Editorial: My take on the great "games as art" debate

Art is such a divisive word, especially in the video game industry. There are folks out there who claim that video games do not meet the unwritten standards of attaining this recognition. I suppose some people might question why anyone merely looking for "fun" would worry about such a seemingly pretentious designation. Does classifying something as art give it more significance or importance? Does it transform a specific medium into something all the more fancy? While many could care less about whether or not a video game transcends into the realm of artistic significance, for me personally, it's a very interesting and important topic to discuss. As far as the opinion of a random internet blogger is concerned, I believe that video games truly are a form of art.

Now, I know what you're thinking, well, at least I think I do; "How do video games being established as art affect my enjoyment of playing games?" Quite frankly, it doesn't at all. So why is it important? Why do so many people care about this topic? For me, it's for one thing and one thing only: the experience. It's because I know first-hand the invigorating experiences video games can provide for the player. It's these experiences that have convinced me that games truly can be art. From the ominous atmosphere of Shadow of the Colossus to the intricate and flat-out baffling twists and turns of the Metal Gear Solid series, each game that I have played has been an experience etched into my past. The memorable feelings triggered by the art of interacting with an immersive video game are what differentiates this industry from any other form of entertainment or craft out there today.

An absolutely captivating experience.

People may shrug off the notion of video games ever achieving the same artistic status as an Oscar-worthy film or a well-written novel, but remember; those mediums have been around for ages. They have been given time to grow and mature to achieve cultural relevance. Video games are still in their infancy stage as far as social development is concerned. Think about it; was Vincent Van Gogh or Edgar Allan Poe ever properly appreciated during their lifetimes? Yes, I just compared two world-famous artists to video games, so what? This, in conjunction with what I believe is the older-generation's misunderstanding of video games today, are the primary reasons why games are easily dismissed. It's simply an unknown and frivolous medium to them. It's not their fault, as the younger generation has grown up with games readily available to them, but that shouldn't stop people from at the very least appreciating and accepting what video games can accomplish on an artistic level.

A prominent figure in this on-going debate is Roger Ebert, specifically in the form of his internet ramblings back in the year 2010. Now, I'm not going to delve deeply into his argument of video games not being art and dissect every single paragraph in an attempt to find fault with his stance on the topic. It's his opinion and it cannot be changed, simple as that. What I will call into question, though, is his experience with modern video games, something even he himself mentions in his very, very lengthy rebuttal to the video game producer and designer Kellee Santiago, who held a presentation arguing that games really are an art form. Video games might have started out as simple and amusing pastimes, but they have grown exponentially since the good-old Atari days. They also play a much more significant role in our day-to-day culture, and some games, like the Call of Duty series, have even grossed more revenue than any top-tier movie release. I'm not saying that Call of Duty is a deep form of art at all, but this does show just how much this industry has grown since the 8-bit generation of games.

This man disagrees with me.

Video games are rapidly starting to reach the artistic appreciation that they deserve though. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) now considers video games a form of art in the US, which is a huge step in the game industry as far as artistic relevance is concerned, and this most definitively should be the case. Games like the Uncharted series are beginning to push the boundaries as far as cinematic scope is concerned. Even seemingly small indie games are bending the rules quite a bit as to what to expect from a video game experience. Titles such as Limbo, Braid, and even the newly-released Fez all come immediately to mind. Each stimulates the mind in a way that the big triple-A blockbuster games rarely do. The act of solving a seemingly impossible brain teaser, however, invokes the same feelings of accomplishment as overcoming a difficult and bombastically orchestrated gunfight. Even games like the beautifully created Journey are altering the way we play and view video games, existing only to be experienced as opposed to providing a traditional challenge for the player. These are all different examples of achieving specific goals set by the design of the game, but each are equally rewarding.

You see, it's not merely about reaching the end of the game, as Roger Ebert suggests. Well, maybe that's true for Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, but that's besides the point. People play games, as I said before, for the experience between the beginning and the end. The portion between the initial start screen and the end credits. Gameplay, the part of a game where you actually play it, is the most important part. It's why you buy a game in the first place. Whether it's by yourself, with friends, or even with strangers online, it's this interactive experience that appeals to video game players. To say that this interactive portion of a game isn't art is simply baffling to me. This is the meat and bones of a video game, the part where you can truly appreciate the design and the actual graphical art that has gone into the game. To dismiss this technological feat simply because you don't fully understand what games can achieve on an artistic level is rather ignorant. It's a shame too, for both the people who appreciate and value the joys that games can bring them, as well as for the developers themselves.

You can't tell me this doesn't make you "feel" anything.

There is no definitive answer to the word "art." It's a word that is way too subjective to truly define. However, I will say this; art invokes a feeling. What this feeling is depends on one's own perception. I may not be a connoisseur with words, nor may I be the most articulate person out there, but to put it simply, art triggers an emotional response. It's a memorable piece of work that sticks with you. It may vary from person to person, but this response defines why art exists in the first place. Art is a creation, a creation that is driven by the heart and the soul. Video games, as it were, are creations made by very talented and passionate groups of people coordinating on a single piece of work; a work of art.