Gamasutra drives down this road one more time. This time inspired by the comparisons between 300 and video games.
It’s kind of a misleading topic. When Roger Ebert, for example, says that games aren’t art, he’s simply trying to be dismissive of video games’ impact on society. I doubt the man is really interested in any kind of rational argument on the topic. Really, he’s just trying to downplay the importance that games have on us… and I kind of find that flattering.
After all, if games had no societal impact or weren’t important, he probably wouldn’t even have mentioned it. So thank you, Mr. Ebert — for praising us with faint damnations.
For myself, the question of “games as art” isn’t really the important one (although I believe they are art). The more important question for me, and the one raised every time this issue comes up, is whether games have realized their full potential as art yet.
I don’t think they have, but I think we’re close. I think within the next 5-10 years we’ll mature enough, and be accomplished enough at the craft of making games that we’ll see a game that realizes games’ full potential. But we’re not there yet.