Wednesday Commentary, Joint Outsourced and In House Edition.

Before I begin, I just want to say I'm a big fan of Roger Ebert. So, when he came out a few weeks ago and declared that Video Games Aren't Art, I didn't go apeshit and burn every copy of his books I've ever owned. Because I've never owned any but that's really not the point. There has been a lot of hubub about his remarks, and a few people have weighed in, or been asked to weigh in on the statement. I wasn't one of those people who were asked but I wanted to give a few thoughts. First, I'm going to let Ben Croshaw take the mic and give his two cents.

"Yahtzee", as he is more affectionately known, does Zero Punctuation reviews for The Escapist. His game review videos typically run about four minutes long, are crude at times, bitterly truthful at times, a little overly critical at times, and lacking dead air all the time  (hence, "zero punctuation"). He actually takes a pause this time and takes to the written word to comment on Ebert's piece.

Here it is: Extra Punctuation.

Not to be a total conformist, but Yahtzee is, for the most part, correct. Is it really a big deal if Roger Ebert thinks games cannot be art? One shouldn't take someone's opinion as gospel, especially when there is so much room for interpretation and exception. Also his opinion on video games would be about as relevant as me challenging him on why Harold and Kumar is one of the better movies of the last decade.

I guess Ebert may have jogged some insecurity in the games industry and gamers in general. Can an industry that has been competing with film, television, music and print for the hearts (and wallets) of entertainment-thirsty-ADD-ridden consumers actually claim that the product they put out is on the level artistically? Is there a poetic symmetry to me dropping a tea-bag on the face of a vanquished enemy that I smited with Akimbo P-90's?


Yahtzee is dead-on when he says "art is something that provokes emotional attachment". For something so personal and subjective, that means that what constitutes art can be open to interpretation. Thats why someone can drop a crucifix in a jar of piss and then ask the National Endowment of the Arts to fund the follow-up. That's why I can think this song is a masterpiece and you may think its just clambering of loud noises (in which you would be wrong because At the Gates fucking rules). 


The fact of the matter is, as an entertainment medium, video games have proven they can holdtheir own against cinema and music. If you are going to claim that the latter can be art and games aren't, consider that computers are just an integral part in creating what makes those forms art as well as video games (i.e. Avatar). Also consider that like cinema and music, 95% of what is out there sucks. Those that are the cream of the crop can truly inspire great emotion, and make you feel not that you've "won", but that you've completed the journey the story tellers or artists have set forth in front of you. The industry is too new to set along side great poets or painters, but I wouldn't be surprised that 50 years from now there may be some games that are still discussed for their beauty in presentation, and intrigue in gameplay. 


TL;DR- Check the end of Yahtzee's piece. Motherfucker stole my shtick!!!