Games are not art, according to Ebert; he mentions ‘prejudice’ a couple of times. I have a dirty little word called ‘elitist.’ I understand his point that when a user interacts with the game and effects the outcome it isn’t the same as a completely dictated work like a movie. However, I think he misses the mark horribly. His basic argument depends on a single assumption of what he says he thinks is high art, and that is authorship. In his opinion, it can’t be high art if the user changes the outcome. Interesting thought, considering that people who view art, especially abstract art, have a range of differing experiences. One might say that their basic self changes the outcome. Let’s not forget the phrase ‘leaving it to interpretation,’ often artists depend on people coming up with differing views on their pieces. Is that so different? Is the artistry and creativity poured into a game to generate a specific time, place, atmosphere worth nothing? I think he fails in that he is looking at it in the sense of movies, a complete story from beginning to end presented according the creators’ intentions. He fails to see that multiple endings in a game tend to be presented according to their creators’ intentions. The user gets to choose, sure, but in the context of the argument Ebert should probably consider each storyline and ending separately so that in the end he is actually considering, say, 3 games instead of one. Additionally, apparently the work, creativity, and artistry poured into the game to create a specific time, place, and atmosphere account for nothing.

He also displays the same prejudice nearly everyone of his generation seems to display, and that is that games are a waste of time. I couldn’t find a link to the original article, but there’s a quote here. This has been a topic of interest to me and I’ve conducted some research. I had already planned on posting a sourced and composed essay about this soon so forgive the lack of sources for the following paragraph.

The idea that games give you nothing in return is becoming more and more false. Research is increasingly showing that more than just hand-eye coordination, games are teaching people spatial ability, pattern recognition, and decision-making on a level never before seen in human history (among other things). That isn’t to say that there aren’t people in our past who have these abilities, rather that there has never been such an effective tool that could teach all these things at once. One of the benefits of video games is immediate feedback. If you’ve ever played a complicated video game that had good introductory missions or similar, you’ll know what I mean. You can learn a complex system quickly and enjoyably and get all the benefits of the things I mentioned before; and the game isn’t even geared to teaching you anything. Imagine what could happen if people could make really effective educational games (currently most of these are terrible but that is slowly changing as the understanding of the medium improves).

In any case, Ebert displays an outmoded attitude that shows a lack of understanding of the medium, the same attitude I’d wager that wrote the horrible DMCA. Much like the stalwart oak against the hurricane.