I wrote up a critique of Bioshock recently—a game which seems even more impressive to me now after playing through the much-hyped Halo 3—and among the comments following the post was one that deserves special attention. Z. said:
Not to rip this train from the tracks, but your post, like most other pieces on games and art, brings me back to the simple question of do games *need* to be art?
I understand that following a nebulous, subjective, functionally rhetorical question with yet another nebulous, subjective, functionally rhetorical question is fruitless ploy, but with your admitted focus on adult play I’d love to glean your opinions on the conceptual artistic merit of gaming versus its sheer interactive entertainment value. Personally, I enjoy games that are thematically challenging and emotively immersive, but do you feel such elements at all undermine the simple value of play itself? And, concerning the subjective nature of art, is a game that is emotionally resonant (such as Ico) significantly less “artistic†than a game that is, by design, more visually artistically stimulating (like Rez). I guess my question is simply does art warrant observation or interaction, and, if the latter, does the induction of the player into the formula make games more artistic in and of itself?
That’s a fair question, and I think that I’ll be writing enough about games and play enough that the response deserves its own post. My short answer is this: “Art” is a frustrating term, but yes, I think (at least some) games need to aspire to greater depth if this medium is ever to fulfill the promise that its fans would like to see.
Here is the longer answer: