At some point in the life cycle of every new technology or mode of entertainment, people start to ask, in portentous capitals, “What Does This Mean?”
Video gamers, who some would argue already have too much time on their hands, are spending some of it in a protracted period of introspection.
Ebert provoked a pixel-slinging online debate with a post on his website entitled “Video games can never be art.” There, he argued that gamers’ fervent ambition to have their love for “Halo” and “Mass Effect” vindicated (as Ebert’s similar love for movies has been) by the mainstream could never be realized.
Over 4,700 people commented on his original post — more words, Ebert wrote, than “Anna Karenina”, “David Copperfield” and “The Brothers Karamazov” — and their vehement and reasoned opposition to Ebert was a sign to many that video games are at least capable of producing intelligent reflection.
Indeed, Tom Bissell’s book, “Extra Lives: Why Video Games Matter,” helps prove, writing about video games is often more nuanced and thoughtful than the games themselves. In the book, he eloquently expresses the emotional attachment that gamers form with games and the questions games often provoke about life.
This immersive, mentally consuming effect is used as an argument both for and against video games’ status as art.
Gamers point to the emotional and mental experiences in game worlds that rival the ones people have when viewing a painting or reading a book.
Video games are most successful at world-building, placing the player in a universe with its own rules, reality and strange beauty. Anyone who has played a video game understands this and knows the feeling of entering what is, essentially, a new world.
Video game critics believe this creation of new worlds is important but argue that it prompts players to spend hours and days in worlds that never existed. Certainly, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest this immersion leads some players to spend excessive time playing games to the detriment of everything else.
The debate over the artistic merit of video games is more accurately a debate over categorization. If games are not art, then what are they? Can they be more than simple amusement?
Then there’s the question of productivity. Even video game apologist Bissell writes in “Extra Lives” that his most efficient video gaming came under the influence of cocaine and derailed his promising reporting career. His writing about video games, while fascinating, is probably not an option for most gamers whose hours in the rabbit hole will never be redeemed by writing success and intellectual credibility.
Some are trying to harness the inherent principles of gaming to make more significant contributions to society. President Barack Obama’s campaign, among others, sought to capture the task/reward dynamic of video games by setting interactive goals for campaign volunteers. Scientist are attempting to solve knotty problems of understanding how protein parts fold together by awarding points to gamers on an interactive “Tetris”-like game called “Foldit,” and a study published in the journal Nature points to some success.
It’s possible that all the hand wringing about video games ignores the central truth: video games are not yet art, are not usually productive and are still no plague upon society. Clearly, playing “Halo” is no substitute for reading great literature, but perhaps it can be more meaningful than the passive amusements of television and film.
In any event, the medium is young, and as Ebert admitted in a later post, who knows how video games will develop?
Reach Will at wmunsil@asu.edu
