4 ms·

Fine, video games aren't art, but then neither are movies. After all, what's a video game other than an interactive movie? I think the problem is that Ebert ju

• JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  Not an interactive movie, not by a long shot. A movie is much closer to a painting, in that its essentially static - exactly what the artist put into it an no more. Carefully crafted for a particular experience.
  • dagw 16y ago
    There is plenty of art where the audience participation and reaction is integral to the piece.
  • stonemetal 16y ago
    Games are more or less essentially static. Sure there is a little more freedom of motion than in a movie but I would say it is a similar progression still to motion picture, motion picture to motion picture with slight control. You can't get something out of a video game that wasn't put in in the first place. Trust me people who make video games consider and craft the experience the player is having. Rather than compare them to movies I would compare them to theater, where the player is an actor in the play. The lines and locations are the same every time, but every performance is slightly different.
• dagw 16y ago
  That has been the part that has annoyed me most about the whole debate. He is quite willing to argue at length that computer games aren't art, but he then goes on to matter of factually state that a Kurosawa film is art is if that was an axiomatic Truth universally accepted by everybody. Before you try to convince me that games aren't art, at least try to convince me that movies are.