NationStates Jolt Archive

Film critic Roger Ebert (http://grumpygamer.com/7827880) recently commented on video games, saying that because of their non-authorative narrative style games can not be a form of art.

What do you think?

*poll in the works*

Sometimes. I would say epic RPG's certainly qualify.

Sometimes. I would say epic RPG's certainly qualify.

Sometimes. Sorry, I seem to have missed that option. :(

I can't think of any games that as a whole would count as a work of art, though I certainly won't exlcude the possibility, and there are definitely games whose graphics are on a par with the best computer-generated artwork.

If movies and music are art, then games are as well.

If art is a form of expression, I'd say that video games probably qualify as art.

Take a look at the world in which Super Mario Brothers takes place. Mushrooms and fire-breathing turtles and bullets with arms and smiley faces.

As the above poster mentioned, Epic RPGs can probably be classified as art since they tend to have a storyline comparable to the majority of novels (see, I can say that because most novels also follow cliched plot devices.)

So yeah, video games are a form of art, in my opinion.

I can't think of any games that as a whole would count as a work of art, though I certainly won't exlcude the possibility, and there are definitely games whose graphics are on a par with the best computer-generated artwork.

I think you can discount graphics, there are plenty of good old games with very aged looking graphics.

Beneath A Steel Sky and the old Final Fantasy games (not sure about the more recent ones, I've only played the SNES ones on an emulator) certainly had better story lines then lots of films and books I've described as art.

How can movies be a work of art and not games if alot of movies are based on games? Hell, and they arn't even based on the games with on-going cohesive storylines that would actually work in movies like Prince of Persia, Half-Life, Starsiege, etc.

How can movies be a work of art and not games if alot of movies are based on games?

I doubt Doom counts as art, no matter how lax your definition of "art." ;)

They are, for sure. Just ask for the prize, and you'll agree. :D

Sometimes. I would say epic RPG's certainly qualify.

yes Gothic and morrowind is the finest art I know and better like any book

Anyone who refuses to treat games as art obviously needs to play through Grim Fandango a coupl'a times.

Ebert is just mad because the first game he ever played was Counter Strike. I would hate video games to if that was the first game I played.

Beneath A Steel Sky and the old Final Fantasy games (not sure about the more recent ones, I've only played the SNES ones on an emulator) certainly had better story lines then lots of films and books I've described as art.
I loved Beneath A Steel Sky. I played a demo of it sometime in the early 1990's (the demo version and a little comic explaining the background story came with Amiga Format) and then waited until 2004 (when the company open-sourced it) to play the full version. And to think people call me impatiant. :-)

I kind of got that impression from Max Payne II's noir-esque style and story progression and like was mentioned, some RPGs could certainly qualify. So yeah, I guess you could call it art.

Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit tried really hard to be "art"

are computer games art??? one word: Shenmue

I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.

Frankly this is a load of crap. He's not complaining about the lack of authorative control, he's complaining about the lack of authoritative control. It's an ad hoc argument on Ebert's Part. He's clearly looking at video games and asking himself "I'm not prepared to call this art, so what is different about all the things I am willing to call art and this?"

There's a reason that the creators of other forms of art didn't give the audience options in how they appreciate the art. Because it wasn't possible. Classical compositions used to include a part in which the performer could improvise as he wished. Sort of like the guitar solos in heavy metal songs of the 80's and 90's. Beethoven was a bit of a control freak and he would even write out the notes to be played during that part.

Jazz took it further at the turn of the last century and created a musical form in which the performers have to pay attention to the audience and perform appropriatly to their mood, which in turn affects their mood, influencing the performers music. Interactive music.

Video games, when done well, are a natural extention of that, in another medium. But just like Jazz when it was new, the mucky-mucks of the art world seek to define it out.

Any real artist will tell you that the audience brings as much to the art as the artist does. Whether it's statuary, painting, music, or literature. The audience will take out of it things that the artist never intended to put in. Art is like that. People don't take kindly to artists telling spectators that their interpretation is "wrong." They're supposed to listen smiling and gently nodding and then when everyone is listening they say what was on their mind when they created it.

By the same token, people who play the online computer game City of Heroes are constantly vexed by the developers changing the rules of the game everytime someone figures out how to use their powers in a way that the developers handn't thought they could be used.

I doubt Doom counts as art, no matter how lax your definition of "art." ;)

When someone tried to define art as "what artists make" one artist decided to tackle that definition by having a bunch of artists shit in cans and sign their names on the cans. It was then entitled "artists' shit" and put on display.

You can't tell me that Doom is worse than that. It was like a digital Jackson Pollack painting. A visual experiment in a new artistic medium. Yes there have been numerous refinements and improvements on that particular form, but you can still look back and see that it all started with doom.

His complaint is that it isn't art because the player makes choices. There is an easy coutner to that: linear games. Any attempt at using Indigo Prophecy or Shenmue or Morrowwind as an example of games as art is futile vs Ebert. You have to approach it with good linear games where the only choices you can make are how best to not die. Games like Half-Life, Prince of Persia, Double Dragon, etc.

While the visual, or even the auditory component of video games could be considered to have artistic merit, the game in and of itself is not an artistic form. It is a game.

While the visual, or even the auditory component of video games could be considered to have artistic merit, the game in and of itself is not an artistic form. It is a game.
Except for that one game.

I believe that if ice-skating and other crap is a form of art, video games are definately.

Except for that one game.
Which one is that?

Which one is that?
Dragon's Lair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_lair

Max Payne 1 & 2 is art. Noir, stylish, cool, dark.
Most games aren't though.

When someone tried to define art as "what artists make" one artist decided to tackle that definition by having a bunch of artists shit in cans and sign their names on the cans. It was then entitled "artists' shit" and put on display.

You can't tell me that Doom is worse than that. It was like a digital Jackson Pollack painting. A visual experiment in a new artistic medium. Yes there have been numerous refinements and improvements on that particular form, but you can still look back and see that it all started with doom.


Yeah, I'm probably being unfair. I actually think it is a lot better then others of my friends. It certainly isn't the worst game-to-film adaptation.

That reminds me. AM I the only person who could not get the Indigo Prophecy Demo to even install?

Dragon's Lair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_lair
Not art.

Disney-esque in it's rendering, but no, not art.

How can movies be a work of art and not games if alot of movies are based on games? Hell, and they arn't even based on the games with on-going cohesive storylines that would actually work in movies like Prince of Persia, Half-Life, Starsiege, etc.
I'm going to defend Ebert a little, even though I disagree with him overall.

What Ebert is saying is that because games, especially the wider ranging, epic games that are out there today, depend on the players more to determine what happens, the author of the game has less authorial control and for Ebert, that control is what makes it art.

Now first off, Ebert is not saying that every film is art--he'd be the first to say that most films don't reach that level, and neither do most games.

Ebert has a point--by ceding authorial control to the player, the programmer ceases to be the artist, and I don't think the game itself is art. But where I think Ebert goes wrong is in saying that it can never reach the level of art. I think a game is a palette with which a player can create a work of art. The game is the paint and the canvas, or the marble and the chisel, and the player is the artist. It becomes a collaborative effort.

Well, many videogames do have a well-defined plot, so saying that the programmer doesn't have much control is inaccurate.

What Ebert is saying is that because games, especially the wider ranging, epic games that are out there today, depend on the players more to determine what happens, the author of the game has less authorial control and for Ebert, that control is what makes it art.
I know. Which is why I pointed out that Morrow Wind and the like do not qualify as art under this definition. However, in linear games, you can only follow a designed path, and often, bosses can only be defeated certain ways, as designated by the designer.


And how is Dragon's Lair not art?

Yeah, I'm probably being unfair. I actually think it is a lot better then others of my friends. It certainly isn't the worst game-to-film adaptation.

No. I think that would be Street Fighter (not the anime version). While Dungeons and Dragons was bad, Street Fighter seemed like it was almost trying to suck.

To placate American patriotic sensibilities they reduced the Japanese hero (Ryu) to supporting player status and elevated a minor character (Guile) to the lead simply because he was American. Of course, there was another American character who fit the bill (Ken), but they opted for the military character because he was somehow more American. But then they gave that role to a Bavarian dandy whose trademark is doing splits in tights (Jean-Claude Van Damme).

I suppose they thought the character of Ken was some sort of race traitor for learning foreign fighting styles. That wasn't just taking liberties, it wasn't just bad, it wasn't even just insulting to the fanbase. Frankly, I think the makers of that movie had just seen "The Producers," and decided that to actually make the movie "Springtime for Hitler" would be a bit of a giveaway.

Well, many videogames do have a well-defined plot, so saying that the programmer doesn't have much control is inaccurate.
Art is not necessarily about control. And programming is wholly concerned with control in one form or another.

Is a platoon leader an artist when he makes his men march in formation?

No.

I know. Which is why I pointed out that Morrow Wind and the like do not qualify as art under this definition. However, in linear games, you can only follow a designed path, and often, bosses can only be defeated certain ways, as designated by the designer.


And how is Dragon's Lair not art?
My argument would be that games like Morrow Wind are actually closer to art--I disagree with Ebert on this--but that the artist is the player, not the designer, or even more so, the artist is the collaborative effort between the two.

More importantly, I'd say that while this collaboration "can" be art, most of the time it isn't--but that's my personal aesthetic talking there.

Only relly good ones, such as Morrowind.

I just had this funny thought that in 30 years from today we will make our children write essays about Pong and Space Invaders in the Interactive Arts class.

And they will hate it. :)

No. I think that would be Street Fighter (not the anime version). While Dungeons and Dragons was bad, Street Fighter seemed like it was almost trying to suck.

The one with Kylie "I make Van Damme look like a good actor" Minogue?


Also, bear in mind I haven't played many recent games, even games that boast they have an "open storyline" are still fairly linear, with other options a player do are more like footnotes, that have a very minor effect on the overall game.

Well, many videogames do have a well-defined plot, so saying that the programmer doesn't have much control is inaccurate.

Plus, whats most impressive is the choices that are offered. "Non-linear" is a point of pride in video games. Take a look at True Crime, Streets of LA. Three different endings, 3 different possible ways for the story to end, and that's if you don't count getting killed.

SNES's Wing Commander used to have 4 different Game Over endings and 2 different final mission endings depending on how far you had gotten.
"He died without the chance to prove himself."
"His valor gave humanity a chance in this war."
"He single-handeldly one us this war, but didn't live to see it."
"We lost this war, but noone fought harder than him."

Ebert's definition is a complete red herring. Or perhaps "no true Scotsman." Artist control is not a defining element of art. The choices that the designer gives to the players is part of the art of video games. If the designer doesn't give options then he's not really thinking about how the game should reflect reality. Take a look at the Spiderman II video game made from the movie. Bruce Campbell says outright, "But you can only be the good guy." Then they made a seperate one where you can be the good guy or the bad guy.

Choices offered by the programmers do not reduce the artist's input. They are part of the artist's input. It is a statement itself what choices the are left to the player and what choices are made for him.

The one with Kylie "I make Van Damme look like a good actor" Minogue?


Also, bear in mind I haven't played many recent games, even games that boast they have an "open storyline" are still fairly linear, with other options a player do are more like footnotes, that have a very minor effect on the overall game.

Yes, in all but a handful of exceptional games the choices the player is offered tends to be something along the lines of "beat this guy, or get better at the game and beat him later." But I don't think that's the way to address Ebert's criticism. While Ebert's criticism may be factually flawed, the real problem is that it's philosophically flawed. Meaning that whether he is right or wrong about whether or not games give the player choice, he's still wrong about whether or not that fact has any bearing on whether or not it's art.

Art is about getting people to see the world in new ways. And video games have scientific proof that they do that (http://www.aarp.org/learntech/computers/comp_news/a2003-06-09-videogames.html) very effectively.

I believe there is an art to it, but if there are cheap plugs for products or comercialized, then it is not art. ditto with movies.

Plus, whats most impressive is the choices that are offered. "Non-linear" is a point of pride in video games. Take a look at True Crime, Streets of LA. Three different endings, 3 different possible ways for the story to end, and that's if you don't count getting killed.


It doesn't even have to have a non-linear ending. Sometimes the beauty is in how the player can shape the story to whichever whim you like.

Take, for example, the Baldur's Gate series. While the main plotline is linear, how exactly that plot develops into its inevitable conclusion is as a result of your actions. The "art" lies within having a strong narrative and character development no matter which path you choose.

Ebert's definition is a complete red herring. Or perhaps "no true Scotsman." Artist control is not a defining element of art. The choices that the designer gives to the players is part of the art of video games. If the designer doesn't give options then he's not really thinking about how the game should reflect reality. Take a look at the Spiderman II video game made from the movie. Bruce Campbell says outright, "But you can only be the good guy." Then they made a seperate one where you can be the good guy or the bad guy.

Choices offered by the programmers do not reduce the artist's input. They are part of the artist's input. It is a statement itself what choices the are left to the player and what choices are made for him.
I couldn't disagree more--control is a defining element of art, especially from the point of view of the artist. Let someone try to rewrite one of my poems and see just how agitated I become. My point is that where Ebert goes wrong is in claiming that the programmer is the artist--I think the player is the artist, and the programmer/game is the metaphorical canvas on which the art is created.

I couldn't disagree more--control is a defining element of art, especially from the point of view of the artist. Let someone try to rewrite one of my poems and see just how agitated I become. My point is that where Ebert goes wrong is in claiming that the programmer is the artist--I think the player is the artist, and the programmer/game is the metaphorical canvas on which the art is created.

But the artist does have control. He sets the limits on how much freedom the player has...it is his conscious choice, as part of his work, to allow the player to manipulate the world he has created and how.

My argument would be that games like Morrow Wind are actually closer to art--I disagree with Ebert on this--but that the artist is the player, not the designer, or even more so, the artist is the collaborative effort between the two.

That's exactly why I was comparing it to Jazz earlier.

It also reminds me of the lawsuit between Marvel and NCsoft over City of Heroes. Marvel argued that the game infringed on its copyrights by making it possible for players to duplicate characters such as "The Hulk." NCsoft argued that their character creation tool was more a medium than a work itself, and if players duplicate The Hulk then the game is no more responsible than Xerox is if someone photocopies a Picasso.


Oddly enough, neither argument carried the day. The judge found out that Marvel had it's own people create characters for City of Heroes that duplicated Marvel superheroes (in violation of CoH's terms of service) and said something along the lines of "wait a minute! You infringe on your own copyright and then try to sue for it? Case dismissed."

Personally, I think it takes a certain amount of artistic vision to take a tool designed for creating tight-clad superheroes and use it to create a Zoot-Suited Jazz singer, Lion-O, or Ronald McDonald. The guy playing Ronald has been at it for quite a while, and I'm surprised McDonald, the sue-happiest of the fast food chains, hasn't made a fuss over it yet. Afterall, they're the people who sued a 12 year old girl for inventing a game called "Nothin' but Net," because they claimed to own the copyright on that term because it appeared in one of their commercials, despite being in street parlayance for years beforehand.

Video games are what I imagine most artists throughout history would have loved, as they add something to the field that books, music, movies, paintings, all have failed to offer - they restricted you to being purely the viewer. Through a game, artists can have the chance to make their work quite literally come alive and immerse the viewer more deeply than ever though possible.
Games such as Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Suikoden, and Xenogears to name a few have shown the way this interaction can enhance the level of drama and overall intensity, as you no longer are just watching characters on a screen but actually interacting with virtual people.
And other games, such as Feel the Magic, Mario 64, Mario World, Star Ocean 2, The Sims, and many more have explored just how deeply you can interact with these worlds and characters as well as simply the many ways you can interact.
Video games take all the emotional and creative power held in other forms of art, and allow one to not just view or listen, but experience as well. Before video games, only the artist could live within the work and see it come together from an active standpoint as the artist does. But thanks to video games, it is possible for the audience to truly experience a work of art, to get as deep into it as possible.

I couldn't disagree more--control is a defining element of art, especially from the point of view of the artist. Let someone try to rewrite one of my poems and see just how agitated I become. My point is that where Ebert goes wrong is in claiming that the programmer is the artist--I think the player is the artist, and the programmer/game is the metaphorical canvas on which the art is created.

I'm not sure if this analogy is correct. Rewriting a poem would be more similar to modding - changing the game's content. The programmer/designer clearly sets the paths in the games that the player is allowed to travel.

But you got a point - a game has the potential to be a piece of art created by an artist (the designer) AND it may allow the player to become an artist too.

I couldn't disagree more--control is a defining element of art, especially from the point of view of the artist. Let someone try to rewrite one of my poems and see just how agitated I become. My point is that where Ebert goes wrong is in claiming that the programmer is the artist--I think the player is the artist, and the programmer/game is the metaphorical canvas on which the art is created.

Not all art is the same though. Control maybe very important in more static arts (such as writing), but it is less of a case in other types of art, such as plays. Though plays haven't really been rewritten (though in a few cases the author may have revised it), there is an almost unlimited amount of ways they can be performed. I think this is one of the reasons why Shakespeare has such longevity, it is fairly easy to fit him into different societies, whilst staying true to the original work.

I couldn't disagree more--control is a defining element of art, especially from the point of view of the artist. Let someone try to rewrite one of my poems and see just how agitated I become. My point is that where Ebert goes wrong is in claiming that the programmer is the artist--I think the player is the artist, and the programmer/game is the metaphorical canvas on which the art is created.

You know, in a way, no artist has complete (or even near complete) control over their works. An artist will paint a picture, or write a poem, etc. with one idea in mind that they want to get across, but the fact is that once it's shown to the public, it becomes entirely subject to their interpretation. The viewer is free to take the piece as they see it, despite any intentions the artist might have had.

I suppose an artist could write a blurb that explicitly explains what they want people to see their art as, but I think that would turn some people off of it.

I couldn't disagree more--control is a defining element of art, especially from the point of view of the artist. Let someone try to rewrite one of my poems and see just how agitated I become.

But that's personal to you. Like I pointed out before. Classical composers used to include a part of each piece that the player would improvise. Beethoven didn't like it, and wrote that part note for note. Ever notice how in chamber music you can't tell exactly when the violin player is done? There always seems to be another "BOMbom BOMbom booooom, diddleliddle-iddle-iddle-eeee" right when you though he had just played the last "eeeeeooOOWWW?"

You're picky about your poems and how they're read. Musicians tend to be less so, some are, some aren't. Nirvana threatned legal action when MTV put the lyrics to their songs in subtitles. They wanted it to be unintelligible because the prefered to hear what these songs meant to the listners than to tell them what it should mean to them. Another singer, I can't remember who, said that he refuses to explain what his songs are about, because it's so much more interesting to hear what people think they're about, and you can never really say what a song isn't about even if you're the one who wrote it. Some song writers are rabid in defense of the fidelity of their work, others aren't. It doesn't make either one less of an artist.

And take a look at cover songs. Apocalyptica covers Metallica songs with a string quartet. It's a new take on a body of heavy metal songs. It's original and artistic, but not true to Metallica's vision of their songs. Love Spit Love covered The Smiths "How Soon is Now" for a movie soundtrack, but it was so true to the original that you could hardly tell the difference unless you were a big Smiths fan. That wasn't art. It was a cross-media promotional stunt. If there had been artisitic vision in the Love Spit Love version then it would have sounded different. Same deal with the cover of 'Paint it Black" for that Kevin Bacon movie.

Stage writers tend to be very controling about their work. It's considered something of a sin in theatre acting to improvise lines when you can't remember them. An occaisional necessity perhaps, but you should learn them word for word, and you should never change the words because they aren't true to your vision of the character as the actor. And yet the writer and the actor are both artists. Control over the product does not define their status as artists.

The same is true of video games. There may be artistry on the part of the player as well as the programmer, but who ends up with more control does not define their status as the artist.

Not all art is the same though. Control maybe very important in more static arts (such as writing), but it is less of a case in other types of art, such as plays. Though plays haven't really been rewritten (though in a few cases the author may have revised it), there is an almost unlimited amount of ways they can be performed. I think this is one of the reasons why Shakespeare has such longevity, it is fairly easy to fit him into different societies, whilst staying true to the original work.

True, although I think that sometimes the Bard gets stretched beyond the breaking point. It was novel when they put Leonardo DiCaprio in Romeo and Juliet, but then when Ethan Hawke did Hamlet it was a bit of a turn off. A little old hat. And with Titus done as that wierd hodgepodge of 1930's and ancient Rome, or the Tempest set in the American Civil War. It's all starting to get a bit pointless. It's really gotten to the point that I found "10 things I hate about you" to be more satisfying than "Taming of the Shrew.

Wow, lots of good conversation in here.

I personally believe video games are art. Non-linear games could be compared to paintings artists made with a view towards being interpreted from multiple points of view.

Games like Ocarina of Time, Final Fantasy III (US version), and Chronotrigger are all artistic achievements of note. I would ask Ebert how many actual games he has played, or "reviewed." The medium is definitely different than previous artistic forms, but that does not negate its ability to be art.

Another thing entirely is those games where the graphics are done in such a way to make the visual style deliberate art. Why do games have concept artists if not for the purpose of conceptualizing art?

I believe there is an art to it, but if there are cheap plugs for products or comercialized, then it is not art. ditto with movies.

You mean like Andy Worhol's painting of Campbells soup?

True, although I think that sometimes the Bard gets stretched beyond the breaking point. It was novel when they put Leonardo DiCaprio in Romeo and Juliet, but then when Ethan Hawke did Hamlet it was a bit of a turn off. A little old hat. And with Titus done as that wierd hodgepodge of 1930's and ancient Rome, or the Tempest set in the American Civil War. It's all starting to get a bit pointless.

However, I feel there have been far worse things done to his play's. Take for example one director in Georgian (?) times rewriting the tragedies to give them happy endings.

Also, you are naming some filmed versions of his plays (some good, some bad), however the interpretations are even more far ranging still. Different cultures have adapted him to fit into their society (a representative of the British Government in India wrote in a report that he felt the natives were cultured for the fact they enjoyed Shakespeare and could fit him into a local context). The plays have been fitted into different artistic schools.

Of course some of them don't work, but that's life.


It's really gotten to the point that I found "10 things I hate about you" to be more satisfying than "Taming of the Shrew.

Do you read Private Eye?

Also, if you are talking about the recent BBC series trying to "update," I'm not fit to comment. I didn't watch them, and the only views I have heard concerning them come from P.E., my youngest sister and my mother.

Obviously this is a very subjective poll, as not everyone can (or should) have the same opinion. That being said, I think video games can be art, just as there are some movies that are art and some that aren't and there are some paintings that are art and some that aren't. For instance, I think games like Final Fantasy X, XIII, or Shadow of the Colossus could be considered art, whereas other games likes Leisure Suit Larry would definately not be considered art.

That's just my opinion though.

Leisure Suit Larry would definately not be considered art.


I dunno, it has a certain charm. Though in the later ones it got very contrived, and the quirky humour became very forced.

I dunno, it has a certain charm. Though in the later ones it got very contrived, and the quirky humour became very forced.

Eh, I always took as just a way to pick up girls without actually having to, you know, get off the sofa (I kid... please don't kill me).

At any rate, whatever floats your boat. As I said, any subject like this one is very subjective.

Although I was gonna say "Sure they are" the three-headed monkey rang a bell...
Best game I've ever played (and still play once or twice a year): LOOM!

The best answer I can give is... sometimes...
but I chose the MI reference on the poll. :p

Eh, I always took as just a way to pick up girls without actually having to, you know, get off the sofa (I kid... please don't kill me).

At any rate, whatever floats your boat. As I said, any subject like this one is very subjective.

Well, I never said it was art. Just that it is entertaining enough.

Though I've only played the second one (I think, ages old now)

I somewhat agree with Ebert's view of art, even though I do disagree with his ultimate conclusion that video games are not and cannot be art.

Put simply, while I agree that it is definately true that viewers of art can get things out of the work that the writer never intended, it is nevertheless true that some viewpoints are privileged, in the sense that they accord with the work, and some are not. For instance, although its unclear whether Shakespeare intended such an incestuous undertone to Hamlet (you have to remember that we are reading it in a post-Freudian world), it is possible, and in some sense legitemate, to read into Hamlet's famed delay in action a very Freudian take on the matter. That being said, if you read something about masturbatory fantasy into Cervantes' Don Quixote, you are just reading the work wrong; there is no manner of interpretation that will allow you to interpret Cervantes' work without practically rewriting it.

This, I think, is what Ebert means by authorial control: there is a privileged viewpoint to how a literary work should be taken, and while there are definite riffs on that theme (the incest, for example, is a riff on the central question of why Hamlet delayed), if you change the theme, you effectively change the work. With that in mind, it is fairly easy to see how Ebert arrives at his conclusion that video games aren't art: in most video games, it is difficult to see any theme at all besides "Kill 'em All!", much less a priviliged viewpoint of what the author meant when he made the game.

The reason why I think that this is wrong is because in many games nowadays, there is a sense of what the game designers "meant" by their games. In Civilization, for instance, Sid Meier meant to provide us with an overarching Godlike view of our own little civilization, and make us love it and feel for the little citizens in our nation. The fact that these civilizations are infinitely realizable does not alter this overall meaning. In Baldur's Gate, the writers meant for the player to feel swept up in a historical and archetypical clash of good v. evil (or evil v. more evil, as the case may be), and the fact that the actual storyline varies greatly for every player and every game does not change this. As such, there is in a very real sense a priviliged viewpoint about what the game means even though there are many ways of bringing it about. Ergo, even though I agree with Ebert's definition of what art must necessarily have (a priviliged viewpoint about what the author "meant"), it is neverthless the case that video games still fit with Ebert's definition, therefore, they are art, or if they aren't art, they aren't because of some other factor that Ebert does not describe.

All games are a work of art.

From the moment you turn them on you look into a new world, new perspectives, new realities.

And in the good ones you get to explore that world too...

To use Metroid Prime: Echoes as an example you are plunged into an unknown world simply trying to survive but as you pass on you learn more about where you are and why things are as they are, you get to read the stories of the Luminoth, Marines and the Pirates as you go through, slowly piecing the stories together.

And the world fits together, you get glimpses of it's ecosystem, it's history as you go on.

Or you can rush through and not care about the story just make with the killing.

And that's your choice of course, just as it's your choice to look at the surface of Animal Farm and think 'kid's story' or look deeper and see the symbolism and message or you can see the Ambassadors (painting) and just think 'nice picture' and walk on or look deeper and see the hidden messages within the image.

All games are a work of art.

From the moment you turn them on you look into a new world, new perspectives, new realities.

And in the good ones you get to explore that world too...

To use Metroid Prime: Echoes as an example you are plunged into an unknown world simply trying to survive but as you pass on you learn more about where you are and why things are as they are, you get to read the stories of the Luminoth, Marines and the Pirates as you go through, slowly piecing the stories together.

And the world fits together, you get glimpses of it's ecosystem, it's history as you go on.

Or you can rush through and not care about the story just make with the killing.

And that's your choice of course, just as it's your choice to look at the surface of Animal Farm and think 'kid's story' or look deeper and see the symbolism and message or you can see the Ambassadors (painting) and just think 'nice picture' and walk on or look deeper and see the hidden messages within the image.

To be honest, I have a hard time seeing Leisure Suit Larry or Doom as art. Doom is a fun game, and I suppose Leisure Suit Larry has its charms if that's what you go for, but they are clearly not art.

Not all art is the same though. Control maybe very important in more static arts (such as writing), but it is less of a case in other types of art, such as plays. Though plays haven't really been rewritten (though in a few cases the author may have revised it), there is an almost unlimited amount of ways they can be performed.

This reminds me of a great book by Piers Anthony. Not the original version, but his annotated version of the book "But What of Earth." In the notes and introduction to this novel he describes the frustrations he had with the publishing company and their revisions of the novel he wrote for them. Those revisions were so extensive that they gave someone else co-author credit. When he complained they offered to take the other author's name off of the book, but when he saw how extensive their damage to the novel was he thought it would be better if they took his name off of it.

But he describes himself as ornery and the implication is that most authors end up having the novel they produce look quite different from what they had originally intended. But this can be a major sticking point with a lot of authors. Terry Pratchett and Niel Gaiman co-wrote a comic fantasy novel called Good Omens (a spoof of Omen). There was a Hollywood Production company interested in the movie rights, but they started making suggestions such as making the protagonist (the son of Satan) evil from the begining when the whole point of the book was that no one can be born to be evil. If so you had producers and artists both wrestling for control, and if the producers had stopped trying to claim artistic input then we might all have been privileged to see "Good Omens" the movie. :(

Although I was gonna say "Sure they are" the three-headed monkey rang a bell...
Best game I've ever played (and still play once or twice a year): LOOM!

I'm trying far harder than appropriate to figure out how anyone could make a video game out of fabric weaving.

I couldn't disagree more--control is a defining element of art, especially from the point of view of the artist. Let someone try to rewrite one of my poems and see just how agitated I become. My point is that where Ebert goes wrong is in claiming that the programmer is the artist--I think the player is the artist, and the programmer/game is the metaphorical canvas on which the art is created.

Control is a defining element of the artist, not necessarily art. I have always disliked artists and artwork that 'ask' for the artwork to be viewed in only one way. When I see a painting, I do not wish for the artist to be there, instructing me on how to interpret his/her work. Rather, when I study and view artwork I enjoy the fact that I possess the liberty and faculty to interpret it however I may want to. Take the Mona Lisa; I personally see it as a beautifully-painted woman, one who is not necessarily beautiful. I have weighed, and discarded, the view that it's actually Leonardo da Vinci himself. Perhaps da Vinci intended this for his painting, but I could care less. Another example is Salvador Dali's The Persistence of Memory. Regardless of what Dali meant with this piece, I have always thought it represented the notion that as memory persists and grasps notions and spectacles of the past, it slowly corrupts and alters them (including but not limited to time as Dali 'intended').

Every institution with a long history, large field of followers, and school(s) of thought relies on a certain image to sustain itself. The Catholic Church has long relied on a general image, or canon, (with variations here and there, but that's another debate) that has more or less sustained it from the Dark Ages into the Digital Age. The same holds true with art, except I feel that art's "central image/theme/canon" is that it does not hold any one view. This, I believe, can be ascribed to saying that the central pillar of art is subjectivity and change. I cannot imagine modern society if we were still painting stick-figures hunting Mastodons on cave walls. And usually, from my experience, those who are already well-landed within their ("own") institution often cling to it as it first was. They often resent change and the 'new-thing.' That is why I believe Ebert feels as he does about video-games. He is widely hailed as a sound movie critic, as that is where his talents and expertise lay. As such, his view can become quite narrow and hypocritical when something outside his potent and far-gazing, yet by nature limited 'latitudinal,' scope comes into his view. Primero ejemplo: video-games. I'm quite certain that with a bit of research I could find a comment by a painter or novelist who denounced moving pictures when they first arose in popularity and status. What poor Mr. Ebert doesn't realize is that movies will loved for a long time to follow, but they are no longer the new thing and have subtly declined (proportionately) in popularity as time has progressed (at least in America).

The essence of my long-winded rant is to say that art does not define itself according to limited parameters and standing precedence. Rather, art defines itself (if it is possible to truly define art) as subjectivity, prone to adaptation and change, and devoid of any one overarching credo or tenet (if viewed over time, since some tastes/thoughts in the art world predominate for a time). If art did not define itself as such, then it would be science.

Film critic Roger Ebert (http://grumpygamer.com/7827880) recently commented on video games, saying that because of their non-authorative narrative style games can not be a form of art.

What do you think?

*poll in the works*

Movies aren't art. Art isn't art. Art is a pointless term that is completely up to a person's opinion. I could kill 5 people and say it's art!
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

I couldn't disagree more--control is a defining element of art, especially from the point of view of the artist.
Control is voluntary, but not necessary to the impulse to create. Control issues concerning property, intellectual or otherwise, are something else entirely. Those issues stem from societal values.

Movies aren't art. Art isn't art. Art is a pointless term that is completely up to a person's opinion. I could kill 5 people and say it's art!
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5:
I'm afraid you'd have to offer more than a simple statement to back up your assertion. Otherwise, you'd just be the perpetrator of yet another unimaginative killing spree.