Roger Ebert says video games can never be art

[The Ghost of RubangB]

Metallicube said:

The Ghost of RubangB said:

Metallicube said:
“One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome,” Ebert said. “Santiago might cite a [sic] immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.”

Ebert nailed it with this quote. Games are not art.. they are GAMES. Do you call Yahtzee art? Do you call Monopoly art? I suppose you can put art INTO games, but the games themselves are NOT art.

The game industry is trying too hard to be like Hollywood, and Ebert can see through this.

I'd uh... I'd actually call Monopoly art.  The creation of Monopoly was designing gameplay rules, and a way to win, for an artistic endeavor.  It was a social commentary on the way capitalism forces regular people to become selfish landlords who will stop at nothing to destroy their neighbors, who are now "opponents."  It almost always results in somebody crying or throwing the board.  It's almost like an interactive film in a way, always ending in the horrible defeat of the many and the glorious rise to power of one evil fat cat.  And if Monopoly is art, then Monopoly on the NES is art.  And other games that force you to go down a certain path for a certain feeling or lesson can be art.

Like I said, there could be art IN games, but the games themselves are not art. It is never the primary focus of games. Games are related more closely to math and physics than art, in that they are based around rules and specific mechanics. The "art" in games is just the exterior. Monopoly may have an artistic message as you say, but it is not the central focus of the game. People play monopoly to have fun and use their mind to make decisions themselves, not to be moved emotionally or get political messages.

Art and games serve different purposes. Art is meant to "do all the work" for the person experiencing it so to speak. It is meant to move people emotionally, to send a message, comment on society, or wow people visually. Games are meant to entertain people through interaction, and to make the user be maker of the outcome. They give the user an array of options and let the user logically and strategically select from these options what they think is the best outcome to "win" the game. You cannot "win" art.

In a sense, games are really the anti art. Games give an array of options and lets the user provide their own course and experience, art provides it for them.

I disagree that art is meant to do all the work.  There are various art installations that require either participation from the observer or movement through a 3-dimensional space.  You can make an amazing hologram, or put 20 stereos on a hallway, and put it in a museum with a sign that says "walk through this and experience my art" and that happens all the time.  If you made a virtual physical art installation that you walk through on your computer (so it could be full of mirrors and 20 stereos and giant dragons or whatever), then that would be art.