Roger Ebert On Why Video Games Can Never Be Art

Roger Ebert has long held the opinion that video games are not and can never be considered an art form. After having this opinion challenged in a TED talk last year, Ebert has now taken the opportunity to thoughtfully respond and explain why he maintains this belief. Quoting: "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 an 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. She quotes Robert McKee's definition of good writing as 'being motivated by a desire to touch the audience.' This is not a useful definition, because a great deal of bad writing is also motivated by the same desire. I might argue that the novels of Cormac McCarthy are so motivated, and Nicholas Sparks would argue that his novels are so motivated. But when I say McCarthy is 'better' than Sparks and that his novels are artworks, that is a subjective judgment, made on the basis of my taste (which I would argue is better than the taste of anyone who prefers Sparks)."

Comments

Re:Is it me or is he sounding more desperate?

[GreatBunzinni]

On the other hand, your fanboy blinders don't let you see the difference between art and entertainment. Some films aren't art. Some music isn't art. Some books aren't art. Some plays aren't art. So why would you believe that a computer game, in this case a shoot'em up or a RPG, has any relation to art? Do you also believe that a pinball machine is art or even one of those amusement park rides? Heck, just as you claim that video games are art, some people also defend that football is art. Does that mean that it's art?

Just because you think something is very cool it doesn't mean it is the next Mona Lisa or the next David. It's entertainment, pure and simple. But art? That's quite a long stretch.