Roger Ebert took out the old saw: video games can never be art. I thought that we were at an uneasy peace: video games, while in general lacking expressive quality, were doing well. Sure, the games industry is poor and consolidating into a few conglomerates, but it’s actually had a pretty good comeback in the last half-year or so (FFXIII, God of War, New Super Mario, etc.). So thank you Roger Ebert for telling us now that it’s all a sham.

Ebert’s argument is unclear, but the general premise can be stated as follows: are video games art, or are video games entertainment with artistic elements? The critic rightfully points out that video games are principally about winning, and not about experiencing. He also has an certain view of the persona of ‘artist’: “For example, I tend to think of art as usually the creation of one artist. Yet a cathedral is the work of many, and is it not art? One could think of it as countless individual works of art unified by a common purpose.” He insinuates that successful video games, being the products of corporations, could not possibly be motivated to stir the emotions.

There also seems to be a thread that art produces some lasting memory or experience. As if this cannot be captured in a video game. I hope that this site, and the games database, run counter to that argument. Video gaming is young, but it has its golden works. Did Ebert ever play Super Mario 64? That game — that console — that experience — was designed and engineered around an artistic transformation of the platformer to 3D space. It was both beautiful and inspired, by all accounts.

Ebert’s arguments are interesting, but he constructs the argument on the basis of a few questionable examples. He does not properly characterize the medium of video game. The issue is rather complicated, because most video games ARE soulless and derivative. But, the medium of video game has the capacity to express art. I will argue from principles rather than a single canonical example of artful game for this very reason; as in film, advocating any single game would be subjective and open to criticism.

Roleplaying as Acting, Roleplaying as Game

One property of art is that it takes on additional meaning as individuals reflect on it, or project their thoughts upon it. Massively multiplayer online RPGS (MMORPGs) such as World of Warcraft offer this capability by providing the skeletal framework of new worlds. Players mold the world to their own desires and work to transform their characters. Yes, many of the users are crazed addicts. However, the concept of roleplaying in an MMO world is not so different than acting itself; the players express their impulses within the framework of roles imposed on the world. When the design and technical capabilities improve, there will reach a point at which video games can carry the same expressive qualities as the traditional artistic media.

Of course, there’s no reason that a video game must be won — or defeated — either. Consider Hideo Kojima’s Metal Gear Solid 2, in which the protagonist Raiden is continually losing (in the figurative sense): he exists in an AI simulation and achieves no closure for his ills.  He ploughs through a training mission only to learn more and more cruel truth (or is it?). By the time he reaches the boss, the player is too worn to want to strike Liquid Snake dead. I’m not telling you to run out and play MGS2, but Ebert’s strict requirement of success — or challenge — in a video game is not true.

If you desire to reflect upon the human condition in your video game, then may I suggest one without a silent protagonist? I believe that the Grand Theft Auto series of games strives to evoke urban strife and struggles in a manner worthy of the big screen. GTA has fallen flat on its face on many occasions due to a number of unfortunate gaffes. However, it — and a whole genre of Adventure games — try to situate themselves in a real world and make fantastical commentary on it. I’m partial to a game like Curse of Monkey Island, which marvelously speaks to US culture and politics in the 1990’s much more than it does about being a swashbuckling pirate.

Roger Ebert is right in one respect: art (as we know it) is not a video game. That is, art in any of its traditional forms would make for a pretty terrible video game. It would come off as overly intellectual and not fun at all. (Has anybody played Xenosaga?) Even in places where we imagine games and art might overlap, there are differences. I wouldn’t want to play Tarantino, or watch Godhand. Let’s keep these two the way they are. But just because video games have certain requirements imposed by the medium (and yes, usually you can win) doesn’t mean they will never ascend to “art”.

And seriously, Roger, if you think art is the work of a single designer then buy a Wii and order Pixel’s Cave Story. Or just download it. Now.

Video games have a long way to come from being simple amusements and there are a great many improvements to come in the storytelling elements. But it will not help to condemn the medium and promote the popular perception that video games cannot be art. If I wanted to be cruel, I could call “Avatar” a derivative piece of filth. But I don’t, and you didn’t either.