This is a question that has been asked time and time again that has never been given a straight answer. It isn’t likely to get one either, because answering this question drives at the very heart of our understanding of artistic expression, the value we as a culture place on art, class, and education, and the collision of consumers and creative media. Confused yet? There are no easy answers, that’s my point.
But it is because there are no easy answers that this question is worth exploring, and despite Ebert’s claim that video games can never be art, the rest of the world is still trying to sort that out. Our sister blog (and a blog I write for), Fearless Gamer, tackled the issue today. Here’s a brief glimpse of what I said over there:
It’s entirely possible that smaller development houses are turning out some good stuff, but I can’t honestly say that I believe development will reach a point that the smallest, most artistically minded pieces of work will be discernible from the crap like that Columbine game. That game has likely been the most contentious where the art debate is concerned, and I think it’s a good example of why games aren’t art now, and why they might never be. As much as that game wants to be a social commentary, wants to draw the audience in to what the Columbine shooters were feeling, it’s still a game, which is where games will fall short. As long as there is an objective to be met, a quota to reach, a number of infiltrators to be dispatched, games will be no more than a skinner box with an overpriced script, providing gamers with the thrill of objective completion instead of the challenge of a real story.
I was revisiting the subject because the New Scientist just published an article with interviews from prominent gamers about the subject. It’s something I’m sure will come up as long as there are games being made.
It’s settled. I’m keeping 
