The Art of Video Games

"Art is 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"

Roger Ebert seems completely convinced that do not and never will represent art.  One of his main arguments to support his claim is that a game has objectives and can be beat, while his definition of art is something that is only 'experienced.'

"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them."


I honestly believe that all forms of video games can be considered a form of art.  In a video game, the game designer creates environments and story lines that affect the  players senses, emotions, and intellect.  Just as novel can bring it's reader to tears, a video game can have an equal emotional impact.  


Ebert also fails to acknowledge the sandbox-style games in which the video game designer creates an environment in which the player becomes the artist.  These games can not be "won" in a traditional sense.  All the creativity, exploration, and design is left to the player.


I don't find it difficult to believe that Ebert has such a short-sited view as he is a product of pre-internet Hollywood.  Just as the recording industry has had a difficult time adjusting to the new age of technology, so has old-Hollywood ideology.  While Mr. Ebert is entitled to his opinion, I do find his article to be short-sited, ill-informed and inflammatory, as reflected in the article responses.