ISTA 301 RE: Ebert's Discussion on Video Games as Art

I had already written a blog about why I feel video games can be called art, just look down 4 or 5 posts and it'll be there. Then we got around to the topic in class, and I felt I should give my two cents about his post.

I find that a lot of the playing with definitions is rather unnecessary for Ebert's argument. I feel that he contradicts himself by claiming that Santiago hasn't provided a satisfactory definition of art, but he doesn't provide one either that suits art. A very Socratic argument I'm sure, since he attempts to provide the definition by using examples of what we call art, but doesn't explain what art is.

The biggest gripe I have is when he gets around to talking about Braid. I have had the opportunity to play the game, and I do enjoy it. Its colorful art style and appropriate musical score makes it quite the beauty.

The main gripe that Ebert ends up having is the fundamentals behind playing Braid. One of the key components of Braid is that you cannot die, and if you do you simply rewind time to the point before you died. "In chess this is called taking back a move" and that takes away "the whole discipline" of the game. While that is true in chess, Braid isn't chess, and shouldn't be subject to having to follow the same rules.

To me, games are an art form (as shown in my earlier post). Sure, there are those that are much less artistic than others, but the entire process is an art form. They begin as ideas, and require hours of participation, creativity and interaction for them to be successful.