Comparing a hockey match to a computer game is comparing apples to ninjas. The proper comparisons are: a hockey match to a particular run-through of a computer

Comparing a hockey match to a computer game is comparing apples to ninjas. The proper comparisons are: a hockey match to a particular run-through of a computer game, in which neither is art, in the same way that a particular instance of someone looking at the Mona Lisa is not art; and the game of hockey itself, to a computer game. Hockey is not art, nor is it meant to be, and neither is Medal of Honor, but that most certainly does not mean that games in general are not capable of being artistic. Hockey and computer games aren't particular comparable because no one is trying to make a new type of hockey every year to push the boundaries of what hockey can be. Hockey is a single instance of a game, and a (mostly) static one. The computer game industry is continually updating itself with several notions of design, some of which have artistic merit. I also think that professional sports are a red herring as a comparison, because I doubt that multiplayer games have as much potential to be artistic. The artistic games tend to be tightly scripted and non-competitive, something that doesn't jive well with introducing a player-adversary. Unless you want to be one of those avant-garde artistes making a statement about how we objectify each other or something.