"I Want to Legitimize My Hobby" or "Are Videogames Art?"

A long while ago, back in 2005 actually, Roger Ebert was quoted as saying

"[I] consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature...Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control...
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."

I know what you are thinking "You can't be digging stuff up from almost 4 years ago." and I'm not, the debate still continues today.

About 3 years ago author Clive Barker spoke on the issue, siding with the game industry in his response to Ebert. Barker finished working on his first game, Undying [EA/Aspyr], in 2001 and made Jericho [Codemasters] in 2007. Barker's responded to Ebert were posted on GameIndustry.biz. Ebert responded on his own site in a remarkably short sighted way. Even though these two haven't really spoken on the issue for a while now the debate continues amongst gamers, who are also kinda split on the issue.

Mr. Ebert has a very strange view of games: "They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in "Myst," and (3) player control of the outcome. I don't think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports."

Even though his comments are valid on the surface, they don't really hold up that well under scrutiny. It also appears that Mr. Ebert is a little outdated in his information as he references series that were very old or far on the periphery of gamer consciousness as to not represent the majority of gamers.

I am a huge fan of the Myst games, and I would not label them as art by themselves. when combined with the book series behind the games (which most people never even knew existed), I would classify the franchise as a whole art. Some might argue that this might lead to backing up his argument, that to make games art they have to be coupled with another medium. In instead think this shows how far gaming has come. The medium is finally starting to mature and is nearing being of artistic value, as nobody would call old Atari 2600 games art in almost any sense of the word. The Myst Mr. Ebert talks about is over a decade old, and the last couple iterations of the franchise did bring more of a narrative and universe together for people to experience.

Mr. Ebert's main problem seems to stem from the fact that games are controllable by the viewer and therefore can never be considered great art. They can be artistic, but can never be held up to the same level as a movie or a book. That just seems like closed-mindedness if something can be artistic and yet not be art. Everything is essentially controlled by the viewer in some way. When you watch a movie, when you read a book, or try to discern the meaning of a painting you always change the creators idea, you impart your own experiences, knowledge, and perspective on the piece. The emotions are not always going to be those intended, and the viewer is an active participant in their understanding and enjoyment of the piece.

A videogame is a logical next step in that ideology. A good videogame, with a good story, and a talented development staff can be just as enjoyable, moving, and life changing as a good movie.

One of Mr. Ebert's Top 10 last decade was Princess Mononoke (1999), by famed director/writer Hayao Miyazaki. Miyazaki was also the director/writer behind Spirited Away (2001). Both films are among the highest grossing in Japanese history, with Spirited Away still being the top grossing of all time ($228.6m). I consider Princess Mononoke my favorite film of all time. When I saw it, it felt like a change in my world view. It was an awe-inspiring experience and I can still remember walking out of the theater with a very strange feeling that I had just seen something incredible.

My ideas about movies and animation, about history, culture, and mythologies, they all were changed by that movie. You know what else gives me that feeling? The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker on the Nintendo Gamecube. It was a game that eschewed typical gaming design in favor of telling a story that was dramatic and emotional and completely amazing.

The Wind Waker did away with a realistic art style (much to the annoyance of graphics whores online who said it looks like a Gameboy Advance game, myself included), but this choice was made for a reason. The game is about a child setting out on a grand adventure, filled with emotional and rich characters, and a vivid and dangerous world. It had it's dry points, and a few problems. For instance the hunt for the triforce is considered to be the worst aspect of the game as it does take some time. Even the best movie though has problems with pacing at some point, whether it be a slow beginning or a few minutes of exposition. The end experience should be what validates something as art. Does the piece as a whole affect you? Does it move you, influence you? Not every movie is art, not every game or book is either, but the best of them all are.

Addendum -- A Hypothetical Example:
A character in a movie is running thru LAX in LA, two big guys pounding after him as he checks his ticket. It's a last minute ticket, he's late for the plane because these guys have been holding him up, chasing him around LA in a car chase as he tried to escape the city. He makes it to the desk and onto the plane right at the last minute. He's safe, and one second later we see him step off the plane in the terminal at JFK in NY.
We've all seen scenes like this in action movies. We've seen them in games too. Does the fact you control where he runs change the scene? Or the tension? What if the player has the choice to fight rather than flee?

A movie is static, you have one experience, you can't ever really watch it the first time again, once it's done it's done. You might watch is dozens more times, but it's not going to be as amazing as that first time. A game though, a well done game, can be played many times and each time can feel like a new experience depending on what the player does, what they discover, maybe something they never even saw before.

The reasons the best games should be considered art with the best movies, books, etc. is because it can change. It's a strength, not a detriment.