Roger Ebert says video games can never be art

[Grahamhsu]

Khuutra said:

Grahamhsu said:

I don't think you quite understand metallicube's perspective, for me and metallicube it's not that games are a set of rules, it's that gameplay is a set of rules. For metallicube and I, everything non-essential to game function is stripped off. For example, you can play Mario Brothers while muted, but than you're missing out on the artistic music, but you're still essentially able to play the game correct? For MGS4 you can play without watching any cutscenes, or reading any of the text, (as I said story is an artform) but essentially you're still able to play the game right? Now take LBP, if I were to make a completely blank canvas world, could you play LBP in it? Yes you could, would it be enjoyable? Probably not. Is there art still involved, yes there's art in the graphics of the sackboy. From our perspective a game isn't the culmination of all these items, but rather these items are added on for additional enjoyment of the game.

You can, of course, experience cinema while removing either the sound or the visuals and still enjoy it perfectly well. I've seen a project where a blind person is playing through Wind Waker based on nothing but sound and memory. I don't see the point you're making here.

Gameplay does not preclude art, which seems to be your primary point. "Games cannot be art" is specious because it is needlessly reductive concerning what art is.

Obvious that you don't see the point I'm making, because without sound or visuals it's still a story, and any story is visually stimulating whether that story be played out in real life or not. The project with windwaker, how is that related? I'm trying to say a game can exist without those functions and as such means they are expendable. Not preclude, expendable. I'm getting tired of this arguement, I have orchestral auditions for jobs coming up and don't have time for this, all I can say is I never read Ebert's definition, I don't give a rat's ass about it, but if I were to entrust you with violin students using your definition of art I know they would only become musically confused. My perspective is as valid and needed as yours depending on the situation, although my occupation forces me to accept said perspective. Our perspectives differ because we will never agree on the definition of art and as Metallicube said if I let anything be art than it would be slippery slope, and my job as a musician would be a lot more difficult.

@kasz Ok I'll say Ebert is an elitist dick in that case. I haven't read the article at all, my view still doesn't change however for it to be art there must a set of rules it must follow, most importantly it must stimulate senses. Culinary, painter, musician, graphic designer, fashion, writers, etc all these people are artists in my definition and view because they use a medium that directly stimulates senses.