4. Ebert said: “[games are] inherently inferior to film and literature.” “Video games by their nature require play choices which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.“
5. i couldn’t care LESS about Ebert and his theories and all that junk. i feel as though this is an opportunity provided by one (1) stubborn and ancient film critic for us as game developers to look inward upon ourselves and see what we find.
6. is there not authorial control in games? i, personally, would say that the gaming experience is artistic in that it's limitations allow the designers to evoke emotions from the players.
7. to truly define the argument at hand, one must decide whether art is something that is just creative or something creative that is also GOOD.
8. art in my opinion, is a neutral term. there can be good and bad art. What do you think?
9. A common viewpoint among gamers is that whilst a whole heap of games are bad art, they are still art.
10. fun fact: the elitist and puritan view of artists from the early 1900’s, that art was only something with singular focus and vision such as sculpture or painting, was discounted with the popularisation of film.
11. such an antique view could very well be discounted once again with the sands of time due to the rising popularity of games, but also the quality of games and the quality of the experience that a game can evoke.
12. i've played plenty of games that have had no real lasting effect on me, and iwould refer to these games art, but bad art. most of us have probably been to an exhibition and thought "wow… that blows" about a certain piece, but perhaps this piece has made many before us fall to his or her knees and weep uncontrollably at its beauty.
13. that said, i’m sure there will always be games that are never meant to be art which is where the meaning of art in this context becomes confusing. For example, do you think ‘EA Sports’ is a collaboration of artists creating art, or artists solely trying to make a buck?