Roger Ebert says video games can never be art

[famousringo]

Grahamhsu said:

 

I can't say that gameplay is beautiful. For me gameplay is a method, my definition of method would be steps or acts for performing a function. A method can never be beautiful to me, just as the suzuki method is not beautiful to me though the music in it can be. A bad game is not fun to play, and a good game is fun, to me beauty/ugly can't be used to describe them.

For me art comes from ourself, it is part of our human nature, all people when they are born already have an idea/sense of art. As so, to me there must be a universal structure to what constitutes good and bad since I believe we are all instrisically born with the idea of what is beautiful and what is ugly.

It seems in our arguements you believe that if a game includes artistic values it can be considered art, while for me I don't believe blending them together makes them art. The best example I can use for my idea would be vinegar and oil, they make bread taste delicious, and complement each other but I wouldn't say they are blended together, as I can separate the parts easily.

Actually, I don't think that artistic values are blended into game rules. I think they are instrinsic to the rules themselves.

Let's take multiplayer games as an example. There are quite a few ways to get multiple players in a game.

A competitive rule set is a very common way to get multiple player together. Monopoly is a good example. You can cut mutually beneficial deals, but the ultimate goal is the complete domination of the game board and all other players. I know people who hate competitive multiplayer, and it's because of the negative emotions it evokes. They don't like being dominated by the winner, the sense of isolation that comes from being alone against all opponents, or the sense of failure that comes with losing.

So a co-operative rule set suits them better, like in the Lord of the Rings board game. In this game the players start with equal abilities and a common goal. This builds a sense of comeraderie and friendship in the face of adversity. Unlike in a competitive game, players are willing to 'die' for the greater cause and show their loyalty to the group.

Then you've got the traitor rule set, which you might be familiar with if you've attended one of those murder mystery party games. It's co-operative but with a twist: One of the players is not on the team. This instills a tension and a paranoid suspicion, as the other players need to co-operate with each other while being wary of the traitor/spy/murderer in their midst.

Just a few examples of multiplayer rules, each with different emotional implications. On their own, these rules might look like just a method or a device, like a literary device. It's how you put together these rules that creates an experience that the players interpret, just as a reader places his/her own interpretation on a poem.

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm picking on you, this is just a subject of much interest to me, and you're offering the most substantial material on the 'games aren't art' side of things.