Roger Ebert on Video Games

            “Okay, kids, play on my lawn” is a follow up article from Movie Critic Roger Ebert, responding to the many comments he received after his article titled “Video games can never be art.” Ebert beings the article by expressing regret that he had ever mentioned the topic of video games, saying that he “would never express an opinion on a movie I hadn't seen. Yet I declared as an axiom that video games can never be Art.” He also mentions that among the comments he received, most of them were not toxic or mean-spirited, and only a dozen or so had to be deleted. The main point that Ebert highlights among them was that he “should not have written that entry without being more familiar with the actual experience of video games.”

            Ebert mentioned that many people suggested games that he should play that would sway him that video games were art (Myst, Shadow of the Colossus, and Cosmology of Kyoto among them), and even said that Kellee Santiago, the woman who gave the TED Talk which Ebert was responding to in his article and an employee at Sony offered a Playstation and a selection of games for him to play. Ebert then reluctantly admitted that he had no desire to play any of the video games and that he “was in a lose-lose position.”

            Later in the article after bringing up a conversation he had with filmmaker Clive Barker, who suspected that Ebert’s problem with games was that he believes that games provide too much malleability in their narrative to keep the focus that makes a good story, which Ebert agrees to. He finally concludes after searching for a proper definition of art that he can’t find a definition, and that if someone was emotionally moved enough by a game that it affected them so much, then to them, it could very well be art. At the same time he did not relent his original point that games can never be art, but rather admits that to some, it very well may be.

            In this article I do believe that Roger Ebert managed to please both camps, though to varying degrees. It’s a very touchy subject, and many people are very defensive of video games. That being said, Ebert is very well-respected as a critic, so bowing to random commenters on the internet might not look good for him. By relenting his point to a degree but still keeping its spirit, I think he successfully addressed everyone and made the nature of his argument clear. I personally do believe that gaming can be art, as there are visuals, characters, and stories within games I’ve played that have emotionally affected me more than certain books or movies, though I do admit that movies, literature, painting, and other types of art have had more time to evolve, so it’s difficult for Video Games to stand among them seriously.

            Do you believe gaming can ever be art? Did Ebert relent too much to the masses on the internet due to peer pressure? Ebert posted a poll online asking people if they valued the book Huckleberry Finn or a good game more. What is your opinion on that, and why?

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07/okay_kids_play_on_my_lawn.html