Ebert: Slightly More Rational This Time Around

So Roger Ebert has posted a follow-up piece to his inflammatory diatribe wherein he claimed that video games could never be considered art. He has now (sort of) admitted that he can't make such sweeping statements about a medium he has never experienced, he (grudgingly) accepts that it is possible that future video games could be classified as art, and he even (kind of) allows for the possibility that current games can be experienced as art by some gamers. My final thought on this whole debacle, a quote from TV Tropes: "Art isn't about making you feel good. Art is about making you feel." And now, I feel like playing the original Final Fantasy.

Fighting Words from Roger Ebert

The title of Roger Ebert's April 16th blog post is "Video games can never be art." Building on the arrogance of the title, Ebert goes on to describe many different kinds of art from their beginnings to generally accepted masterpieces (for example, from cave paintings to Michelangelo's works), and to dismiss out of hand many excellent examples of video games as art. The following quote tidily sums up his viewpoint: "No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets." Apparently he is unaware of the black mage's struggle to find meaning in his existence in Final Fantasy IX, of Chell's "test experience" that leads to questioning the veracity of what we are told in life in Portal, or even of the controversial "No Russian" level of Modern Warfare 2 in which the gamer is forced to either take part in or witness the slaughter of civilians, causing the gamer to think about free will and whether the ends justify the means. Ebert managed to criticize one of the most simple yet deepest games of 2008, Braid, saying that the idea of traveling back in time to correct your mistakes is akin to "taking back a move" in Chess and "negates the whole discipline of the game." Is it really so far-fetched to imagine a different type of game, one that isn't just a direct competition between two players, one that entails a different kind of winning? I am dismayed at Mr. Ebert's lack of imagination, especially coming from a man whose very job it seems is to look past the obvious to see the true meanings and purposes behind films, media highly related to games. It appears to me that Mr. Ebert and I disagree on the definition of art. A medium that makes me think, feel, and question; that comprises original scores of music and new technologies for creating visual aesthetics; that utilizes voice actors to emote the feelings and passions of the characters and their conflicts: this, to me, is art in an advanced form. So please, Mr. Ebert, go back to reviewing movies; when it comes to video games, either do the proper research or STFU.