Home > slashdot > Roger Ebert On Why Video Games Can Never Be Art

Roger Ebert On Why Video Games Can Never Be Art

April 19th, 2010 04:42 admin Leave a comment Go to comments

Roger Ebert has long held the opinion that video games are not and can never be considered an art form. After having this opinion challenged in a TED talk last year, Ebert has now taken the opportunity to thoughtfully respond and explain why he maintains this belief. Quoting:
“One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite an immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them. She quotes Robert McKee’s definition of good writing as ‘being motivated by a desire to touch the audience.’ This is not a useful definition, because a great deal of bad writing is also motivated by the same desire. I might argue that the novels of Cormac McCarthy are so motivated, and Nicholas Sparks would argue that his novels are so motivated. But when I say McCarthy is ‘better’ than Sparks and that his novels are artworks, that is a subjective judgment, made on the basis of my taste (which I would argue is better than the taste of anyone who prefers Sparks).”

Source: Roger Ebert On Why Video Games Can Never Be Art

Related Articles:

  1. Roger Ebert Backs Down On Video Games As Art
  2. Film Critic Roger Ebert Dead at 70 Of Cancer
  3. Revisiting Ebert — Games Can Be Art, But Are They?
  4. Ebert: I’ll Tell You Why Movie Revenue Is Dropping
  5. Murch And Ebert’s Misguided Malignment Of 3D
blog comments powered by Disqus