Roger Ebert is one of the world's most respected movie
critics and in 2005 he wrote in a series of responses to his readers on his
website rogerebert.suntimes.com that "video games could not be art."
and he considers "video games inherently inferior to film and literature. "
This sparked off debate from gamers, game designers and academics that Ebert
admits himself "has taken on a life of its own." One person to join
the debate at the second hollywood and games summit was Clive Barker, novelist,
director, artist and game designer, most famous for the film Hellraiser. I have
found his responses and Eberts further responses on Eberts site.
They both make some interesting points on the subject of
games as art. Here is a part I found particularly interesting;
Barker: "I think that Roger Ebert's problem is that he
thinks you can't have art if there is that amount of malleability in the
narrative. In other words, Shakespeare could not have written 'Romeo and
Juliet' as a game because it could have had a happy ending, you know? If only
she hadn't taken the damn poison. If only he'd have gotten there quicker."
Ebert: "He is right again about me. I believe art is
created by an artist. If you change it, you become the artist. Would
"Romeo and Juliet" have been better with a different ending?
Rewritten versions of the play were actually produced with happy endings.
"King Lear" was also subjected to rewrites; it's such a downer. At
this point, taste comes into play. Which version of "Romeo and
Juliet" Shakespeare's or Barker's, is superior, deeper, more moving, more
"artistic?"
I think that Eberts view here is flawed yes surely if you
could change the ending of "Romeo and Juliet" then it would no longer
be Shakespeare's artistic vision but your own, you would become the artist. But
surely a planned complex narrative created for a game with multiple endings are
created by the games designers and still part of there creative vision and not
the players, though the player may feel they have control over there outcome
within a game the end result will still be one created by the designers. I
argue that there is an artistic collaboration within games, the player is also
the artist, able make the choices and progress of the game, without the player
the game will sit idle. I believe Barker reflects on this by saying "We
should be stretching the imaginations of our players and ourselves. "
