It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

supergg2k — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:55:10 GMT

Merriam Webster defines art as the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced. Based on that I would consider videogames to be art despite the fact the objects are virtual and interactive. The games themselves don't lend themselves to the definition of "fine art"; art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful objects —usually used in plural. The term "work of art " can best be applied based on the definition of the phrase; something giving high aesthetic satisfaction to the viewer or listener. For ganes to truly become mainstream, the controls have to be accessible to a wide number of users and the gameplay and story have to be compelling. The Wii has touched on the control issue; the industry just needs to find a story/game to capture the imagination of the masses.

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

Pistolaero — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:17:11 GMT

I think we should stop trying to justify our passion as art and judge it by individual games. For example, I wouldn't consider Halo 3 a work of art, but ask me about Shadow of Colossus and I'd have to rethink that. However, ask someone else that and they'd probably say I'm wrong and that Halo 3 is the actual work of art. It's a tough argument, that's for sure.

As to games that have won over the mainstream audiences, notice that they aren't complicated games. A lot of people won't give better games a try because they feel they aren't up to the task. Instead they opt for games that are easy to pick-up and play, as opposed to those make you go through a tutorial in order to play. Most people don't have time to cook, why should they make time to learn how to play?

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

N'Gai Croal — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:28:15 GMT

@supergg2k: I'm curious: why do you think that a compelling story is a necessary element for games to become truly mainstream? If you look at the mainstream games that I listed above--"Pong, Super Mario Bros, Tetris, The Sims, Brain Age, Wii Sports, Bejeweled, Guitar Hero"--there isn't a compelling story among the lot. Perhaps I'm just being myopic here, but could it be that only a minority of people--even if it's a sizable minority--want to play the kinds of games that are currently being built to deliver a compelling story, while truly mainstream audiences prefer games that cut to the chase and give them entertaining play mechanics with little story to get in the way of their fun?

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

pyjamarama — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:06:10 GMT

Comedy is a form a art , I guess no one disputes that, although there many complex aspects associated to it the base of comedy is to makes laugh, to entertain us, I admit that much powerful messages can be transmit trough this form of art but for the comparison purposes let's consider a simple comedy which single purpose is to makes laugh, to entertain us.

Now let's consider a game, there many aspects of a game that are art, the design, the script the music etc.. but all of this is not unique to games they are from different forms of art. The main aspect from a game is the gameplay, and I consider this to also be a art form. and drawing comparison to comedy gameplay main obejctive is to entertain us, and as a comedy other messages can be deliver through it or not. an this is probably were games will evolve more is to pass along other messages trough gameplay besides entertainment.

So to conclude to me games are art, and as for example with the case of an artists that does an original panting and a craftsman that does an exact replica of that painting, some games are art provide an original gameplay and others are a craft that copy that gameplay to their game.

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

joeboy101 — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:17:13 GMT

Well, for a thought on art, let's look at how movies evolved. Not unlike movies, it started with, 'Hey look what we can do!' and a blaze of experimentation where developers were just trying to see what games could do. Video games and movies are only delineated by the fact that one you are a spectator to, while the other you take a active role in the events that unfold. Both tell a story, but video games are more experiential, where the story is a element of the art, but the experience is where it is defined. That's why online multiplayer games and modes are so popular is that it presents an unpredictable, but compelling (key word) experience in working with/against another living person. In other words, conflict. Conflict in movies is protagonist vs. antagonist, but where the protagonist is an actor/actress or construct. In video games, the same applies, but the player controls the protagonist. I put it to the board that the appeal of the casual games and other games like DDR or Guitar Hero is because the distance between the protagnoist and antagonist is a very short distance, whereas in Halo 3, is quite a long distance anyone. Neither of the aforementioned games from a story or plot standpoint really stand out, only presenting the simplest of conflict structures, but the experience is more meaningful because it becomes more personal. A game like BioShock has a vastly superior story and gameplay, but the player cannot enter the conflict to the same degree due to the specificity of the protagonist. Still, the first person genre of game is so popular because it enables the player to more readily insert themselves into the role of protagonist. The Elder Scroll games excel in this regard as they have the player define the protagonist and not only control their movements, but their options as well, with a freeform world to explore. Good Lord, this post got out of control. Anyways, it seems that what developers need to focus on to bring video games more into art is to look at both plot and immersiveness as its called. Trying to blur the boundaries between player and protagonist so that imagination takes hold, putting you within the game. Much like a great movie, part of being meaningful for an art piece is 'speaking to the audience'. Video games make that boundary between art and the audience even shorter than it has been in the past. Developers just need to refine how they incorporate the immersiveness of the casual type of game, with the serious plot nature of more refined games such as Bioshock, Halo 3, or Half-Life. The refined games are ready, but only now are more immersive controls being looked at ala Wii, Guitar Hero III, DDR, Rock Band, etc. Thoughts?

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

joeboy101 — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:18:49 GMT

"I put it to the board that the appeal of the casual games and other games like DDR or Guitar Hero is because the distance between the protagnoist and antagonist is a very short distance, whereas in Halo 3, is quite a long distance anyone."

Should read: "I put it to the board that the appeal of the casual games and other games like DDR or Guitar Hero is because the distance between the protagnoist and player is a very short distance, whereas in Halo 3, is quite a long distance anyone."

Sorry about that.

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

R. Kasahara — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:37:12 GMT

I can't see games as art, because I see games as games. Although many of them are artfully created, have artistic and aesthetic aspects to them, and can be artfully played, video games are at their core no more art than chess, football, poker, or Dungeons and Dragons. I believe a lot of the "video games as art" discussions (not to mention the comparisons of video games with movies) forget the point that video games didn't start as art, and don't need to be art, since they are games.

Granted, there are those who argue the case for traditional games (including sports) as art, but the discussion in video games is louder, likely because the artistic aspects are so much more prominent. That's fine, so long as gameplay doesn't ever get lost in the discussion. It's one thing to have a game that looks pretty and/or makes you think; it's quite another to have one that does all that but is lousy to play.

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

joeboy101 — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:14:17 GMT

R - Please see my lengthy post above. Gameplay is a critical part of the formula that can make Video Games art. That's what separates them from being movies. Keep in mind, movies evolved not first as art, but as, 'Hey, look what we can do.' The art came afterwards when they realized a compelling story could be told through the medium. Gaming is going to become art when a developer realizes (both in concept and execution) that a compelling experience can be provided through the medium. Alot of games are nibbling at the outer edges, but I don't think any game has really penetrated towards that core concept yet. Because of this concept of gameplay as key to being art, the Wii might be gaming's greatest saviour since Doom (or Wolfenstein 3D if your hardcore historian). It might not look like it now with the mini game crap like Wii Sports, but its a new type of immersive control that if merged properly with a refined game style and sophisticated plot, would elevate the medium to something more. As N'Gai always says, our Citizen Kane of games.

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

R. Kasahara — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:44:40 GMT

joeboy: I think you're missing my point. Video games may or may not be art, but they shouldn't need to be in the first place. Gameplay isn't a critical part, it's *the* critical part, and the one which ultimately separates games (video or not) from art.

To clarify a bit: traditional artforms (fine art, literature, music, theater, film) are passive mediums, requiring audiences more than participants for their success/popularity. Games (including board games, card games, sports, and video games) are interactive mediums requiring participants more than audiences. In that sense, games are their own thing, and art is its own thing. There is some degree of overlap-- in the case of video games, there's the likes of point-and-click adventures, most JRPGs, and professional video game tournaments where some passivity is required; likewise there's interactivity in things like participatory theater and Choose Your Own Adventure books in the realm of the traditional arts.

As for the point about movies, film was from the start an audience-dependent medium. I don't think video games are meant to follow in that same direction, due to their very interactive nature.

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

Chro — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:31:33 GMT

Alas, N'gai, you have a point. Those most likely to accuse video games of not being art, and of lacking depth, are also the least likely to devote enough time to an artistic game with an expansive story. And because the only games they are interested in playing (the mainstream ones you mentioned that are easy to understand and pick up) lack the 'artistic elements' that they're used to seeing in other media, it's highly unlikely that outside critics will appreciate games on an artistic level anytime soon.

Because there's a barrier for entry greater than that of other mediums, video games will probably continue to be outside the mainstream media's understanding. It's a bit akin to wine-tasting. Any *** an chug a glass of wine and say, 'Yeah, that's pretty tasty", just like any person can walk by someone playing Shadow of the Colossus and say, "Wow, that looks pretty and exciting." But to truly appreciate (and be able to criticize/rate) video games, you must have some experience with the medium. The best we can hope for is for mainstream media to have specialists in the area that know what they're talking about.

There's a reason I read Newsweek and not Time. ;)

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

joeboy101 — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:46:45 GMT

Yes, but a game without a narrative, without a purpose, is simply a diversion. Gameplay is critical, but without that plot, without that conflict of protagonist vs. antagonist, all you have is effectively a toy. Don't get me wrong, it might be loads of fun, but much like a popcorn action movie, its hardly art. It needs to have a purpose behind it. Like the much mentioned example recently, BioShock, its meant to elicit an emotional response or have the player make an emotional investment in the game. Games focused on gameplay entirely simply cannot provide that investment, that conflict, unless its a multiplayer game, and even then, any conflict is provide by the player. This approach, though pure, seems flawed in not providing narrative and relying on a multiplayer concept for meaning. And perhaps that is the definition distilled. Art has meaning. Past the, 'its a good movie', or 'its a good game'. And that goes with each aspect of a video game to both gameplay and narrative. Immersiveness and conflcit. Graphics provide realism and enhance gameplay, but also the style of graphics give an atmosphere and enhance the storyline and feel of the action. Sound provides realism and gameplay enhancements through 3D sound, footsteps, etc, but also well-chosen music enhances the atmosphere along with good voice acting. And I think games are following the direction that developers are taking, with many of them still dealing with a movie-like mentality, which is why there are similarities. But the popularity of the Wii and Quick Time Events like in Marvel: Ultimate Alliance and God of War suggest that getting the audience more involved through actual action, and not just something like managing a character sheet and crunching numbers, is becoming more prevalent. All of the traditional art forms you list became art when it elevated to being something meaningful, but through that medium's... well, medium. Paintings and Photos display their message and meaning through a static visual representation. Music through an auditory representation. Literature through the written word, and sculpture through a full elaborated form. Movies communicate through both visual and audio combined. All of these are experiential, where the message and plot are delivered through these mediums. Gaming's medium is gameplay, but it needs to have a message to say. Just because a camera can record a movie, doesn't make the movie art. Its what that movie conveys. Likewise, a game needs to convey something, in this case, through its gameplay. And like Literature, Art, Music, and Movies before it, the message with the most meaning is conflict.

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

Pistolaero — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:49:35 GMT

R. Kasahara: Most would argue that many games out there feature a story that you have no ultimate choice over. In this case, it can be judged just as a movie. Where no matter what the choice, your ending is already determined, just as, the ending to a movie. The difference, as you pointed out is interactivity, but why should that be held against games when no matter what you do, the ending is still the same. Hence, it is what the developer/director wanted you to see.

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

sirchode — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:56:07 GMT

I don't have much to add to the discussion but I wanted to make a point to thank you, N'Gai, for another wonderful analogy in the second paragraph of your first response. I'm continuously impressed as I read your blog

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

StolenName — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:52:47 GMT

@ supergg2k - so then what about titles that are focussed purely on aesthetics? I'd refer to something like Loco Roco, which is quite soothing, and at times, beautiful to look at. I'd like to think of games as a form of street art. Some people see graffiti and think "wow, that's amazing. Beautiful. Making a statement" and others see graffiti as defacing the civilisation they live in. By your statement, I'd say that plenty of games are art now, even if only because they explode into pretty colors to a wonderful electronic beat that I'm happy to let engulf me.

@ Pistolaero - I'm not sure it's that games in general are art that's being debated but rather, can they be art? In which case, Shadows of the Colossus is an excellent example. It's emotionally evocative, you're made to question the environment, you're at times overwhelmed, and it's a beautiful place to inhabit. Funny enough, when you consider Halo 3 not to be a work of art, I immediately thought of a friend of mine, who's an architect that mentioned the architecture in Halo 3 is a beautiful thing. It's large, organic, dominating yet pleasant. To her, that particular element of Halo 3 (a game which she has come to despise funny enough) provides her with a form of aesthetic pleasure and has sparked some ideas for future concepts.

@ R. Kasahara - I find it interesting that you should mention the interactivity as games as being it's defining element when compared to art. What then of interactive art, installation pieces that require audiences to work, such as living walls which cast light and shadow depending on whose around and what they're doing?

Video games can be art. Look where they come from? The initial stages of game development start from drawings, paintings, concept art. Many of these pieces, take those that have recently come from Heavenly Sword as an example, are wonderful fantasy pieces, which then become living worlds. Examine Psychonauts and you'll find areas such as the Milkman Conspiracy and the level with the bull (you'll have to excuse, the level name eludes me), where the walls of the streets in game are adorned with paintings that, if hung on any wall in real life, would be considered great artistic works. What about music? Great orchestral pieces and operas are considered to be art by many, often leaving people weeping in theaters. Is it so easy to forget that many of the great composers, mostly Jewish, that ended up in the US composed music for film? What about the games that employ such grandiose musical ventures, composed purely for that one game?

To me, if something is beautiful to look at, makes me stop and think, strikes me down in awe or can catch my breath, then dammit, it's art! No, I don't need every game to be considered an art form for me to sleep at night and I appreciate a good diversion (long live Super Stardust HD) as much as I appreciate a good story.

So many aspects of games are artistic, creative. Even if the game as a whole isn't a "work of art", many elements that went into the games development are.

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

harrison25 — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:11:16 GMT

The most frequently used rhetoric I hear for why video games cannot be art is that they are interactive mediums, and art cannot be interactive...

This seems paradoxical to me. given that appreciating any piece of art requires us to perceive that said piece of art from our own unique perspective, does not all art become subjective through this process of perception?

If two observers view the same stone sculpture and walk away with a different impression as they inevitably will, isn't that stone just as interactive as any videogame?

I suppose Roger Ebert would argue that the stone is constant, unchanging, but I would argue that it is soft and malleable, like clay, living, breathing clay, becoming something different to everyone who views it, in a constant state of change, constantly interactive, constantly morphing based upon the thoughts and beliefs of each person who views it, based upon each interpretation.

I'm sure everyone has had their opinion or their view of a film or painting change over time. That constant piece of art has now become something different in your mind, because it never existed anywhere except inside the range of your perception.

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

mehakoi — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:19:27 GMT

I have tried, lord how I have tried, not to comment on the "games as art" debate. I have also failed.

Regarding the relationship of critics to their view of games as art, there is a general opinion, (brought to mind by a recent Penny Arcade news post that I can't find!) that art may be whatever impressive creative thing humans do.

For many purposes this is true. I am a librarian, and I know that there is an art to giving a good reference interview, and I know engineers who claim there is an art to building their robots. Indeed there is an art to almost everything, and alot of art goes into video games.

The question for a critic is not so much, are video games art, but where do you draw the line as what counts as "Art"- the official version. Obviously from a critic's point of view being a good librarian or telephone book designer cannot be considered an Art, otherwise what's the point in having the distinction at all?

If you agree with Andy Warhol, Jackson Pollack, or the Dada ists that anything can be art if looked at properly, then clearly video games are art.

If you think there is a meaningful distinction to be made by drawing a distinction between things that contain artistic effort, and art pieces themselves, then you have to admit that Ebert & crew have a point. Creating a game is an art, and I never say never, but I've yet to play one I would consider art. And yes, I've played Bioshock and Shadow of Colossus.

Bioshocks narrative was crafted in the art of interactive storytelling. It's graphics were created with artistic vision. They both worked to make it a better game.

There are movies, paintings, and music that makes me sad on a deep level that I judge successes. I would not play a game that I did not enjoy, emotions other than risk/reward are not the prime reason I play. Maybe that is my fault, maybe the game that changes my mind hasn't been created.

To answer the initial question then: Games are art or not depending on how you define art. I suspect that most critics tend to define art by the medium and uses for the word the work with day to day. Multi-media projects of any type are typically not brought up when discussing Art. Most summer blockbusters are not regarded as Art, even by Ebert.

When/if a game comes along that is undeniably art, most critics will change there minds. Although I cannot imagine a game as Art whose artistic merits wouldn't be better suited to another medium, that does not mean someone somewhere cannot.

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

harrison25 — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:33:49 GMT

but don't those emotions that you felt... isn't that what art is? Something that moves you?

I mean... obviously yes, defining what is and isn't art depends on how you define art =) but my point is that i think we can agree on the definition of art....

Art is something that people appreciate, that communicates a feeling to a person who views, plays, eats, hears it etc...

i mean... isn't that a more... thoughtful, meaningful definition of art than say, art is a painting, and all painting are art?

art is a movie, and all movies are art?

this is where this theory unravels, like you said, Ebert does not consider all films to be art...

why?

because art is not a film. you have not created art by simply making a film, or painting a painting....

in order for a book, or movie, or song, or painting, or cookie, or story, or god forbid a game to be art, it must first evoke a feeling or communicate some idea that is meaningful to someone, someone must view that 'art' and then feel something substantial.

Ebert accepts that all movies are not art, that all painting are not art, because Ebert himself believes that the defining factor that makes art art is not that it walls within a certain medium, it is not the level of interactivity, the defining factor, the definition of what is art is something that is meaningful and powerful to someone in some way.

when a blind person looks at a revered painting, do you know what he/she does not see?

that blind person does not see art, because that blind person lacks a necessary sense to perceive that said art, thus the entire belief that we can agree upon what is and what is not art falls through...

do you see what i'm attempting to say?

I believe Bioshock is more engrossing, more inspiring, more horrifying, more emotive than any movie i've ever seen, thus it is art.

Ebert believes that the Raging Bull is instead art, that the tragic story of a sexually insecure boxer is art, and Bioshock not.

But what will a blind and deaf person say is art? will that person choose bioshock, or the raging bull?

neither, because art is only what we perceive to be beautiful, what we perceive to be amazing.

In a land of blind people, no one reveres a painting to be art, because no one can perceive it.

In a land of technologically challenged old people who are terrified of change, terrified of a medium that they refuse/can't understand, video games are not art.

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

harrison25 — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:01:59 GMT

i mean... how does a blind person view a sculpture? not by looking at it, but by feeling it, by touching the textures and the shapes... so a blind person experiences a sculpture in textures, in warm and cold depending on the materials it is crafted out of and how hot the day is, while we view sculptures with our eyes, we see colors, not textures, we see shapes, we don't feel shapes...

do you get what i'm driving at?

if the temperature of the day changes how a blind person perceives a sculpture based on how warm or cold that sculpture is, didn't that sculpture just change, and isn't it no longer the artitist's intended 'vision', the artist can no longer control the audience because the artistic could never predict that a blind person would touch it on a cold day and think something far removed than if he/she had touched it on a warm day? that a blind person feels the textures and doesn't see the colors, something that most audiences would never do?

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

harrison25 — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:05:56 GMT

it is impossible then, for an artist to take his or her audience down the same road... how can you force two people to derive the same meaning from the same piece of art? you can't, and thus the art is interactive, and the artist can't predict or control what people perceive the art to be...

i'm sorry for being so redundant, but i feel like i should substantiate my argument if i'm going to give an opinion =)

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

mehakoi — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:09:09 GMT

I don't know that I agree that being moved by something constitutes THE definition of art... there are too many paintings that I get nothing from, too many styles of music that don't move me, but which I must admit are probably art, for that to be true.

Nonetheless, the ability to express and cause emotion is certainly a part of the definition. After all the example I gave above was that I would watch a movie that I didn't get positive feedback from because it inspired emotions, and I had yet to encounter a game that would do that.

Bioshock's story amused me, surprised me, intrigued me, but did not deeply move me in the same way. Clearly it moved some people. If I see a movie of a plastic bag floating in the wind, and it does move me, but only me, then it is certainly art to me.

But if nobody else agrees, the question becomes is it "Art" in the universal critical sense?

I suppose another definition is simply that something becomes Art when X percentage of people who view it are moved by it. In that case, in purely practical terms, games probably aren't art, although maybe a sociological study could prove me wrong.

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

harrison25 — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:17:50 GMT

mehakoi

you are exactly right =)

I, as an example, believe the mona lisa to be art, and yet it does not move me.

why?

because my society has told me it is, and I accept that, even though it means nothing to me.

why should I accept the mona lisa to be art, just because someone tells me it is?

Everytime i hear classical music, i accept that as art. even if it's a one i don't know, i accept it as art because it sounds like something that people have told me is art, that people have told me to revere.

Propaganda forces you to see it as art, even though it means nothing to you.

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

harrison25 — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:34:22 GMT

I mean, exactly... the narrow definition of art is only upheld because the majority uphold it... but beyond that, beyond what the majority of our 2007 american society says, beyond what 2007 France says, beyond what 99,000 B.C. cavemen and women said was art as they scribbled it in caves...

is that the individual sees as art, what individual people in their own times were inspired by...

If we've proved that all art is interactive because the act of interpretation makes it so, then we've disproved Ebert in his assumption that interactive mediums cannot be art.

Art therefore becomes something inspiring, something moving in some way, and is not constrained by medium, and thus video games are an acceptable art form.

the only thing keeping video games from being perceived as art is that a majority of our population views them as trivial time wastes, but that does not deprive a videogame the right of being viewed as art.

It means that videogames are socially unaccepted as high art... not that they aren't high art.

Just as a racist believes people not of his own skin color are inferior and thus not human, so does Ebert believe video games are inferior and thus not art.

see! he is disproved!

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

supergg2k — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:16:28 GMT

@n'gai - of the games you listed in your reply to my post, I only consider two to be mainstream; Bejeweled and Tetris. To me something is mainstream if it is easily identifiable by anyone. All the other titles you mentioned are extremely popular among gamers in particular but not necessarily mainstream. Regarding story and gameplay and the union of the two; gameplay would not be enough for most people IMO. The experience has to be engaging emotionally and the story provides that.

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

supergg2k — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:20:49 GMT

@stolenname - I think that there is a place for games like Loco Roco and by the definition I found in the dictionary, it sounds like a good example of "games as art". But I wouldn't say the title is a mainstream title. In fact it is probably an excellent example of a niche title.

re: It Came From the Comments: Reflections On the Myopia of Critics and Whether Or Not the Perception of Videogames Will Evolve

redblossom — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 05:56:45 GMT

I've been trying in vain to phrase this in a non-combative way, but why should it matter if video games are seen as art? Is it because it is an essential step in elevating the industry itself into creating better, more original games? Or is it that we think we'll be somehow vindicated of the accusation that the hours we've invested have been without worth or meaning? I found myself reacting very strongly in favor of video games as art without understanding what function that classification could possibly serve. I'm still grappling with it, but I would truly like to hear what you all think...