So the big (well, non-game related) gaming news last week was that film critic Roger Ebert "admitted his mistake," referring to his statements last April in a post entitled "Video Games Can Never Be Art." Given that this event probably (hopefully) marks Ebert's last foray into the video games as art topic, it seemed an opportune time for a look back at this most recent controversy about an issue which, for a lot of gamers--those most directly affected--is either a settled question, or one they view as unimportant.
The April 2010 post was spurred by a 2009 TED talk given by Kellee Santiago. In her talk, Santiago cited a previous quote by Ebert: "No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets."
In "Video Games Can Never Be Art," Ebert attempts a rebuttal of Santiago's arguments, isolating several points she makes and attempting to disprove them. On one of the differences between games and art, Ebert says:
"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."
Read more...
