Letters To The Editor: Submit A Letter
View All Letters 
| 03.19.2007Are Games Art? (Here We Go Again...)
I don't think Gamasutra's article "Are Games Art? (Here We Go Again...)" did justice to Roger Ebert's comment that “Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.”
Mr. Ochalla referenced Ian Bogost’s comment that Mr. Ebert had a "media literacy problem" and goes on to quote Mr. Schafer, who says that if a urinal can be art, then games can too. There is a better counter-argument to Mr. Ebert, who voices a commonly held misconception.
In every videogame, the author has control over what the player can and can't do. Using this control of player verbs, the author can communicate meaningful ideas.
This is much like the choices that a director makes in a movie: How will the main character be dressed? What does this show about who he is?
The only difference is that the videogame author makes this choice many more times, or gives a computer certain parameters that define valid choices. The player will then choose the one he thinks is "right", in a way analogous to a movie fan interpreting a director's choice in a way that seems "right" to him.
There are some directorial choices in a movie that are blatantly obvious and can only be interpreted one way: Bruce Willis just shot that guy. Other choices offer a wide range of possible explanations: Why does Godfather include so many family celebrations amidst the brutal violence? In the same way, videogame authors can offer many possible choices and paths, or just one.
Thus, in answer to Mr. Ebert: the author of a videogame has control over how much control he gives to the player. -Plamen Kovatchev
|
|
|
|
|
Letters to the Editor
