Ebert versus Video Games

I know this space has become a Roger Ebert love-fest lately, but I'd like to dig up an old Ebert issue: his disrespect toward video games.

Going back to 2005, it was widely blogged that Ebert hates video games. Rather, he infamously dismissed video games as not worthy of being called "art".

In 2007, Ebert admitted that video games COULD be called "art", but not "high art".

In defense of Ebert, I'd point out that he never claimed to actually hate video games. And I think his marginalization of the true art of video games—the range of emotion and inspiration that can be uniquely derived from the medium of video games—is obviously more of a generational gap than anything. A lot of people have never, and probably never will, experience some of the incredible video game experiences that have already been created.

Video games and video game design have evolved so much more than the basic art of film in a fraction of the time. Which is in no way meant to disparage film, or to say that one medium is superior to the other. But both are entirely legitimate.

It boils down to a debate over "what is art?", which can go on endlessly. (Just like my lovely animated gifs!) Ebert marginalizing video games is about Ebert not fully understanding them and passing judgment. It caused a bit of an uproar a few years ago, I think, because video games are so often marginalized and misunderstood. But honestly, do people really need Roger Ebert's validation to properly honor the art form?

(Yes.)



P.S. Pocket-version: