“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.” Ebert stands by his conviction that in principle, video games can never be art. He disagrees with Kellee Santiago, a video game designer and producer, who believes video games already are art. She refers to the Wikipedia definition of art as, “the expression of ideas/process of deliberately arranging elements that appeal to the senses or emotions”, whereas games have goals, rules, and a final outcome (winning/completion). Santiago provides three games, one being Braid (Jagoda reading), all of which Ebert deems garbage and have no characteristics of art. He believes the manipulation of time and use of elementary-level prose in Braid does not teach the player a lesson about learning about his own mistakes.
Well, I am going to have to disagree with Ebert, video games are most definitely art, though through a new, rapidly developing and interactive medium. The first video game as an example is one of my favorites, Red Dead Redemption (specifically the new RDR2), a Western-style shooting game following the story of John Marston, an outlaw trying to find his family. The narrative is rich and engaging as the player progresses, making it difficult to put down. The graphics and details are beyond crisp and real down to the breeze in the grass, the changing hues of the sky, and wrinkles on the character’s faces. Absolutely incredible. The ability to interact with the characters further developing the storyline, in addition to the player controlling the outcome of the game, is another way the game appeals to one’s senses or emotions. I agree with Santiago on this one, video games are art, even masterpieces. Since Ebert thinks she also failed in defining art I thought about this article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/27/pair-of-glasses-left-on-us-gallery-floor-mistaken-for-art. Kinda Funny!
Game Studies 