I dunno, I've read a lot of sci-fi and fantasy in my time. Some of it very good, some of it pretty trite (but still enjoyable). Game stories aren't much different, maybe more in the trite than the classic, but almost all game stories being crap is an overstatement IMO. Maybe if I compared game stories to the literature classics then I wouldn't be so generous, but nearly all of my reading is sci-fi/fantasy and so are most of the games I play.

Sure, but most gamers point to storytelling as the example of why video games should be considered art. I personally think some of the best work on recent videogames is in sound design. I also agree that the medium of videogames allows for a much different kind of storytelling if done well. A game like Eternal Darkness is a prime example of the potential of the medium.

I would say that the absolute best game stories wouldn't hold a candle to the very good books or movies in any genre.

Agree to disagree. A lot of well loved fantasy series have a lot of problems. Wheel of Time, Sword of Truth, others.

I'll defer to your opinion on Sci-Fi. I don't read much at all.

I'd say videogames certainly contain many elements of art in them, but that doesn't necessarily make them works of art. Just like a basketball game might have players that move with artistic precision, these are elements within the game used to score points, and don't necessarily make the game an art - playing a game (video or otherwise) that has artistic elements in an artful manner doesn't make the game itself a work of art.

But then, the definition of art that I support is that it is ultimately a transfer of emotion from one person to another. If game itself (not it's elements) can do that for you, then it's art.

Video games are starting to get there. They simply haven't been in existence long enough to fully mature.

But it's been almost 4 decades already. How long did it take photography or film to become an art-form? 10 years, tops?

10 years is a laughable estimate. The grammar of film wasn't even fully established until the '30s. The first year of the Oscars was 1929. Sight and Sound didn't begin publication until the 1930s. I would probably argue that film didn't become a fully mature medium until the 1950s or 1960s, but art can still be produced in an immature medium.

Not to mention asking how long it "took something" to "become" an art form is begging the question. I'm sure there were some people that thought film was art in 1897. Something becomes an art form when critics start discussing it like an art form. There's no "Art Form Committee".

I apologize if someone's already said this, but is there some massive "Please consider video games as art" campaign somewhere that I'm not aware of? I'm not familiar with any gamers losing sleep because Bioshock isn't on display in a museum in France. Most gamers don't even know what they're mad about, other than an outsider speaking "against" their beloved hobby.

This whole thing is simply a pageviews grab. Work up the gamers, get them to your website, collect hits.

Says the guy who constantly bashes Justin Beiber...

I don't know man, I think there's a hell of a lot of early silent films that would've classified as art from Birth of a Nation in 1915, to The Kid in 1921 and DeMille's original 10 Commandments in 1923, not to mention many of the early great directors worked during that era from VonStorheim to Pabst to Murnau, who all showed artistic expression in film was in full effect long before the Oscars. Why are videogames lagging behind in this? It might have something to do with commerce and how that's so different now than it was a 100 years ago, along with the lack of a strong central vision a director creates, but it has to be more than that.

Today's games have a director who plays more or less the same role that a film director plays. Excellent insight into this process can be gleaned by watching the behind the scenes documentaries for the God of War games.

Sometimes I'm not sure what gamers and critics are hoping for that would make games art. Lost Odyssey has a bunch of short stories built in that are probably better written than 90% of fantasy out there. Does that make Lost Odyssey art? Certainly it seemed a strange choice for delivering narrative in a video game.

Roundhay Garden Scene sucks, despite what the Le Prince fanboys will tell you.

It's not art . Well, if a rusted out car wreck with a pile of dog feces on the bonnet (or insert random abstract art example here) can be called art, then I'm sure your movie example can be.

Actually, what is and isn't art and the reasons why usually goes over my head. And, I think I like it like that .

I'm thinking this entire argument is part of The Onion or something.

Of course video games are art. The earliest and/or worst video games are just as much art as the best paintings or novels. But I guess my definition of art is pretty broad.

I also like pretty broads, but think art had different tastes.

I think it's a variety of factors. Video games are the confluence of several disciplines, and as such demand a much higher level of sophistication amongst their disparate elements in order to create a cohesive narrative.

I guess my point is that if you're classifying those early silent films as art (a classification with which I have no problem) then you'd be hard-pressed to mount a criticism of, say, Super Mario Bros. as not art. Sure, it's simplistic, but it definitely has some artistry behind it.

I think a central problem of video game criticism is simply the question of whether or not the gameplay has anything to do with the artistry. Choice is something central to video games, and which is demonstrably not central to most forms of art.

"The three games she chooses as examples do not raise my hopes for a video game that will deserve my attention long enough to play it. They are, I regret to say, pathetic."

Really?

I knew someone would go there as I was posting it. Nice one! JasonF had a decent joke too but deleted it.

My joke wasn't as good as Groucho's and Groucho posted his first. I know when I've been beaten.

So this was timely...

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4keSOrR-e5s&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4keSOrR-e5s&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

I like how Ebert was able to play Natal 15 years ago.

Here's my question, tell me where I am wrong.

Movie=Art

therefore

Choose Your Own Adventure Movie=Art

and

Heavy Rain=Choose Your Own Adventure Movie

therefore

Heavy Rain=Art?

Not to mention, the games he did play (or rather see), were only for a few minutes, which would be the equivalent of someone judging a movie based on a random 30 second viewing.