On Netflix). It seems that the movies that critics like are not movies that the people enjoy.

That pretty much goes for any critic, because the reviews that are crafted nowadays are all opinionated. They have to be, otherwise the movies that critics love would be loved by everyone.

Or that is what I have noticed anyways. I'm sure any critic would tell me that I am simply "wrong" and "do not understand". All I do know is that I will only pay for a full ticket price to see movies that I enjoy. Same goes for purchasing DVDs and Blu-Rays. For example, I loved Sucker Punch and disliked Source Code (Which I thought I was going to like). I later find out that Source Code got a lot of good reviews while Sucker Punch got horrid reviews.

Maybe reviews are not made for the regular movie-goer? But if that's the case, who are they made for?

Video games are awesome, and with HD LCD TVs, surround sound, and the current video game technology that exists, there has never been a better time for video games. Few games make me think "art," but some of the notable recent ones that have broken that sacred barrier (for me at least) would be Fallout 3, Limbo, Braid, Red Dead Redemption, the Final Fantasy series, Grand Theft Auto 4, Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, Silent Hill, Mass Effect, Mirror's Edge, and many others. Now, some of these games are more artistic and enthralling than others, and some have aspects which are indeed artistic, and also have aspects which are, well, not. It is true that the stories and characters in some (ok, most) video games are like kindergarten free-writing time compared to those found in good movies and books.

But, one important thing to note is that watching a video game and playing a video game are two completely different things, and someone who has never truly played a video game can never know the experience of playing one. They can never know that the appreciation for the art form because the delight that comes from experiencing it can ONLY come from playing it, and investing time into it. It is not on the same level as movies, no. But it engages a different part of you, and its enjoyment is enhanced by greater levels of artistry. I'd say that leaves more than enough room for significant growth, however, for me, video games have already reached a level of sophistication and true artistry that is sufficient for me to continue enjoying them as they are. But, with more and more games like L.A. Noire, Heavy Rain, and Mass Effect coming out, I think video games are just going to keep getting more and more awesome.

I don't think video games can be compared to movies any more than cars can be compared to paintings. But, I do believe that there exists basic underlying principles and aspects of video games that can be endlessly improved, and provide countless iterations of what is essentially a virtual reality experience, for those who have deemed them worthy of their time.

Brilliant blog.

You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the imagination, and the putting of yourself in the adventure. To be lost in some of these games have been among the happiest times of my life.

And what better way to define art; an experience you get lost in.

Tried posting this a couple of days ago and apparently it didn't take. OK, let's try this again...

You touch on this a bit, but I think, now that computer graphics are much more advanced, that environment is as big a factor as narrative and gameplay. In games such as the Myst/Uru series, half the fun is exploring a beautifully rendered fantastical landscape (a lot of both the praise and the brickbats for the original Myst were precisely because it emphasized environment as much as or more than narrative and gameplay).

Then you have virtual realms such as Second Life: not itself a game, though many games are played within it. Often environment becomes the entire point, shorn of narrative and gameplay — a place built for its own sake, just to be a neat place to look at and hang out in. Imagine an architect or sculptor unfettered by gravity, a gardener unconstrained by growing seasons or soil content or seed availability or even the limitations of terrestrial DNA...

My sense is that that in itself can be, and is, art

I liked this article, but I would like to point out that the history could be clarified a little. Most early computer games were very simple, but one called Spacewar! (1962) had rather complex physics going on - especially for that time. It's also very telling as a period piece, preceding all other space games; people wanted to know how space worked, they wanted to know they could certainly help out at NASA - or that was the dream back then.

I disagree with some points made. Braid, for example, toys with time mostly like Prince of Persia - or really any action title that forgives death to an extent. Braid is more fluid, but it's not revolutionary - and it's loaded with paper thin symbolism. Not so important in the long run.

There are games that are very direct and heavy in their effect. I think anyone would respond deeply to a play of Defcon (2006), or Real Lives (2001). These say simple things about human life without doing much of anything beyond what a game needs to do. I'm very hopeful that these such games are the start of a trend.

Your quote from Jenkins: "It is a tricky balancing act, making the player aware of the challenges they confront, and at the same time, insuring they have the resources necessary to overcome those challenges."

It seems to me this is precisely why video games are unlike art. The lesson we learn from a video game is that all problems can be solved with the materials at hand; a game where this wasn't possible would be unpopular and frustrating: you would feel cheated. Art (may) present us with difficult, sometimes unresolvable problems raised by the human condition. It doesn't involve things like: find this key to open this door or kill-this-bad-guy and you're through.

Still the potential is certainly there. I particularly admire the Panzer Dragoon series for the (now forgotten) Sega Saturn. It has a similar man-flying-on-dragon element that we saw in Avatar but the artistry (as opposed to the mere rendering of the graphics) involved is superior, there is a melancholy tone and intriguing dystopian universe as a setting. Sure it mostly involves shooting at things but there was something about the depth in which this world is imagined that separates it from other games. I don't know what it is exactly, which is why it reminds me of art.

I quite enjoyed this interview with the series creator, Yukio Futatsugi:

http://www.1up.com/features/panzer-dragoon-saga-retrospective?pager.offset=0

YF: To me, the story ended with Azel, so I don't want anything to continue from there. So I want to just create a shooter Azel. Or I want to create a Panzer without a dragon. [Laughs] You know, you're not the person riding the dragon this time. You're just a person, a nobody in the game, and you see a dragon flying in the distance, and you can't even imagine riding such a thing. It might even appear to be an enemy.

1UP: So when does it get fun? [Laughs]

YF: I just want to create something that will make no money. You find bits and pieces of old planes and machines, and you rebuild it, and then you fly far away with it. You travel and find pieces of weapons and machines, and reassemble these things. So if someone came to me and said "Make a Panzer game that would make the original fans happy," I'd make a shooter version of Azel. But if there was no lock on the concept, no preconceptions, I'd make the game I just described. You're a little person in this town that's about to collapse, you can't ride the dragon. You just collect pieces from caves all over a mountain, and build a plane, fly somewhere else, create a gun or weapon, and just do stuff like that. I'd probably create a game like that.

...

I think the notion of creating a game in a series based on flying a dragon in which you are not permitted to fly the dragon - merely seeing it in the distance as a potential threat - is a wonderfully poetic idea. The game exists only in this man's mind but that is where all art has its genesis.

As a few of the comments have touched upon, art is a difficult concept to pin down and its definition is still debated by contemporary philosophers today. Whilst games may remind you of art you encounter day to day, they serve a different purpose. With all due respect to the author maybe he does not have the required knowledge or education in aesthetics to make the argument that he is trying to make.

I think it is safe to say that any claim that video games can never be art is completely ridiculous, and I'm not normally prone to making that kind of statement.

While no one can (or should) claim that they have the final "definition of art", there are many concepts that people agree upon as being indicators of artistic content. And you can find games that clearly fit into all of those concepts.

"Art is the communication of a feeling, emotion or experience across time and space." Games fit this- I've felt joy, pain, loss, fear and more, communicated to me by a game artist.

"Art is aesthetics divorced from practical needs" Games now fit this as well. Pacman may be pretty utilitarian, but Braid is like stepping into an impressionist painting.

"art is creation divorced from incentive or reward". Well most films even fail this one, but some games still pass- indie produced games are often free.

And finally, I agree that the games must be played to be commented on intelligently. To do otherwise is to review the movie from the trailer, the book from the jacket, and the music from the 30-sec iTunes preview. A few to try if you aren't normally into games, and don't want to spend much: Limbo, Braid, Zen Bound, World of Goo.

I was lead writer on Rock Star's RED DEAD REVOLVER. Now a published novelist, at the time I approached it like an interactive novel, though it had started as an arcade-style game with Capcom that was made of completely separate levels with no arc or throughline. Getting rid of characters and forming bonds between the player characters within the framework of a story, even allowing players to be the villain, gave me a chance to involve the player in a way novels couldn't do. Gunning down the villain after literally walking in his shoes added quite a startling dimension. I like to think that when all these characters team up at the end for the finale, the player carries into battle a comraderie even more engaging than watching The Wild Bunch, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid or The Magnificent Seven. In addition to structuring the story, I co-wrote 700 pages of dialogue. Not all of it was used, of course, but the art that goes into a videogame, potentially, is truly exciting and offers artistic opportunities that are entirely unique. I'm glad to have someone else recognize it. Thanks for the article!

In Response to Michael Mirasol first:
I felt immensely guilty during two movies I've watched recently.Toy Story 3 (darned nostalgia) and Supersize Me. I think what you mean to say is that you experience guilt for something you do in the midst of interaction, and that the interaction responds to. The closest hypothetical movie I can come up with to match this would be one elaborating on why (for example) 3-d movies are horrible, and all it's audience members (like the ones in that theater) are being ripped off. But that's weak.
***spoilers ahead-Mass Effect 2***
In a video game, not only can you feel guilt, but there is an actual response in the game. The game changed because of what you did. Games with many, many alternate endings take advantage of this. In Mass Effect 2, your relationship with characters, and the good or bad actions you've taken, affect which characters die in your sacrificial mission. I felt the guilt, knowing that the fact that I was evil for sheer chagrin led to the death of characters who I had been with though the entire game.

I think games are art only if you allow them to be. If you enter into the gaming world wanting nothing more than fun and to goof off, you'll probably receive just that. This is the same as how if you walk into a movie intending to throw popcorn at people, and make fun of the film, you may not recognize the art it presents. Most Video games are not art. Those that are, in fact, art, shock the player, raise the experience to another level. I hope that level continues to rise.

Video games are no more mind numbing as majority of what is on American TV.

The most popular shows like America's Got Talent, American Idol, and Survivor and the great number of programs that have poor acting and weak plots and I see what America really likes.

Video games have been and will be the scape goat, unless you suddenly promote a "family-friendly, fun" console like the Wii and then you see the acceptance.

I'm not a 'gamer' per se, but I have/do play video games from time to time. In fact the reason why I don't like them is because how addicting they are and how wrapped up I get in them. I am a film student who loves film (of course) and I think that the power of video games is larger than that of film. Films have to spend 10-30 minutes with exposition and even then we really don't 100% care about the characters ('cause its a movie not reality-- it depends on what the directors goal is and how he presents it to us). With video games people are locked in from the start because we ARE the character. We don't want to die and start the level over after all that hard work, we get angry and sometimes cry (hopefully it doesn't come to that put some people do get worked up). Each time we learn something new about the character through story its like we learn something new about ourselves. We are aloud to project all of our repressed wants/desires on a character whom we have total control of. A video game is a new interactive art form allowing somebody to express themselves through reaction rather than creation. Video game artists set up the world/story and the player or 'controller' or even director has the freedom to do what he wants within that set temporal and spacial environment. In film the artists are the creators of the world, in video games the creators are also artists, but WE too are artists.
Perhaps this would spawn more intellectual/abstract film making allowing viewers to interpret the images on screen from their own subjective point of view, perhaps not. From my subjective view, I'd rather go see a film than play a video game. Maybe the main argument isn't if video games are art, but how does it rank among the other art forms. Of course I just did this (hypocrite), but the main problem could be that people are ranking it against cinema (Question do people think that tv shows are art as well--since tv is most certainly frowned upon as a lesser form of cinema). It's still too early on in this debate, but I'm pretty sure more people would probably rather play their favorite video game than watch their favorite movie. But hopefully like TV and film, film and video games will survive as separate media offering different experiences for viewers.

As an exceptionally terrible artist, I have had this argument gestating in me for some time now, even before Mr. Ebert threw his hat into the arena. It's my belief that all art is an attempt at communication and in particular communicating emotions. Without emotion, a novel becomes a textbook. Without emotion, a photo becomes a visual record. Without emotion, a dance becomes a physical routine. It is the evocation of the art that defines it, not the medium. In this respect, the difference between Jackson Pollock's works and every house painters tarp is made manifest.

Naturally, one can find emotion or be affected emotionally by almost anything. Some are driven to great passion by textbooks, as are others to encyclopedic pictures, or still others to the routine movements of crowds. What makes Koyaanisqatsi different from the background of your local daily newscast is the existence of a creator expressing their communication with intent. Spilled paint may be beautiful, but it requires a feeling mind to take that result and give it the intention art requires.

The intention of communicating emotion is what defines an artist, and the impact of evoking emotion is what makes a successful artist. Note that the the intended emotion may not be the evoked response, however there are ample examples of artists who have thrived without ever successfully conveying their emotions as they intended. I believe most artists find it sufficient to be experienced, to be heard so to speak, as their urge to create is often more compulsion than desire.

It's from this perspective I've always felt that video games have been an obvious medium for art, no different from a stage or a canvas or a camera. The expression may be as simple as "have fun" or it may be as complex as "what changes the nature of a man?" (hat tip: Planescape: Torment.) It may serve to only delight, as with Katamari, or to terrify, Amnesia: Dark Descent, or to evoke a feeling of family or kinship, World of Warcraft, or to take the player on a journey through their own imagination, too many games to count.

In one of his many retorts on this topic, Ebert wrote "Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices." Oh really? I suspect that assertion would not survive even a cursory analysis through his own formidable movie watching experiences. Every movie intended to lead to one single conclusion? Every moviemaker had their movie interpreted exactly as they intended? Really? Isn't it the flexibility of the film's construction what makes it breathe? He must be painfully tired of the Economy of Characters and the Gun on the Mantle by now, along with countless other "inevitabilities" locked in film amber. The claim itself imprisons the audience as it exalts the artist.

It seems to me that as Mr. Ebert becomes more exposed to this art form, he seems to inch closer to finding his own value as interpreter not for others passive enjoyment of his specialization but for his own active enjoyment of a new art form that cannot be, cannot exist, without his active engagement. I would urge him to greater exposure not to prove anything to anyone, but to bring the love he obviously has for savoring art to an environment that for once will allow his necessarily calcified perspective to become limber through interactivity.

Isn't it about time to take that gun off the mantle - and NOT use it?

I agree with Mr Ebert that a video games are not arts,
Why ? Because my definition of art is:
Going to a museum/gallery, looking at painting/statue/sculpture, then you think REALLY hard about its meaning in real life.....

While my definition of video games is about having FUN.

I really enjoyed the article, Michael - I'd like to expand with a few of my own thoughts.

I don't usually comment on articles, and I'm not an eloquent writer like some of the people here, but I just want to make a point about the artists themselves who make these games. The characters, environments, weaponry, vehicles, etc. all need a designer. Loyal fans of video games will usually take the time to appreciate the conceptual artwork that goes into modern games. Before making a dogmatic opinion that video games are not art, I hope people will take the time to do some research into (at least) the conceptual stage of game-making and discover all the stunning artwork that the team creates in order to develop into the finished work. Whether the final product is art in itself is debatable, but I do believe that a lot of art from stunningly talented artists goes into making the game. I just think there is a lot of emphasis on "art" being equal to "story" when sometimes the art is just in the way the game makes you feel - even if it's just the mood of the aesthetics. Perhaps I am biased in that I am pursuing a degree in illustration, but I don't think that many people realize the artistic talent it takes to make a modern video game. If you consider an animated film to be art, then it should be easy to see the artistic merit in video games as many of the same skills are applicable to either medium.

I guess my only real argument is that video games inspire me. They make me get out my pencils/paint/photoshop and try to create something. Sometimes a book inspires me, sometimes a movie, sometimes music, sometimes an illustration/painting/drawing, and sometimes a video game. If that's not art, I don't know what is.

@ David Cunningham:

The same way I felt Frodo toss the ring into the pits of Mount Doom (both when I read it and watched it).

But you did NOT read or see that. Frodo could NOT take off the ring. Gollum fought him when he put it on and claimed it for his own, and bit off his finger, and then fell into the pits.

This is an important distinction. If this were a videogame (and perhaps it has been, for all I know), you--the player--would be Frodo. You would get to the brink of the pits of Mount Doom, and then you would remove the ring and toss it in. Period. You "win". Except you would not go through all the angst and pain and loss that Frodo did in the book.

Ah, I hear you say, but we can simulate that! The goal won't be to toss the ring in. You'll have to put it on and claim it, and then Gollum (or Sam, I suppose) could fight you, and you'd lose a finger, blah blah blah. And the player would discover this by playing and "losing" when he couldn't throw the ring in, or something bad happened when he did, etc.

Still doesn't work. You're not refraining from throwing the ring in for the same reason Frodo did; you're doing it to manipulate the game system into giving you the desired goal. When you ARE the protagonist, you cannot experience what the protagonist does in a work of fiction! That, to me, is my argument against games being the same type of art as a narrative experience, such as a book or film.

Yes, I suppose a videogame can be a work of art in the same way that a restored automobile is a work of art. But what I hear gamers arguing is that the participation IS the art. That's where I disagree. And I have played videogames, a number of them, and enjoyed myself thoroughly. But I didn't kid myself that I gained enlightenment through the experience.

From looking at Shadow of the Colossus (which I haven't played, I admit) and reading Michael's description, I can't qualify that experience as Art, either, unless it's Art the same way Pirates of the Caribbean 3 is Art. It would not be physically possible to do what the protagonist does in that trailer. It's ridiculous. And if it's really heartbreaking and upsetting to kill these colossi, then why are you doing it? Your will to be the winner trumps any feelings of angst you may have while playing. This is just another poorly written fantasy novel, where we know the hero will triumph and go through agonizing choices along the way. It's a quest scenario. Most quest scenarios are really, really bad. Only a few, like Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter series, manage to transcend their limitations.

I suppose there might be a videogame that transcends the quest limitation that's present in EVERY videogame. But I can't say I'm very interested in finding out.

One last thing. I do think there's a film that makes a persuasive argument for the videogame experience as Art, but it's not a game; it's a film, and a graphic novel. It's Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. A brilliant, witty, loving look at what life as a videogame life might be like.

For some reason the movie "The Neverending Story" comes to mind when reading this review....

Do gamers even care if games are art?

Most video game stories are about as sophisticated and entertaining as The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause. And I don't think it matters.

Fallout 3's level of interactive gameplay is astounding. But comparing the story to a similar post-apoclaypitic work of fiction like Cormac McCarthy's The Road, Fallout 3 is profoundly stupid. Even for a video game. But I don't care. I was too busy playing the game.

I imagine it's difficult writing for video games because you have to fit a story around the core gameplay mechanism, which typically involves some sort of gunplay or swordplay. I admire the effort but I just wish game developers would spend more time innovating gameplay rather than attempting to write a serious story. Final Fantasy XIII sacrificed gameplay for tranquilizing scenes of pure exposition that the game's writers would undoubtedly call "philosophical" or a touching moment of "character development." No. It's just bad writing.

But are video games art? I think art can be defined as anything that's the product of human creativity. So I think video games can be very loosely defined as art. But not all works of art are good, of course. Marco Evaristti liposuction art is not exactly the highest achievement in human creativity.

Red Dead Redemption!

That is perfection. Similar engine and mechanics to GTA4, but it is so friggin beautiful. There are moments in the game where you run up to a cliff overlooking the main river, and the sunlight is in your eyes, and you just WOW. Or maybe it's raining and you can see a huge full moon on the horizon. WOW.

@Lynn McKenzie

Actually, no, I wouldn't try to translate that scene into a game. And no, I wouldn't try to simulate it, either.

This could be generalized as a response to Mr. Ebert and other posters here, but so often do detractors (and a great deal of game developers and enthusiasts, to be fair) make the mistake of comparing apples to oranges. Do you see me entertaining the ideas of Fallingwaters: The Movie, Francis Ford Coppola's Mona Lisa, or Martin Scorsese Presents: Moonlight Sonata and citing them as evidence of why film can never be art since those iterations would be incapable of reproducing and capturing what made them significant in their respective mediums?

While I do believe games will eventually become capable of truly compelling narratives, that alone will not validate them as art. Just as the three works I referenced aren't validated as art on the sole basis of narrative, neither will games be. Gameplay will be the means by which games can (and have, I would argue) justify themselves as art. Unfortunately, gameplay is an even more abstract concept than sound or color or what have you, and the idea of it will go over the heads of most critics (especially those who have never played a game, like the deaf judging a musical composition).

Oh, and I should clear up the Colossus bit for you Ms. McKenzie, since it's obvious you have not played the game (even if you didn't point that out for us). You don't play SotC to win. In fact, at the end of the game, you very much lose. There is no triumphant victory.

Schindler's List was heartbreaking and upsetting for me to watch. I didn't watch it simply to finish it or "win" for the exact same reasons I saw SotC to its end.

What's this I read about the inherent flaw of videogame is that you have to finish it...and then you win?

First things first: Isn't all art forms supposed to be a thorough experience?

-If you stop Beethoven's 5th halfway through, did you experience the full range of emotion you were supposed to?
-If you stop watching The Godfather right before the restaurant scene, aren't you missing what this movie is about?
-If you stop playing System Shock 2 right before your meeting with Dr. Polito aren't you missing one the best twist in videogame history?
-If you start a book, any book, aren't you suppose to finish it. Otherwise what's the point of opening it in the first place?

So have you "won" the game/book/movie because you played/read/watched it through to the end...of course not, you simply finished it!

As for the mandatory win and quest narrative...well I could name countless upon countless films and books that follows a strict quest structure and serves us (or sometimes stuffs us) with a happy ending 95% of the time. I believe that in the videogame world the same percentage applies.

There are exceptions on all sides and, personally, when it happens, most of the times it is brilliant. Take Silent Hill 2 for instance, what do I get after 30-40 hours of play. Well, my character commit suicide by jumping off a cliff in his car, and that's right after battling and vanquishing a grotesque version of his dead wife that has been haunting him ever since she died many years ago. A happy ending would have been completely pointless under the circumstances since the game is so oppressive and gloomy, a real nightmare.

There is also something about the interaction that seem to strike a nerve to all the videogame bashers. Take Lynn's comment, she clearly ask:

And if it's really heartbreaking and upsetting to kill these colossi, then why are you doing it?

Well I believe the answer is quite simple, that's what it is. If you were reading a book called "Shadow of the Colossus" and you were telling me that it is heartbreaking to read through the pages and see all of these wonders fall one after the other. Well I could ask you exactly the same question, why do you keep reading it?

Because, somehow, this particular work has sparked your imagination enough so that you want to continue and see it through to end. And why it is, well, in all cases, it is because somewhere a writer/director/designer has decided that this is where he/she wanted the story to go to and that direction peeks you interest enough and you simply continue. If the process is relatively the same then why do we keep on differentiate them one from the other?

I'll admit though that there is a huge difference between movies, books and games.

1. The universe, characters and dialogue are all created, you just have to witness how it unfolds

2. You create the universe but the characters and dialogues are firmly in place

3. The universe is created for you but you can (in most games) go about it as you wish. For example in a book or movie the hero could kill an enemy with a knife. In a game you most likely could have the choice of stabbing him, shoot him, knock him out or simply go the stealth route by avoiding him.

That's what I like about all three medium, they all offer a completely different experience but at the same time they all manage to involve my intellect to such a degree that I pondered for hours about what 2001: A Space Odyssey really meant to me. Same goes for "Brave New World" or "Bioshock".

Can't we all just get along ?

Phil

Video games are a valid form of art, although not all games fall into the category. In fact there are some that only have sections.

Why shouldn't they be considered art?

Everything you see is created by an artist, everything you hear a composer. everything you read is done by a writer! Even the program code which ties it all together and brings it alive is a form of art in itself (yes even program code can be artistic, and individual to the author).

I'm not going to pretend that the majority of dross that gets thrown out there qualifies, but there are definitely some that I'm surprised anyone can argue. Look at another world/flashback, Half life 2 even, if the mist shrouded bridge section was a painting, people would be amazed, why should being able to walk around in it diminish that?

Ebert: Michael, wouldn't you agree that that the cinema, literature and drama allow audiences to experience guilt?

Remember what I said about my B.S. detector? Once someone starts sounding like they are worshipping something, my B.S. detector goes off. Not to be rude, crude or one mean dude.

"flipcritic Reading comments from my piece "Video Games are indeed Art." http://j.mp/dTsLD7 Getting hits is nice. I just wish some had actually read it."

I wish that sentence meant something. Apparently reading it was the unspecified request? Actually only 1--3% of all text carries salient meaning, and if your wanting us to read your mind to understand that you wish us to read the other 97% (even though I already know my position on this is unwavering) I don't understand why, because it won't change my mind (or were you expecting me to have you read my mind too?).

Read I shall, anyway.

Okay, it changes nothing.

And I don't wish to play the mind-reading game either.

I think it's sad that games like Shadow of the Colossus aren't criticized well enough. They present themselves as art, so game critics just sort of gawk at them. Nitpickers point out, in this example, that there isn't any thing much to kill. The rest know the term 'minimalism' and play along to the end, at which point tears have been jerked.

But the game cheats to get to the end. What does it say when the most important scenes are not played, but kept in cutscenes? Doesn't that remove all the subtlety they were going for? Your horse dies, in a pre-rendered way; you turn into a monster, in a pre-rendered way. I don't have to feel bad if it had to happen.

There was a game, Half Life, a few years back. Mostly like Doom. Plenty of advances in presentation, enough to please reviewers. Also, it took place in a workplace falling apart from too many bad habits. Playing it, you'll commonly break something - or was it going to break anyways? Whatever, you can fix it enough to get yourself passed the obstacle, leaving it more broken than you found it. This process repeats over and over again.

I can find no reviews that describe this process, so seamless was the artistry. Nor any reviews that mention the two producers' former employer, Microsoft. Have games been describing how the world works, with commentary, for a while now? Can game critics recognize it when they do? Can they call bullshit? This will determine how quickly games develop as a serious art form.

I think people need to stop trying to define art.

I'm sure some painters must have been upset when the camera was invented. Now, instead of the toil and patience it used to take to paint the rocky mountains, someone could just point and click their camera to capture their beauty and majesty.

Here's the important question: "Who's to tell them it's not art?" Who is going to tell me that my picture of the mountains isn't art? Who is Ebert to tell us all that video games aren't art? Not to pick on him too much, I pose this question to anyone, "Who are you to tell me that video games aren't art? Who are you to define what art is and is not?"

If you try to define art and set boundaries or rules, then you have completely missed the point of art.

Yes, I suppose a videogame can be a work of art in the same way that a restored automobile is a work of art. But what I hear gamers arguing is that the participation IS the art. That's where I disagree. And I have played videogames, a number of them, and enjoyed myself thoroughly. But I didn't kid myself that I gained enlightenment through the experience.

Enlightenment, eh? That's interesting. Is that how we're defining art now? Because, off the top of my head, it necessarily excludes the Eames chair, almost any sort of representational painting or sculpture (from the Mona Lisa to the Pieta to Dogs Playing Poker), most instrumental music, and almost all architecture. Would you care to refine that definition?

This right here, this conversation, is a sort of game of its own, and it's a game with a foregone conclusion: no matter how many times you want to iterate through it, it is functionally impossible to create a logically airtight definition of art that includes everything we traditionally think of as art but excludes those nasty video games. The only way to hold the position that video games aren't art is to stake out ridiculous semantic territory like asserting that beautiful things that don't "enlighten" are not art.

Thankfully, this argument is already effectively won, and now - as we see with this very essay - we are beginning to move past the exquisitely tedious semantics of defining art into the much more fruitful arena of figuring out what it is, exactly, that games do. And I'm pleased to report that Michael Mirasol has hit on one of the things that I think is key: games, at some fundamental level, create spaces to explore, both "real" and conceptual. From the grid of chess to the maze of Zork to the well of Tetris to the vast Western landscape of Red Dead Redemption, games create imaginary geographies and challenge us to navigate them. There is so much waiting to be written on this, but my guess is that in thirty or forty years, we'll understand the production of space to be the, or one of the, key aims of the medium in the same way that the production of abstract emotion is the, or one of the, key aims of music.

@ Lynn McKenzie above me:

"And if it's really heartbreaking and upsetting to kill these colossi, then why are you doing it? Your will to be the winner trumps any feelings of angst you may have while playing. This is just another poorly written fantasy novel, where we know the hero will triumph and go through agonizing choices along the way. It's a quest scenario. Most quest scenarios are really, really bad."

Because what you fail to realize is that the story itself is not the art of games. Games operate on a different level. There are games that operate beyond a quest scenario (Planescape Torment), but that's irrelevant. you're asking, "why play games at all?" and the answer is simple.

When a game developer crafts a level, they define the path that will be taken. Multiple paths, if possible. This is like the Deist God, crafting a mechanical universe. The scope of this path can be defined by all and by none. The rails on this path vary greatly.

You concentrate on the ending because you assume that's why people play games. But just because there is a goal and there's forward movement does not mean that the focus is not that goal. In fact, the goal is merely an end because there must be an end; it is natural for all mediums.

You define art as the emotion behind Frodo's destruction of the ring. That is an art of movies and books. That is why you ask why one kills the colossus.

Because killing a colossus is an art. It is an intricate puzzle that defies Earthly logic, designed by talented developers with such skill and precision that it feels like it is alive and talking back to you as you navigate its furry back and run about its stone-like structures.

The death of the colossus is a narrow path designed by a designer in which I follow to create and experience art. It is like a roller coaster ride, except instead of just thrill and the change of gravity, we experience almost any emotion possible. Fear, rage, elation, bafflement, surprise, laughter, wonder, awe.

Some people seem to find the death of the colossus meaningful. I do not. It is, as you said, a flimsy excuse for a plot. Many gamers fall into this trap, thinking that it matters. No, what matters is the structure of the game's design. Structure is an art form, just as architecture is an art form. Game making IS architecture. Just because that architecture is built around a specific set of actions does not make it any less wondrous and magical.

When i am flying through unimaginable worlds in Super Mario Galaxy 2, I'm experiencing a thrill that no other human experience will ever give me. I will never defy gravity in the way that my cartoon avatar does. But those blocks and those abstract blobs that fill the gap between me and my goal are what I would define as art. They are what make my task whole. This is what gives me my purpose in this virtual world, just like the physical world we inhabit will give us purpose.

If you do not think that games are art, you do not understand games.

To all those who argue that a video game can not be art because the goal is to win, I ask you: do you consider a single narrative film or book to be art?

If yes, then consider this: A narrative book or film is built on a protagonist who tries to achieve a goal, is met with obstacles and antagonist(s), and either achieves the goal or doesn't. The same structure applies to a video game. In a compelling narrative book or film, you feel the same sense of achievement that the protagonist does if he achieves his goal, and the same sense of disappointment if he doesn't. Again, the same emotion applies to an equally compelling video game. If a protagonist in a film or book wins, then the audience does too. These mediums can also convey endings that leave the audience conflicted, neither winning nor losing (or doing both). Mother (film), Hotel New Hampshire (book) and Shadow the Colossus (video game) all achieve this kind of mixed emotion. And even though a video game may have multiple paths to take to the end - or even multiple endings - it is not an infinite story in and of itself. A video game's structure is potentially more elaborate than a book or film's, but all three mediums still need a structure to succeed.

If you consider a narrative art, regardless of the medium, then you can not remove the art from the narrative. The narrative drives everything else in the movie, and whatever art you take from the medium would not exist if not for the narrative. Furthermore, the narrative informs it's respective art because it contextualizes it, gives it meaning, and integrates it with the other elements of the whole. If you took away half of the brush strokes of a Van Gogh, you would drastically change the creation as a whole. The same goes for any narrative work of art - film, book, video game, or any other.

Michael,

Try Uncharted 2 on the PS3. It is linear and has an awesome plot. If Indiana Jones were 10 to 15 hours long, this is it.

Roger,

Since you do not play videogames, you could request a relative of yours to play Uncharted 2 as you watch the story unfold. Maybe this game would change your opinion about videogames not being classified as art.

Two points -

One, you refer to vg's ability to sustain the illusion of having control over the story line, or of fragmented story lines. Iow, the suspension of disbelief, for we know in fact one does NOT have control over the story line. This suspension is most required by entertainment, requiring that one suspend what they know to be true in order to have an entertaining experience. Of course, this suspension is hardly narrowed to the illusion of control of a storyline, but the whole vg experience itself. You seem unaware of that. Art, on the other hand, tends to occur according to what one brings to the interaction between the thing and self. Art tends to be blunt, frank, stripped of unessentials. Art is not entertainment (for this reason many are lost by it). The artist seeks to expose or comment on the illusions of society, not add to them.

Two, your opinion on what is art or not seems to rely heavily on valuing graphic content. Perhaps then you mean graphic art. Graphic art contains subgenres that are self-referring - for examples, fashion model photography or fantasy planet illustrations. Some of these can be called "art" to denote the level of skill and imagination or originality in execution. But this is a different type of art. Iow, there is a difference between art and a really cool graphic.

Finally, your entire argument is telling, and does not bode well for 21st century art as having value for future societies: I go to an art exhibit or gallery to view and experience art. Often I am bored or indifferent. But the times I am engaged are like lightning bolts. This difference bears no reflection on entertainment value. On the other hand, you engage in activity that comments, in passing, that the backdrop is sorta like art, while you go about the reason you are really there for - to mash buttons.

If the best you can say about art is that it is an aesthetic contributor for more interesting activity, one that invites illusion no less, then you have a very superfiscal opinion of art. To borrow from you example - authors are not automatically artists.

Michael,

Try Uncharted 2 on the PS3. It is linear and has an awesome plot. If Indiana Jones were 10 to 15 hours long, this is it.

Roger,

Since you do not play videogames, you could request a relative of yours to play Uncharted 2 as you watch the story unfold. Maybe this game would change your opinion about videogames not being classified as art.

Another comment - the lust for conformity your generation cultivates is another interesting aspect of your article. Has there ever been a (modern) generation that so automatically seeks approval and recognition according to mainstream definitions and not its own?? Your ambition is to be mainstream.

Roger, this discussion should be put to an end. You have not made very convincing arguments that video games are not art/could not be high art. And you have been met with overwhelming arguments against your position. While it can be seen as heroic to fight the popular view, it can be just as noble to admit when you are wrong. You responded to one post months ago that you didn't find the situation of your unpopular opinion embarrassing, but we who admire and follow your writings on film, politics, and a myriad other great articles you have written, are embarrassed FOR you. I know you may never be convinced as you will never take the time to learn about video games and understand why people are so passionate about the art. And it's apparent you have very little knowledge of this new art form beyond what you've read and witnessed your grandchildren playing, so you should have never made the comment in the first place. Now you've painted yourself in a corner, even if you refuse to see it. I will continue to admire your writings, and appreciate your opinion even though I don't always agree.

Ebert: Sam, you don't get high marks for reading comprehension. This essay is not by me. It is by Michael Mirasol. It argues that video games CAN indeed be art. I was pleased to post it as a contribution to the discussion.

Ebert: have you heard this?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/2010/08/09/100809on_audio_baker

Just wanted to chime and thank you for posting Michael's essay. I know you took quite the virtual beating over your previous essay on this topic and was afraid you'd stay away from the discussion altogether. As an avid fan of fiction in general be it play, book, film or even video game I find the discussion interesting.

I'm in the camp that video games can be art, but most are not, and the prevailing wind in AAA video game development is deterring games from reaching possible artistic potential.

One of the really worrisome things that this discussion has brought to light is that apparently a lot of people think of the term art as, not a category of human expression, but a mark of distinction - a gold star that we award to things we really like. Anyone who thinks they can walk down the shelves at, say, the bookstore and declare one book "art" and another "not art" has desperately missed the point of having the term.

Ebert: A most useful distinction.

Roger,
I think Sam was referring to your original article. In fact I think a lot of these comments are about both articles/essays as opposit sides of the same coin.
I'd like to say that as I sit here working on a video game ,for a company so big, I fear to speak its name, (or....posting a comment right now...but I'll get back to work in a minute) this discussion provides a lot of good food for thought.
It's not that we're not asking all these questions already. We're trying to push games into new territory every day (though...I have to admit, there's a teensy bit of pressure to make a gazillion dollars while we're at it)
Maybe smaller companies have a better shot at creating "art" like:
http://thatgamecompany.com/games/
Or...maybe not. I don't know.
In the end, with all these monkey banging away at all these typewriters, I'm sure one of us will come up with Shakespeare.

Oh....and as for experiencing real personal guilt from a film....I experienced that when I watched Sex in the City 2...of my own free will, just to see what it was like.

Ebert: Well, your consolation is, you saw what it was like :)

To begin, I wish to express my gratitude to the author of this blog for a brilliant bit of intelligent debating. Since he elaborately pleaded a strong case, I will keep it short and simple - if you consider video games to NOT be an art form, that is to declare yourself ignorant to something you are passing judgment upon. Art comes in several forms and I believe the common thread is simply the ability to draw upon our emotions and evoke a passionate response. Art creates mental and emotional revolutions in people or simply creates a very superficial reaction like a smile, laugh or a watered eye. By this description of what I believe to be the common connection of all various art forms, video games most certainly embody art. I've played games like "Fallout", "Bioshock" and "Max Payne" and felt strong emotions - excitement, anxiety, awe, joy, sadness, comedy. Plus, let us consider the amount of effort that goes in to modern games. An artist may take months to paint a picture, a director (like Nolan or Tarantino) may take a decade to complete a film - modern game developers may take years to complete a project and they craft it with immense, pain-staking attention to detail and write elaborate, incredible stories worthy of every sort of literary recognition out there. I almost venture to be so bold to say that video games are not only art but the epitome of art. It has it all - great story, sweeping visuals. "Bioshock" looks and feels like something Stephen King would've written and Cameron would've directed. There is absolutely no difference now between movies and games and again if you say the opposite, it is because you have not sat down and played the game. That's the one thing I find interesting about those who say video games are not art and are heavily separated from other mediums. I guarantee that none of you critics have actually sat down and played an entire game from finish to end (modern game). Which makes you fall into the debating pitfall of passing judgment upon something you don't really know anything about.

Modern video games are sweeping paintings, visually stunning epic movies and can't-put-it-down books all rolled into one. That's just the truth. If you disagree, please rent "Red Dead Redemption", play the game for 2 hours and then come back to the debate.

And in defense of Ebert's desire to not brand video games an art form, let us consider his generation. Mr. Ebert grew up in a time of undeveloped video games with very little to offer but a mindless passing of time. I grew up in a different generation so thus have the affinity for games not present in older generations and that should be considered and respected. So don't mind any criticism on your disposition towards this entertainment genre, Roger. You are one of the finest voices in cinema review and in overall life considerations. Your blogs are perpetually intriguing and intelligent.

With respect to all,
Phil

Uncharted 2 is great? If it's just Indiana Jones but five times as long, then why not save yourself time and watch the movie? I can understand that video game developers might be proud that they emulated Spielberg, but they did it mostly with cutscenes. Movie things. It's old news, the developers haven't created anything.

Games have the possibilites to do something really interesting, and some interesting things have been done. But in general, if you look at the majority of the industry, it's like games and art are diametrically opposed forces. The industry shows no sign of weakening in its growth and not only does the majority of its audience consist of adolescents who are constantly looking to be awed into stupor, but it also converts society more and more to these expectations of their entertainment (with another, slightly confused part of society withdrawing more and more into the clutches of the downward-spiralling quality of TV-program since the rise of the internet).
And while many games become sort of "more smarter", the development goes into the direction of making them more reactive and dynamic on the basis of providing always the same impulses, instead of exploring new forms or even exploring marketable concepts, which are meant to bestow some appearance of substance or uniqueness, to the extent that one could say they tried to do it justice, and not severely compromise for the sake of a larger market.

My opinion and hopes about this topic vary always slightly, and I have no qualms to say certain games can provide beautiful, deep or valuable experiences, but overall it seems one shouldn't keep the hopes so high as to expect the emergence of some kind of culture of art criticism in the realm of games (though some do it), because there simply doesn't seem to be any large enough interest.

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (1998), Half-Life 2 (2004), and Metal Gear Solid (1998), are all great works of art that should be compared to great movies or novels.

Video game players seem hellbent on having games accepted as an artistic medium, in an attempt, I assume, to have them validated. Perhaps they feel that what they are doing will not be worthwhile until the populace at large accpets their gameplay as a nurturing, growth experience, rather than a mere game.

I have done a lot of reading on this subject, and I have yet to encounter a convincing argument that video games can be art. The article above seems to hit all the usual arguments: Games can be art because they have convincing environments. Games can be art because they have complex narratives. They have moods and atmosphere and music and lovely, lovely graphics. They have backstory assigned to the avatars you control.

To me, it seems, all of these elements typically attibuted to the video-games-as-art argument are off-base. They point out the artistic things that are hung on an intrinsically technical exercise. Games are, after all, problem-solving exercises. They are about strategy, puzzle, intellect. they use the half of the brain that is devoted to logic and reaosn. Not the side that is devoted to art and passion. And they all have the same rules: push puttons in a prompted sequence until the sequence is complete. some focus more on their number games. some become distracted with "atmosphere" and "character."

Narratives and characters and graphics are all extraneous to this. I think video game critcs would do well to abandon the need to push games forward as art, and embrace the techincal and intellectual aspects. Games can make you smarter, but the things that perhaps move you to tears are outside of the game, and would do better were there no interactivity or game at all.

So, please, argue for the validity of games. Use your passion for them. Indicate your favorites. But argue that they are superior problem-solving exercises. In that respect, they can be great.

A beautiful article. As a gamer, I commend you.

I agree; video games are art, but not in the same way as other forms. Let's say that 95% of everything is crap, like was once said. If video games are an art form, that doesn't necessarily mean that all games are masterpieces. I know for a fact that there are games that are rightfully derided, loved, underrated, and even overrated. I think some games have reached the point of art. Gameplay is key, of course. It's a game, after all.

But I think story is also key, perhaps in ways that haven't plateaued yet. When I played Infamous, and saw the 'Hero' ending with the big plot twist, I was floored. I realized why the villain had been doing all of his evil deeds and suddenly, the story took on new meaning for me. It's arguable that storytelling in games has not reached its full potential, but, having started with a Sega Genesis, and now owning a Playstation 3, I definitely think that the time is coming when it will. I've had emotional responses from video games, and I'm not alone in that. If anything, the fact that people have been touched emotionally by certain games they have played, at least in my mind, proves that they are, in some way, art.

Some people say that video games are not art in any way, shape, or form, like it's a fact.

But then, some people look at a famous masterpiece in another art form and don't get it, either.

The definition of art:

It is the expression of ANYTHING which when contemplated pleases and arouses in us a NOBLE emotion.

This is the definition I give to my students in Humanities and Literature.

Roger, what if you have a video game that plays out with well-developed characters and has a great plot, but lasts around 12 hours or so, since you are in control of the character's movements as he uncovers mysteries, shoots bad guys, and saves innocent people as he goes through various adventures which make him evolve as a person in the process, can you consider the game a work of art? That's what Uncharted 2 is all about.

I think that there can be little question that video games are art (assuming that agrees with the Wikipedia definition of art as "the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect"). The fact that they require active involvement from the consumer does not mean that they are a lower form. On the contrary, I would argue that the level of participation they require offers potential for games to be even more effective means of expression than films or books.

Films and books are similar to listening. When one listens, they are passively receiving a message. The process becomes active when one tries to interpret the message that the speaker is communicating. This is a fascinating and enriching process, but it allows for a great deal of misunderstanding. The speaker (or director or author) may not be very good at communicating their points, or the listener (or reader or audience member) may not be very good at interpreting. Video games help to alleviate the process by having the listener essentially speak the words themselves. They become a character, usually the main character, in the story. Suddenly they are the ones shooting McCluskey and Sollozzo in the bar. They are the ones sewing a dead body parts together in order to create life, and then eventually growing to despise the monster they have created. This admittedly does completely change the experience, but it can allow for a fuller and more complete emotional experience. This is not to say that video games are not open to interpretation, one person's motives behind making certain choices in the game can be different than those of another, but I would argue that video games can and have already achieved this level of communication.

For example, around five or six years ago I started playing "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic" for the PC. As the game progressed, my character became romantically involved with a female Jedi named Bastila. The fact that the game allowed me to choose what to say to Bastila gave the relationship a whole new level of intimacy. I wasn't just watching two characters fall in love onscreen, I was helping to the develop the relationship myself. I became emotionally attached to Bastila, so much so that when she was captured by the antagonist of the game and forced to become evil I quit the game in despair. My interest in finishing the game was completely swallowed up by the sense of loss I felt. The absurdity of the situation didn't even occur to me at the time. Here was a game that allowed me, a huge fan of Star Wars since age 6, to finally act out my fantasies of becoming a Jedi and fighting alongside wookies and droids, and my emotional involvement in a fictional character had completely drained any joy I felt from fulfilling my childhood dream!

There is no question that books and films can create similar feelings, but despite being an extremely avid reader and devoted cinephile I have never had anything approaching this experience with either of those mediums. This is not to say that video games are or ever will be a higher form of art than film or literature, but there is no doubt that they are art, and at their highest levels are equal to the highest levels of any other artistic medium.

Eloquently written article, Michael.

However, I'd like to comment on the point you made about video game critics not having the "same kind of passion, prose, and knowledge that exists in their counterparts" I agree with that statement - to a certain extent. I've found that the quality of the criticism varies according to where you look. If you were to take a look at the biggest gaming publications, IGN and Gamespot for example, you would hardly find anything worthwile in terms on nuanced, intelligent writing. Then again, these publications aren't targeted at more mature audiences.

In contrast, there are less mainstream and comparitively more obscure websites that do try to offer well-thought out and experimental critiques that don't read like manuals or checklists, but rather like sincere accounts of a player's experience with a game. Have you not heard of Kieron Gillen and his New Games Journalism Manifesto? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Games_Journalism#New_Games_Journalism

If you're looking for a higher standard of games "journalism", here are a few sites out of my Bookmark list that I suggest you check out: Killscreen, RockPaperShotgun (Where Gillen used to write), Gamasutra (You can't go wrong with the features and dev blogs there), Eurogamer (Perhaps the most mainstream of the lot, but boy, do they have a bunch of talented writers), BitMob (a community-centric site; you'll always find an interesting piece or two on the front page) EscapistMagazine (I only vist to the site for two things: the actualy weekly web magazine, and ZeroPunctuation - possibly the best reviewer out there :) )

I mean, I could have "flattered" myself and said step by step how wrong you were in the piece, but, as I said, I don't want people to use my words against me and just basically ignore everything I said. That's kind of why I just stopped at the first paragraph. Okay, if you want me to (I don't; my words used against me), I'll just let you disagree with yourself:

Here are direct quotes from your entry:

"...if you give them a shot, you just might conclude that video games should be considered art."

That's not saying they are art.

"The specific skill you wanted to improve or enjoy was more important than the plot that it hung onto if any. This was the very idea of video games from their inception.

"...a form of artistic expression. Evading pawns on a chessboard could not evoke a response as emotional as getting Pac-Man to evade ghosts, or Luigi to avoid koopas."

Pressing up or down is where the art comes in? I know what this argument is, Michael: it's the all-evasive term (that you strategically didn't say outright), game mechanics, where gamers try to say that pressing up or down all where the art is at. Aside from how preposterous this is, what that actually means is that the game is not important: not the visuals, not the sounds....ONLY pressing up or down etc. (you get the idea). Oh, yeah, and once again; you did not declare that video games are art; it basically said that the skill with which the players dexterously moves the controller up or down is where the whole meaning of the video game is? Really, once again, why do you need the game for that? Might as well be playing thumb wrestling.

"...conveying information and artistry that has yet to hit its stride. Its capability for human expression is not a replacement for its original purpose, but a complement."

Once again, but this time, you say it is NOT art in your own words. You say that the artistry is only a complement to the pressing up and down. This is not a declaration of them being art, whether they have or haven't become them yet; if pressing up and down is the meaning...ah, never mind.

About the Steven Poole, quote, What? He's saying that architecture is frozen because in video games you can move around and look at them, but you can't in real life? As I said in my 2nd comment before last, if it someone sounds like they are worshiping something (the almighty video where you can move around and look at a building...unlike life) then my b.s. detector goes off.

"Video games are art, just not in the way we would traditionally think of or perceive."

Once again, basically saying not art; the whole piece has actually not said anything that says outright "here's why it IS art." I don't blame you; it's because they aren't art. I've already said why in my last piece (and why they are very potentially BETTER than art).

I'm done with that...now...

"With narrative art forms, there is no direct participation other than to receive, and hence no competition compelling one to finish."

I do want to say something about one's compelling to finish a video game, but first, I suppose I'm not done, and have to go back to what you said before. You already contradicted yourself here. But anyway, what's seems to be the notion, from what you said earlier that I quoted a few paragraphs back, is that the better the games GRAPHICS are the better they're MEANING will be, or gameplay (which is what you say is the meaning behind games, or the idea behind their inception), is going to be. This is indirect analysis. If the meaning comes from the gameplay, or the all-elusive term game mechanics (meaning the exact same thing), then the graphics never had anything to do with the meaning, nor sound.

As far as finishing a game, I am actually of the school that video games are essentially instant gratification and I tend to go further and favor arcade-style play. I should also mention that I grew up with video games. When I was born, I had an Atari; when I was 5, when the Nintendo first came out, I got one. Then, the Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, then I played the SEGA CD (which is the most film-like system to me, as it used full-motion footage), and Playstation when it first came out, I bought a Playstation 2 a few years back and have been collecting games. (I should also mention that I left the thanksgiving dinner table to run half a mile down the street to see Mortal Kombat 2..and I didn't even have any money; i just wanted to see it.)

I digress. What i was saying was they are instant gratification and about this arcade-style.

When video games first kind of became popular they were just something you did on a date, like say a pizza date, while you were waiting for your pizza, or before you go to a movie (as a few still do today; which is why arcades are still at theaters...and pizza joints). These games were called arcade games. Okay, then Atari came out. The idea behind this was that no longer would you have to spend so many quarters now; it was an investment.

Okay, so then something happened. I think what happened was that the home consoles wanted to destroy arcades: and I think they succeeded. They started making games that were not arcade games where it only took a few hours to beat the game; then they started making games that took ten hours. Yes, there were RPGs, but those were kind of for a very limited scene, and I frankly don't understand them; I don't have a problem with them as an idea, but I think they need more arcade-style (now, Warcraft has the biggest following of any game). I think this has been the death of video games. I still video games are in this "We gotta beat them arcades!" mode. I think that was the idea at first, to keep people at home as opposed to the arcades, and now, I think, that they think, well, as long as we got everyone home, we'll just stick to this plan; no need to change it if we're making money.

So, I think this kind of idea of story and such is kind of a con as part of the plan enacted about 17 years ago with the invention of home consoles. Just look at "Resident Evil" (which yes, I saw the whole thing when it first came out...pretty astonishing to me at the time; it still kind of is, as a first time experience). It started out as a game that takes about 5--8 hours to beat. Now, it has gone to arcade-style. This I think is the transition that video games need to make; they all should learn this lesson and incorporate arcade elements at all times (at least as far as my taste...and the history of video games is concerned..where they originated....as instant gratification). I mean, I want to make video games just to show people what they are supposed to be about. And I suppose this takes me...well, first I don't even think I got to the part where I wanted to talk about finishing a game; that's where I started at. First of all, I only buy arcade type of games. I think Namco is still making arcade-style games; they still know what it's about and I think they understand the most important things about games: which is it's all about the manual, where everything you do is done manually. Look at Tekken; there are four-buttons, each representing a limb of your character; press one and that limb flies and you've got your manual throws, parries, ten-hit combos etc. When I play that, I am only looking for that little moment where I execute a good punch or whatever; all I'm looking for is that one little punch or kick etc. , that instant moment of achievement (they really aren't hard enough to me though; Tekken tag, kind of). So, I put games on there hardest level. One game by Namco that I can think of is Dead to Rights. I put it on the hardest level and, as I only play for a few minutes on the hardest setting, I am still kind of stuck on level 6 or so; it's a level where you have to put out the flames of a building (as a kind of ticking-tock scenario) and kill the bad guys too; it's pretty hard. Then there's Left for Dead for XBOX 360; that's the best game on it, I think because it has that arcade feel. There are some games out there that are like arcade games, and I think they should all, at heart, be arcade games, whether it be RPG or whatever; I don't think you should be running around looking for stuff etc., like you do in RPG; they are 100 hour games where like 70 of those hours are nothing but running around looking for stuff, or something boring like that. Nothing wrong with that, just add some arcade-elements to that, which is this.

I think it's clear that the next step for video games is virtual reality: which is to me what games are: reality...not games...well, a "game." Video games are about blurring the lines between game and reality.

I like to say that games have come full circle now. Before at the arcades, on the side of the arcade consoles they would have these cool little drawings and such (like Galaga or something had these drawings of aliens etc.), but when you played the game it would, you know, just be blocks; very polygonally limited. Now, we have the games actually LOOK like those drawings; we've come full circle now. However, I don't think we're doing what we should be doing. Now, that we have the graphics..well, somewhat, the graphics still aren't as smooth as the CGI moments from like the days of Playstation. If you look at the CGI moments in the first Resident Evils, the CGI is smoother than the kind of blockey way they still look now; games still look like blocks...but never mind. What are we doing with it? I think the Wii has the right idea, this manual gameplay, but, obviously the games aren't that good, but mainly they aren't going far enough. What I think they should have been was a glove, rather than a nunchuk, maybe even something for your feet. But with a glove, then you can really actually be picking items up....or grabbing a zombie by the hair, or nose, or poking its eyes out. These are things we could be doing inside of an RPG game, while we're out doing nothing (as we're doing now). So, I think they need to be more like virtual reality. That's where the future of games is, and the reason we're not there is because we're still in that "We gotta kill them arcades!" mode...which is, you know, so 15 years ago (although they are kind of making a comeback somewhat with games like Street Fighter 4 and Marvel Vs Capcom). We could be doing plenty of virtual reality type of things now, if we had a kind of Wii glove. You could be using your fingers, and not just your arms; you could make it as really real as possible; there's more to games, like tennis, than just your arms...there's fingers involved to. my idea is we take this finger idea and we incorporate that into like zombie games or fighting games, where you can poke or stab a zombie in the eye etc. I mean really make as real, as how cells behave etc. try to go as far into realistic detail as possible...or just a lot more realistic. Next, we'll probably be putting on a virtual reality helmet, or something....and maybe even go kind of like laser tag...a whole building to play the game...maybe a whole video game city or something...an actual city where you can do the things in GTA. Ah, but there lies the problem. The kids are kind of controlling things. If you have one adult-themed game out there, then all the major retailers won't sell them. So, these kind of so-called less government conservatives are in the way of more mature games out there; I mean you could go a lot farther, if one wanted to, as far as the type of adult themed games out there, let alone without this combined realism I'm suggesting.

There's so much arcade possibility out there, that it all just seems like we're all being conned by this kind of mindset that started 17 years ago.

As I said, I've grown up with games.

Look at this game that I saw 20 years ago.. This is what games have looked like for 20 years on the home consoles!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsmO-kTLNB8

And I was also struck by the minimalist quality, back then (well, I didn't see it until about 1996, but it is 20 years old).

Here's Resident Evil CGI from 16 years ago..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe6srxp1-9I

Notice the smoothness. Games on XBOX 360 and PS3 don't have this smoothness; what they do is just basically say "hey, our gameplay graphics are ABOUT as good." But they don't have the smoothness of CGI.

So, games still haven't really been able to get this smoothness of CGI (or of real life), so that seems to be one way they are limited, aside from the fact that we aren't getting the really realistic style of gameplay that we could be getting, if we, as my idea is, to get a kind of glove (probably also something for legs to...hell maybe a whole body cloth to wear...if it's lightweight enough). You could have like a 70's style kung-fu game, where you fight in that kind of dance-like style of those movies; you learn the bosses style to defeat him is the idea...or you learn some technique (or as Bruce Lee changed everything...there is no technique).

So, yes, I'm disappointed that games have lost there arcade-style. It really makes me want to make a video game just to change everything back to what it's supposed to be. I think we're being conned right now.

It depends on whether video game are you talking about. If you say Harry Potter, Mafia II or Call of Duty, there's no art, but if you mean Assassin's Creed, Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect and Mario Bros, that is art in video game genre!

Painting is art.
Sculpture is art.
Story is art.
Music is art.

Videogames contain all these elements.

Anything can, of course, be art. Asking if games can be art is like asking if a color can be blue.

Videogames aren't merely art; they are the highest art that could ever--indeed ever--possibly exist. Videogames contain at minimum all the primitive arts--illustration, story, song--and even incorporate the higher art of games. Games like Go (the board game) can of course express things (i.e., the conventional definition of art) in ways too complex for the uninitiated to understand, which is why it is so difficult for the common people to accept it as art.

Art is about illusion. It isn't about expressing fake "meanings" or "messages"--although it is capable of that--and it isn't about reflecting an aspect of reality--they are reality, simulated. Life is a simulation, and a game, in itself, so there is no distinction. Videogames are a mini-game within the game of life. Thus, the lower artforms are the result of efforts of previous generations to create these mini-games--very simple games with much lower interactivity. A movie? A game composed of one long cutscene.

And shame on Michael Mirasol for mentioning those horrendous abominations against videogames--i.e., against true art--Braid, Shadow of the Colossus, even the atrocious LIMBO--these games are an offense against videogame art. Anyone claiming that videogame art is coming from the mainstream "indie" scene is basically saying, "I hate videogames," or, "I am too stupid and pompous for videogame art so please give me vapid, dumbed down rehashes of older games made by bums claiming to be superior to the old masters." The equivalent in the movie world would be a crappy remake of (let's take something everyone's heard of) "The Godfather" with a home videocamera, bad acting, bad pacing, and fake "artful" "meaning" infused into its visuals. And then the author claiming his work is superior to "The Godfather," with a bunch of fartsy artsy people rallying around him so they can look hip!

True videogame art? Deus Ex, Dwarf Fortress, Planescape: Torment, X-COM: UFO Defense, Civilization, many others.

NOT videogame art and should NEVER EVER be regarded as such by those who love videogames, or art:
Braid
Limbo
VVVVVV
Flower - LOL Ebert is so right about this
Flow
The Path
Passage
Shadow of the Colossus
Half-Life 2
Ico
Heavy Rain
BioShock

Dear Mr. Ebert,

First I'd like to thank you for years of profound reviews that have given viewers an education and introspection from your extensive knowledge of film. Without your reviews, my social experience would have compelled me to misjudge films I truly did not understand. Thank you for opening my mind to the wonderful world of film and many of its intricacies.

After reading years of your reviews, I particularly notice you have a fondness for con artist and noir films. Therefore, I am going to make a recommendation to you based upon this.

About a year ago, developer Quantic Dreams released a game named Heavy Rain. Heavy Rain follows protagonist Ethan Mars after the loss of one of his children. Heavy Rain follows a formula similar to Dark City but with a twist.

Quantric Dreams takes the age old concept of "What would you do in that situation?", and gives you the ability to pilot the characters in the heat of the moment. You can feel the brevity required to assimilate and calculate your responses to the situation at hand. The best part, you control three other characters beside the main protagonist. And, anyone of the four can be the killer. Your actions will ultimately decided which of the many endings you will see.

I suggest Heavy Rain because the game is more a movie with user controlled consequences than a video game. And, it is a good movie that you may have missed. Hopefully, this can open your mind the way you opened mine.

Thank you for this moving artcle, written with love and kindness. Heartfelt.

If a painting vs a photograph is considered art then a game vs movies is also art. A painting is created entirely from imagination as is a video game where photograph and a film is made of real life things and also considered art. As in a movie there is a lot of thought in how a shot will be filmed, just like a video game. Overall, just because I will not sit here and write the many various and obvious examples That video Games is a form of art. Video games is it's own art, stands in a new fresh category of art but to believe it is Art compare it to a film there are camaras(cinimatagrapgher), and many other obvious things you would find in makeing a film you would find in making a video game. Video games also is like a painting because it all comes from imagination, how it will look when a character jumps, how the wind blows threw the forest, every thing within a game is made up in days if not years of creative work just to give us about 8 hours of taking us to a new world an amazing adventure then we can only live threw ART. To me Painting is to photograph as Games are to movies. A lot will disagree but just reflect and think about what makes Art and you will see that video Games deserve to be considered art.

Hiya, nice article. I'm a philosophy grad student at SF State University and interestingly, I'm working on an article that makes a few similar points although I have different arguments and games in my piece. I agree wholeheartedly about your argument about "barrier to entry" as being a reason that they aren't considered art by some -- you would never know how involving, say, Final Fantasy IV is from playing just a little, or see the ingenious tricks in the Castlevania games. I won't reveal too much here, but Super Mario Galaxy and Banjo-Kazooie are a couple of games I look at in my piece. Nice job!

I'm 53 and have played video games since their inception. Its not art when my fingers, wrists, elbows, shoulders, and even back no longer allow me to enjoy them very much. Not anymore than a blind person enjoys paintings. Wait... I guess just because its not art for me doesn't mean its not to those able to enjoy it.

In early, more primitive video gaming days, arcade machines such as 'Defender' required consistent focus on improving motor skills in order for the player to recieve a high score, just the same as in key scenes
of modern 'art games' such as 'Heavy Rain,' where gamer skills are
measured by progression through the narrative. Finding the Origami
Killer's next clue, while intriguing and satisfying as a narrative, in
reality is merely a gaming tactic requiring players to adopt a more
advanced controlling scheme as well as a more intuituve and observant
approach to manuevering within the confines of the level. While video games can be modulated to control how we will feel while experiencing them, this does not change the fact that utltimately narratives serve the gamer by diverting their focus off of hand-eye coordination, making it easier for the player to 'make believe' that they are an outlaw cowboy in 'Red Dead Redemption,' or a space spartan in 'Halo: Combat Evolved.'

Similar to film, video games provide immersion: when we begin to play, we are not receptive to all the rules first hand, and naturally respond to our own learning curve, creating this constantley developing pretend-aesthetic of what the game feels like; but nonetheless always using basic abstract problem solving abilites.

Those that believe video games to be an art medium consider their checkpoint-divided narratives necessary in order to provide immersion. This is as opposed to art, that operates at a steady rate, and at the physical level plays FOR the viewer. But there enlies the differece, that video games by defintion are intended to be played, and have not advanced beyond using an abstract engine of problem solving as an entry point. This is also as apposed to art, beit films, canvas, sculpture, or stage, art entitles the audience to use their minds as an entry point.

If novels were to be reffered to as art, it would be because of the cognitive connection between enterpretation and reading. But if we were to accept video games as an art, it would be a compromise; pretending motor skills are another entry point into the most active and interceptive recesses of our mind, instead of just leaving games to be a recess in of themselves.

Mr. Ebert I hope gamers don't ever convince you to play video games if you don't want to. I think I speak on behalf of your most loyal readers when I say that you of all people know how to make better use of your thumbs.

In 1972, movie makers weren't allowed to show the graphic violence they do today and that made for a much better film.