April 22, 2007

THEY'RE NOT, BUT...

Shamus of Twenty-Sided tackles the complicated question of "are video games art?" after noting that Roger Ebert answered "no" and "HELL no". Lots of good discussion in Shamus's comments, if you're interested in the topic.

Here's my take on it:

I don't believe video games are art. The purpose of art is to evoke emotion through contemplation. The purpose of video games (the story-lined kind, not the repetitive-motion kind) is to evoke emotion through interaction.

In art, you get to watch the hero. In video games, you get to BE the hero.

This does NOT make video games inferior to art. Quite the opposite. Their immersive quality has the potential to be more than mere art could ever dream. However, as Jimmy noted in his comment, the form is still in its infancy:

itÂ’s a young medium; artists are still working out how to use it. We had motion picture technology from the 1860s, but Metropolis (one of the earliest truly great films) wasnÂ’t made until 1927. Check back around 2040 and see how weÂ’re doing.

I agree. The greatest days of video gaming are still ahead.

Posted by: Harvey at 03:10 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 2 kb.

1 "I agree. The greatest days of video gaming are still ahead." ...and there will still some 12 year old punk who knows all the cheat codes killing you for the hell of it and ruining the experience.

Posted by: Graumagus at April 23, 2007 07:55 AM (V+7lV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
14kb generated in CPU 0.0227, elapsed 0.1166 seconds.
70 queries taking 0.107 seconds, 165 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.