4 ms·

[Games require points to be games, Art does not consist of points, therefore Games are not Art.] This is a fallacy of necessity. I wouldn't take it too seriousl

[Games require points to be games, Art does not consist of points, therefore Games are not Art.] This is a fallacy of necessity. I wouldn't take it too seriously. One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them. Ebert's opinion is rather polemical. I sat in on a panel he did a few years ago on this topic but this "points" thing seemed to be his ultimate sticking point. It looks like his opinion has changed much since then.

hugh3 17y ago
It's a pity Ebert isn't here, but I wonder if he could be convinced by some crazy examples. Let's take a great film like, say, Psycho. Now let's add a single point of interactivity; Janet Leigh starts taking a shower and you can, playing as Norman Bates (uhh, sorry if I just spoiled the movie for anyone) click one box to go and stab her, in which case you see the rest of the movie, or click the other box to not stab her, in which case you see a title card that says "Marion finished her shower, had a good night's sleep, and escaped to Mexico, married a fisherman and lived happily ever after". Now, that wouldn't be an improvement on the original (though now I've typed it I kinda want to play it) but is it enough to push it from "art" into "not art"? Let's assume this was the actual original form in which Hitchcock, in a fit of originality, decided to release Psycho in the first place.