Video Games as Art - Why Not?

A definition of art: “The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.”

Clearly, based on this definition, video games should be considered art. Video games are a "conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty" in a "graphic medium".

So, why aren't video games usually considered art? Our society has held a grudge against games, viewing them as solely children's play and a waste of time. This stigma in our culture skews any potential perception we may have of games being art.

Even when Ebert first addressed this subject via his Answer Man feature in 2005, he used this cheap shot to criticize video games:

"But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic."

This point was later rebutted by blogger Matt Paprocki, he stated this in reply:

"Given that Ebert's favorite medium includes works like Deuce Bigalow Male Gigolo, White Chicks, Rambo 3, and Plan 9 From Outer Space, who's really wasting time when we could make ourselves 'more cultured, civilized and empathetic?' Everyone. Film is art. Books, novels, and various other literatures are art. Video games are art. They also have one thing in common: They're entertainment."

But, Ebert's main argument was this:

"There is a structural reason for [why video games are not art]: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control."

My argument is that video games often draw on film strategies to construct their narrative, and in doing so are inherently similar and connected to film. By allowing player choice, this creates an expansion on the art form of story-telling that draws the player into the story even further; is this not the ultimate goal of a story-teller?

Because of Ebert's apparent lack of experience in video games, he does not realize that player choice has traditionally been limited. In most games, the path the player must follow to reach his goal is pre-determined. This fact actually has become a point of criticism to many game reviewers. Because of the technology we have today to create games, the possibility of world size and player choice has expanded. When game developers do not utilize this opportunity to expand the world and it's story, it may limit a game's potential quality. When a game is linear, the player's choices are not as significant and his experience may not be as engaging as it could be if his experience were to be less controlled.

Games such as Call of Duty and Halo are far more linear than open-world or sandbox games such as Fallout 3, Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, or Mass Effect 2.



But even in the open-world games, players are usually faced with pursuing one overall goal. That being said, the addition of player control in a game only deepens the artistic nature of the medium.

My post about Video Games and Origami Unicorns elaborates on choice and narrative in games.