Letters To The Editor: Submit A Letter
View All Letters 
| 03.20.2007No, games are not art.
In the article "Are Games Art? (Here We Go Again...)" there is a quote from Roger Ebert explaining why games cannot be art. Rather than challenging Ebert's statement on aesthetic grounds, several game designers state that it's really just a matter of opinion. I'd like to point out that this not the case and that Ebert is pointing out an issue that really matters for the idea of games as art.
What Ebert is talking about is the fact that any good form of storytelling, film, book, theater, or whatever, is about how a character overcomes adversity to attain a goal. Games also are about this. The goal of a game is to win. What games lack, and why Ebert claims that they are not art is because they do not contain a premise.
A character in a story learns something about himself after attempting to achieve his goal. This is the premise. For example, the premise for Darth Vader in "Star Wars - Return of the Jedi" is that his love for his son Luke is greater than his personal ambition and loyalty to the Emperor.
The whole point of most stories is for the character to learn that premise. And through that premise, we learn something about humanity and ourselves in the process. This is what the author is trying to say with his story.
This is exactly where games fail completely. A game may have a premise for its characters which can be revealed through cut-scenes and dialog. But I can't think of any game where the player reaches a premise. Players just win the game.
So until a designer can create a game that causes players to learn something about themselves other than "My reflexes are faster than the game," or "I can manage resources better than my opponent," games are definitely not art.-James Johnson
|
|
|
|
|
Letters to the Editor
