Artist's Interpretation

The games as art debate is getting another spin cycle as game designer Tony Huynh shares his views on the matter. Roger Ebert decided a couple years ago that games, in their current form, can not be constituted as art, and while some of the arguments he made were interesting, the fact that he used Halo 3, a game that can be best compared to a summer blockbuster in movies, put his conclusions into question, somewhat.

Huynh comes straight from the heart of industry though, and he uses some more compelling examples like Shadow of the Collosus to fuel his own analysis that sides somewhat with what Ebert was trying to say. He doesn't focus on the visuals, which I don't think anyone will deny can be artistic in themselves but rather on the experience of playing a game.

The crux of his argument is that games are inherently judged on their ability to provide "fun", whereas a serious viewing experience in film can be uncomfortable and even unpleasant. I'm not sure I necessarily agree that this bars them from qualifying as an artistic experience. For sure, it limits the number of games we see enter that category, but I don't think it disqualifies the medium as a whole.

If you're interested, read on at Hunyh's blog