Ebert believes that video games cannot be art. He rejects Kellee Santiago’s belief that video games can, in fact, be art. Santiago cites Wikipedia with the most accurate definition of what constitutes art. According to Wikipedia, states Santiago, art is the process of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions.” While Santiago submits that “video games already ARE art,” she agrees with Ebert’s assertion that, “no one in or out of the field has been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists, and poets.” Ebert acknowledges this common ground and proceeds to further examine Santiago’s position on video games as a form of art.
Santiago gives examples of other forms of art and places them on a spectrum – a prehistoric cave painting compared to Michelangelo’s ceiling painting of the Sistine Chapel. She characterizes the prehistoric cave painting, calling it “kind of chicken scratches on walls,” and contrasts it with Michelangelo’s ceiling painting. She asserts that “while video games may be closer to the chicken scratch end of the spectrum, [Ebert] is foolish to assume they will not evolve.”
I believe that video games should be considered art because, after all, there is a person behind the game disc coding who envisioned a virtual world with an objective and a challenging path to achieve that objective. Video games are just like the fine arts – film, theater, novels, etc. – because, all film theater and novels are is the auteur’s vision brought to life – either in live or pre-recorded performance as in theater or film, respectively or in the case of novels, on the pages of a book where the reader is free to envision this fictitious world brought to life in the confines of his or her imagination. Why should the fine arts get all the credit to be able to qualify as true art simply because those disciplines have been around longer (video games did not become widely commercialized until the 80s). I believe video games deserve as much merit to qualify as art as the other fine arts.
Consider Game of Thrones and “Final Fantasy XV”; I have played through enough of “Final Fantasy XV“ to know that it shares some of the narrative elements of Game of Thrones. The only difference between the two are the stylistic choices and that in the ”Final Fantasy XV” game, you are free to shape the narrative as the game progresses and the plot thickens. Put simply, whereas you are bound by the artistic vision of the director when watching Game of Thrones, you are afforded more artistic liberty when playing through “Final Fantasy XV.” Such artistic liberty in “Final Fantasy XV” is possible because you are permitted to make decisions. Remember that decisions are one of the attributes that make a game a game, as well as the player’s decision to put the game down whenever he so pleases. That is why two people can play a role-playing game like “Final Fantasy XV” or “Dungeons and Dragons“ or even “Monopoly” and get different outcomes. This is part of what makes games so enjoyable, the uncertainty involved with it that also leads to endless possibilities and paths to take.
Game Studies 
“I believe that video games should be considered art because, after all, there is a person behind the game disc coding who envisioned a virtual world with an objective and a challenging path to achieve that objective.” This, right here, is my view on this all. Ebert could have games aren’t art in a million ways, and I would always go back to this. The high art / low art argument is such a subjective and crude argument, and I still cannot believe Ebert fell for it after all these years.
I really like your comparison between FFXV and Game of Thrones. For me, the sense of friendship and the character growth in FFXV can be one example to show how both are inherently narratives with character arcs. Like you said, the player is given some of the artistic liberty that directors and writers (usually) keep solely to themselves in other art forms. This right here might be why so many have argued over narratology in games. Great post!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I totally agree with you, Nathan. Game of Thrones and “Final Fantasy XV” are just two such examples. Red Dead Redemption 2 and The Walking Dead series is another example. The latter comparison falls in nearly the same genre. As Caroline put it in her analysis of Ebert’s article, “Red Dead Redemption 2 is a Western-style shooting game following the story of John Marston, an outlaw trying to find his family.” Caroline submits that the “narrative is rich and engaging as the player progresses, making it difficult to put down.” Caroline adds that “the ability to interact with the characters further [develops] 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.” Caroline’s argument about “Red Dead Redemption 2” can also be made about Final Fantasy XV as I did. Furthermore, in the same way, “Red Dead Redemption 2” weaves a narrative, so does “The Walking Dead”. The Walking Dead is a post-apocalyptic horror television show that tells the story of the months and years that follow after a zombie apocalypse. It follows a group of survivors led by former police officer Rick Grimes, who travel in search of a safe and secure home. Over the nine seasons, this series aired, the audience is able to follow along with the cast and they resolve conflict, deal with the loss of friends and develop through their dynamic character arcs. These narrative elements make the connection of relatability between the audience and the characters. All in all, the mix of tension, loss of close friends and ever-present conflict and danger sustain the audience’s investment in the show and also create a level of empathy in the audience for the plight of the show’s characters.
LikeLike