Revisiting Ebert — Games Can Be Art, But Are They?

At the recent Game Developers Conference, industry vet Brian Moriarty spoke at length about the old videogames-as-art debate. Moriarty found himself reluctantly defending one part of Roger Ebert's infamous argument against the notion: "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." What followed was a thoughtful discussion of how games fit in with the definition of art and how the commercialization that almost universally surrounds them can inhibit true artistic expression. Quoting: "Unlike Mr. Ebert, I have played many of the games widely regarded as great and seminal. I have the privilege of knowing many of the authors personally. But as much as I admire games like M.U.L.E., Balance of Power, Sim City and Civilization, it would never even occur to me to compare them to the treasures of world literature, painting or music. ... Video games are an industry. You are attending a giant industry conference. Industries make products. Video game products contain plenty of art, but it's product art, which is to say, kitsch art. Kitsch art is not bad art. It's commercial art. Art designed to be sold, easily and in quantity. And the bigger the audience, the kitschier it's gonna get."

Never Heard of ICO, Bro?

[kyrio]

There are games that are made for artistic purposes, such as The Graveyard [tale-of-tales.com]. There are other games that are so beautiful, in audio and video, that you can call them art (ICO may be part of this group). There are games like LSD [wikipedia.org] that end up being extremely artistic without actively trying to be such. There's also a small genre of games like Yume Nikki [wikipedia.org] that some may consider art, even though the graphic style of the game is generic, the game itself is like a good novel.