The great debate

For the gamers and the movie watchers who read the blog, I'd like to share with you a debate between Roger Ebert and many of his readers about the validity of video games as an art form. In this Answer Man Column (11/13), Ebert says that compared to video games, "I believe books and films are better mediums, and better uses of my time," and in subsequent Answer Man Columns (11/27, 12/11) defended his comments against a flood of e-mails from angry gamers (Click here and here for two pages of selected e-mails).

As a gamer myself, Ebert's comments rattled me (I am a regular Ebert reader and respect his writing a great deal). Although most games do not aspire to the level of "art" (neither do most movies in my opinion), some do and some do it quite well. Of course there is art within games. There are the visual and storytelling aspects, but Ebert argues that games can only attain the rank of craftmanship, and not high art, because the storytelling depends on player actions, not the control of an author. A game can have a good plot, but can it have real impact? One e-mail asks, can a game make you cry?

There were many interesting reader comments on both sides of the argument. One person points out that games should not try to be like movies, and those that do fail. Another likened video games more to architecture than to movies. They create a space within which people can interact. Many people pointed out that games have the potential for becoming true art, but such a height has not yet been realized.

Right now I am addicted to one game, which I have mentioned before on this blog: World of Warcraft. It is a massively multiplayer online role playing game. Thousands of people play at once in a virtual world. Everyone has unique characters that slowly become more powerful through repetitive quests and monster hunting. Is this game high art? Hell no. Is it fun? Hell yes. The visuals are fun, but I would liken them to comic book art, not a masterpiece painting. The storytelling is slim to none. What is best about the game is the interaction with other players. The three things I enjoy most are A) joining battles against other players with Capture the Flag type rules, B) doing quests in a group with my real life friends, and C) buying and selling items in the in-game auction house.

So I enjoy the game though I don't consider it high art. What is wrong with that? "Nothing" you might say, but there is one problem, and it is a problem with most games, but especially this one. In the last Answer Man Column that I mentioned above, Ebert quotes a professor who makes the simple point that games take a lot of time. A game could take 30 hours to finish, or 100 hours to master. A game like World of Warcraft never even ends (I estimate I currently play 7+ hours per week). Games are addictive. Sometimes I spend hours in Warcraft doing things I don't even consider fun, only doing them so that I can get to the next level of power (An attitude that if I can reach the next level, then I will be satisfied, but of course I never am). Most good, even great games have moments like that, where I am just doing what have to do only because I want to go to the next stage. If a game takes 30 hours to finish, how many movies could I watch in that time? How many books could I read? How much more could I write? Should I throw out video games altogether in order to have a more enriching and productive life? (laugh) I don't think that will happen, but perhaps I can moderate myself a bit more.

Comments?

Oh, and here is the original movie review of Doom that caused the whole controversy. I haven't seen the movie, but Im sure it sucked.