Are Video Games Art?

Two very interesting questions have been circulating around online recently.


The first is:  are video games art?


The reason this is such a discussion is because of Roger Ebert.  At one point in time, way back in 2005, he claimed that not only were video games NOT art, but that they never could be considered art.  His claims appear to center around conflicting core definitions of "art" and "game".  "Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control."


More recently, after being presented with a talk about games being art, he again took the opportunity to voice his opinion. 


I find various flaws in his logic.  For example:


"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 would strenuously argue that Ebert is misinterpreting the "game" part of "video game".  Many, if not most, video games are narrative.  You play the part of a character moving through a pre-scripted story.  Along the way, you have some options, but in the end, you are constrained by the storyline.  You don't "win" those games as much as you "experience" them.  These are obviously still "video games", although a more appropriate title might be "interactive experiences".  This might be the root of the whole debate.  Examples of this are almost too numerous to name:  Doom, Half-Life, Grand Theft Auto, Sierra On-Line adventure games, etc.  Almost any game that has a "story mode".


Contrast these "games" with more traditional games, like chess or backgammon.  There is no narrative or expression, only a set of rules to be followed.


At this point in time, it's probably worth nothing that Ebert has never actually played a video game, so it shouldn't be surprising that he doesn't know what he's talking about.  When presented with some very likely candidates of artistic games ("Flower" and "Braid"), he says:  " The … games she chooses as examples do not raise my hopes for a video game that will deserve my attention long enough to play it. They are, I regret to say, pathetic."


Just to belabor a point:  He's judging the artistic value of these games from, most likely, a YouTube video.  Certainly this isn't fair.  One must judge a medium in the way it's supposed to be presented.  Movies are meant to be watched.  Food is meant to be eaten.  Games are meant to be played.  You can't judge a movie by only listening to the audio track.  And you can't judge a painting by reading about it.


Ebert believes “the real question is, do we as their [games, movies, etc.] consumers become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, philosophical (and so on) by experiencing them? Something may be excellent as itself, and yet be ultimately worthless.”


I admit at they are few and far between, but I've experienced plenty of gaming moments that have caused me to sit back in my chair and say "Wow".  Some games have certainly provoked at least as much heavy though about the world around me and the nature of humanity as many art exhibits, plays, or movie I've seen.


One of my favorite examples is Defcon.  Defcon is a game about nuclear annihilation.  The view of the game is a computer generated world map, drawn in simple lines like the big screens in the end of the movie "WarGames".  Each player controls a continent, and begins the game by placing radar stations, nuclear missile launch sites, subs, bombers, etc.  At the beginning of the game, only conventional weapons are allowed, but as time passes and the defcon levels are counted down, nuclear weapons become available.


At DefCon 1, it's almost a certainty that all out nuclear war will begin.  Launches are detected, both friendly and enemy, and on your radar arcing beams of light begin to trace a path across the earth as a haunting soundtrack plays.  When a nuke hits a target city, there is a flash of light on the screen, and a barely audible thud.  The words "Los Angeles hit, 6.8M dead" flash on the screen.  The initial flash fades into a dull green glow that lingers for the rest of the game.  The contrast between such imagined devastation and the little blips of light on your screen is really very powerful.  You can't help but picture yourself as a General, sitting in a bunker half a mile below a mountain somewhere, imagining what the fuck is actually going on up there.


The game ends and a winner is determined by the fewest number of casualties, which always is numbered in the millions.  The message is clear:  in nuclear war, no one wins, some just loses the least.


I'm pretty sure that one game has had at least as much emotional impact on me personally as any painting I've ever seen in my life (which is to say "some, but not much",  Then again, I've never particularly liked paintings).


(Remember, games are meant to be played, not watched, but here's at least a little taste.  Skip to 1:30 to watch the beginning of the devastation.)

The second question that has arisen from all this is "who cares"?  Why is it so important for gamers to feel that our beloved time-wasters are "art"? 


I admit, this has me a little stumped.  I guess part of it is the injustice of it all.  Certainly not all games are artistic, but many are, and I think they should be recognized as such.  Secondly, as I've pointed out above, it's hard to see someone with so much clout make such an uneducated, public opinion.  If the editor of a video games magazine made salient points about why video games aren't art, I'd totally respect that.  But Roger "I've never played a video game but am somehow qualified to comment" Ebert?!


I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine that "art" has some legal definition.  Things with artistic merit maybe have some protection against obscenity charges?


In the end, I guess it doesn't really matter.  "Art" is nebulous enough to warrant it's own debate as to its definition.  I know what I think, and without better, more exact definitions, I don't think I can be "wrong".