It could be said that any culture could be judged by the art it produces. Yet if emerging forms of art are not recognized, what is there to judge? In art history, the Dadaists were the ones that sought to take every convention of art and turn it upside-down, as they most literally did with the upside-down urinal dubbed Fountain. Video games now experience the same kind of resistance from the traditional art community that the Dadaists faced. Video games should be considered art in the sense that films, music, and paintings are considered art, as video games have a narrative, visual and audible forms, and a critical vocabulary.
Video games, as a relatively young art form, have been subject to much criticism in the past. Whether it is the topic of violence in video games, or the obsessive and addictive properties of games like World of Warcraft, video games typically get blamed for a number of society’s ills. Furthermore, it seems that several people who are well respected in their fields have condemned video games as artistically void wastes of time. These include noted film critic Roger Ebert and avant-garde film director Michel Gondry.
Roger Ebert has said, “video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.” First of all, I have a problem with Ebert’s implicit definition of art as something that makes us “cultured, civilized and empathetic.” While this applies to many arts that follow a linear narrative, it does not apply to what doesn’t follow a linear narrative. For example, the works of film director David Lynch, such as Eraserhead do not follow linear narrative rules at all, yet they are critically acclaimed and seen as art. Similarly, in the art world, abstract paintings which do not have a clear resolution of what they represent are honored and respected. How could a Jackson Pollock splatter painting make you more cultured, civilized, and empathetic? Perhaps you could make a weak argument that it would make you more cultured for having seen his painting, but it certainly wouldn’t make you civilized. If anything, it would inspire you to be less civilized and splatter paint all over a canvas by yourself. As for empathy, how could you be empathetic for that which has no clearly defined form? Yet, both Pollock and Lynch are hailed as true masters of art and their works are studied by aspiring film directors and revered by fine art critics. Since games do not always have a traditional narrative in the sense of a deep and engaging plot, this criticism does not apply.
Director Michel Gondry, well known for his experimental music videos and films, reveals in an interview why he doesn’t let his son play video games:
“I have a half-brother, he is 20 now. He's wasted his life playing videogames - you know what I was saying earlier about enjoying the rewards of producing something. It's physical, because you make something that you can hold and you can show it to people” (Hebron).
By Gondry’s logic one could argue that any moment spent taking in art and not making it is a waste of time. Of course this is not true, as any artist needs inspiration. Does Gondry believe that people who watch his artsy music videos are wasting their time? I would imagine that he does not. Gondry’s definition of art is also old fashioned. Just because something cannot be held in the hand doesn’t mean that it is not art. Consider the countless hours a player will spend developing the perfect house in a day-to-day life simulation game like The Sims. This house is designed and is a work itself which could conceivably be uploaded to the Internet where it can be examined and judged by peers – is this not art? It’s conceivable that The Sims have inspired people to take up architecture, which is indeed recognized as a valid form of art.
What is art? In his short essay “Art for Art’s Sake”, Forster states that “a work of art […] is a self-contained entity, with a life of its own imposed on it by its creator. It has an internal order. It may have external form. That is how we recognize it” (Shrodes, Shugrue, et. al 389). Games most certainly have self-contained structures and internal order. A game has a structure in the form of rules that the player must learn in order to progress through the game. An example of internal order are all the mathematics, physics, and programming code that make up a game that we do not see, but we only see the manifestations of.
When discussing art, it is important to make a distinction between popular art and fine art. Fine art is art that is usually displayed in galleries, such as paintings and sculptures, and occasionally this definition is extended to include live theater and musical compositions. Popular art is art that reaches a wide audience but still has a critical aspect, such as film and popular music. It is the latter classification in which I believe that video games should be a part of.
Narrative, as it is commonly defined, is storyline or plot. But it would be foolish to apply this definition of narrative to video games outright. Since games are not only a storytelling medium, a narrative in the traditional sense is not its defining characteristic. It is necessary to define a looser definition of narrative, one that applies to abstract art and non-linear films as well as traditional stories. Narrative is simply a flow, a way to get from one point to the other. In literary terms, games have a beginning, middle and an end. Sometimes a visual narrative is all you have to go on. In Rules of Play, game designer Katie Salen talks about the concept of “narrative descriptors”, which are the components that make up the narrative. These include opening cinemas, sounds, and especially representation of objects or characters (399). These could be blocks in Tetris or King Bowser from Super Mario Bros., two games from which examples could easily be drawn.
A good example of a game with a visual narrative is Tetris. Tetris starts off slow, being able to lay down building blocks with relative calmness. As you advance, the blocks fall gradually faster. You may be halfway up the board but you can still handle it. Eventually the pace becomes so frantic that your hand-eye coordination gives out and your blocks reach the top of the screen, ending the game. Another example of a visual narrative is where you fight King Bowser in Super Mario Bros. Bowser is a large turtle-like creature who has kidnapped the Princess. When you approach him, he is standing on a bridge above a lava pit. He responds to your presence by throwing a salvo of hammers towards you. As you dodge the hammers and after he tries to crush you with his body, he pauses, readying up another salvo of hammers. Eventually you have to make a choice to defeat him. If you have the fireball power-up you can simply shoot fireballs at him until he dies. If you don’t, you must evade him and reach the axe at the end of the bridge, which will cut the bridge, and make him sink into the lava below.
While many games have stories and tell these stories with cut scenes, it is not necessary to have cut scenes to tell a story. In Super Metroid, the character Samus chases a dangerous alien lifeform to the planet Zebes. As Samus’ ship descends through the clouds and lands on the planet’s surface, you are greeted with pouring rain, thunderclaps, and a brooding musical score. Although no word is spoken, although no gesture is made by the character, this scene tells you much about the game and the dangers that lie ahead. As Samus emerges from her ship and stands directly facing the player, the mission is made clear – Samus must explore this world and root out the evil within.
Roger Ebert has argued, “Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.” While games are indeed interactive, this does not mean that they do not have authorial control. The game designer’s tools are how it delegates interactivity to the player. While interactivity adds a bit of unpredictability to the user’s actions, a good game director has control over the player’s experience. Even in games where the point of view is adjustable by the player, the point of view automatically tracks the character in an ideal and cinematic way. It is up to the player to deviate from the suggested camera angle. In a less subtle example, in games where players are given freedom to explore the game world as much as they want – called “open-world” games – there are parts where the player is trapped and reduced to few, or no options. The game Metroid: Zero Mission has a sequence where the character is stripped of her powerful suit of armor and all weapons but her basic stun pistol. She then must sneak around avoiding guards to complete the game.
Actions themselves can be limited to one choice, a few choices, or hundreds of choices. An example of one choice is in many role playing games that involve saving a princess. The scenario typically is that the king asks you if you will save the princess. Some games give you a yes/no response to this. If you pick no, the king will say “but you have to!”, and then ask you the question again. This is an action with one choice. A few choices would be if the game truly allowed you to not save the princess and do something else, perhaps you can send someone else to save her and go fight the dragon terrorizing a village. Indeed, the games with hundreds of choices are usually open-world games such as the role-playing game Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. In this game you wander around, interact with whomever you want, and accept as many quests and missions as you are interested in. As you can travel anywhere and accept quests from just about anyone, you indeed have hundreds of choices. All of these choices affect the narrative.
Games have a visual component. Described in gaming terminology as “graphics”, this is usually the most obvious component of a game. Indeed, it seems that the technology powering games is driven by desire for more realistic graphics, which is why new game consoles come out every 4-5 years. More importantly, from an artistic standpoint, the visuals are composed of how the characters and environment are rendered and how lighting, texture, lines, forms, and colors come into play, which influence the other aspects of the game.
This can be best shown in the game Shadow of the Colossus, by game designer Fumito Ueda. In this game, the character, Wander, visits a forbidden land seeking to resurrect a dead girl. Shadow of the Colossus’ environment is massive and spectacular, consisting of rolling hills, forests, rivers and waterfalls. However, this land is completely barren. There are only plants and small birds and lizards. Furthermore, the lighting is artificially exaggerated so it washes out the colors of the game. This stark contrast of being the only human being in a massive and desolate world plays off the game’s main concept: to slay the giant colossi that inhabit this cursed land. Also playing into this contrast is that Wander is about the size of a mouse compared to the massive colossi. As each colossus is slain, shadowy lines emerge from the wounds that penetrate Wander and make him collapse. When he awakens, these slain colossi are seen as shadowy spirit forms that surround him. Over the course of the game, Wander’s appearance changes, and he becomes visibly closer and closer to death. It is as if every colossus slain leads Wander closer and closer to his eventual demise, a paradoxical resolution of the narrative.
Another component of games is the sound. This includes both music and sound effects. In Rez, the shoot-em-up genre is given a twist: the music and sound becomes integral to the overall experience. Unlike most music games like Guitar Hero, the player does not simply perform music – the player is part of it and the player’s actions influence it. Every shot, hit, and explosion plays into the overall music composition being created as the game is played. As a digital character flies through a digitized computer-like landscape, the player pays as much attention to the sound as the graphics. This is a contrast to many games, where it is possible to mute the sound and still be able to enjoy the game. Playing Rez muted is like watching Star Wars blindfolded. The lines that make up forms of the background wiggle in tune with the beat, and the enemies appear in formations that will yield a pleasing combination of sounds and music.
Games have a critical vocabulary, essential for determining the value of any piece of art. Any form of expression that doesn’t have an established means to critique it falls out of the realm of art and into the realm of entertainment. The visual aesthetic is a crucial component, as is the sound. Most important is gameplay (also called game mechanics), which describe the ways the player interacts with the game. Games must have meaningful play, which are actions that lead to outcomes that create meaning (Salen 33). One of the reasons why open-world games are often given high praise is because it is difficult to allow meaningful play in a world that allows too many possibilities. At what point does it stop being a game and start becoming a simulation of actual life? One could argue that it would be no fun playing a game which simulated the day-to-day life of a store clerk, unless some fantastic scenarios were thrown in to make the game more compelling.
Meaningful play is not the same as “having fun”. Many games have sections that are not as fun as other parts, yet they provide an overall sense of accomplishment. In many role-playing games, your character must do a particular task over and over again to make him stronger – this is called “leveling”. For instance, in the aforementioned Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, your skill in casting magic is increased each time you use that type of magic. Casting a spell repeatedly to gain levels is not usually fun in itself, but it generally leads to a better gameplay experience as higher magic levels have access to more interesting spells, which in turn makes the overall experience compelling.
Games are scrutinized just as other forms of art are scrutinized. A film can be scrutinized for having a thin plot, bad characters, or nonsensical elements and be critiqued and given a negative review. Similarly, games with unsatisfying game mechanics, overly difficult enemies, or lousy controls will get negative reviews in game publications. The reason why the vocabulary for describing the critical properties of a game is so important is because this vocabulary is generally a consensus among game reviewers. A game is not good because it has 30 levels, it is good because of the overall quality of the game. It is qualitative, not quantitative. Some critical terms that are used to describe a game’s merits are challenge, characters, quality of gameplay, length, value, story and originality.
It has been said that any true art evokes an emotional response. Again, video games meet this criteria. Some have said that no game has ever made anyone cry; this is not true. It should be noted that crying over a movie is a rare emotion for most people. Most people do not feel genuine sadness when watching a typical film. That said, there have been a few games that have evoked such sadness. An example is Final Fantasy 7, when a love triangle’s subplot is resolved as a female love interest of the main protagonist is brutally murdered right in front of him. Another scene is in Shadow of the Colossus when your only ally in your entire quest, a horse named Agro, seemingly sacrifices his life to save yours. This is a deeply sad scene, as this event happens at the end of the game when the horse has become a loyal friend.
Of course, sadness is not the only emotion one feels when playing a game. Frustration is perhaps the most common of any emotion experienced while playing. If a game is unreasonably difficult, a gamer might shout in anger at the game. We personify games the same way we personify a chair when we hit one of our toes on it. Another emotion is relief; this is especially felt after completing a difficult portion of a game. A horror game like Resident Evil can evoke an emotion of fear, while a game like Tetris can give a feeling of euphoria at first, then an overwhelming feeling as your blocks stack near the top.
Video games have a narrative, visual and audile forms, and a critical vocabulary. Video games should be considered art as they draw influence from many other art forms. As writer and curator Clarke points out in Videogames and Art, “videogames compile all of the art world’s tools into one medium; drawing, painting, sculpting, design, architecture, creative writing, computer and video art and acting all come together to create videogames” (Clarke, Mitchell 205). This is a compelling reason to see video games as an art form, if it is nothing more than the sum of its parts. However, a video game by itself is a whole that should be considered art on its own merits for the one thing that sets games apart from other art forms: interactivity.
Works Cited:
Clarke, Andy, and Grethe Mitchell. Videogames and Art. Bristol, UK: Intellect, 2007.
Ebert, Roger. “Answer Man.” rogerebert.com. 2005. 28 May 2008 <http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN&date=20051127>.
Forster, E.M. “Art for Art’s Sake.” Conscious Reader. 10th ed. Eds. Shroder, Shugrue et. al. Boston: Pearson/Langman, 2006. 388-393.
Hebron, Sandra. “Michel Gondry – part two.” guardian.co.uk. 2007. The Guardian. 28 May 2008 <http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,2009757,00.html>.
Salen, Katie, and Eric Zimmerman. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.
Comments
Outsider Art?
...what used to attract me to videogames is that "homemade" quality. Old games really had more soul... even if they were quickly churned out to make a buck. Crazy subjects... weird stuff... quirky drawing styles. Ideas that made no sense whatsoever... Something in me responded to that stuff. Sadly modern games are made by committee of businessmen & filtered by market research... It's slick stuff alright, but it's just not the same, which i guess is why i can't get that excited anymore... You can't really call it art when the creative process has been hijacked by businessmen...
I don't want to get drawn
I don't want to get drawn into this, but can't resist making a few points. First off, what counts as "art" and what counts as "pulp" or whatever you want to call it--that's nothing intrinsic to the works in questions but only a matter of what certain empowered or recognized groups say that it's part of. In the art world, that amounts to a few camps of recognized schools of criticism. There are works produced specifically for these communities. Same for film. The ones that get picked apart at film festivals and the like aren't produced "for the masses" the way the typical blockbuster is. At any rate, the only criterion I really see at work is that these special works are made to be talked about and discussed as much as they are to be experienced. They are conversation pieces.
On the old argument that books stimulate more neurons or whatever because you have "to picture the words" and so on; that's been (to my mind, at least) debunked long ago. The old argument is that seeing the word "dog" forces you to use your imagination to picture a dog in your head, whereas if you see a picture of a dog you don't have to use your imagination at all. The problem is that whether you see the word "dog" or the picture, you still have to use your imagination to make any sense at all of what you're seeing. An image isn't passive; ask any art critic. You still have to do plenty of mental work to make sense of it, and probably think about dogs you've owned, seen, run over, etc.
In my opinion, watching a TV show for thirty minutes is no more or less mentally stimulating than reading a mass market paperback for the same amount of time, and I'd argue that watching an episode of The Prisoner is actually much better than, say, a Star Trek trade novel.
It's not surprising that
It's not surprising that video games are treated this way. It's a fledgling medium when compared to painting and film. It will take some time for this to change. In the present day, video games will for the most part be considered art based on the standards of a more traditional medium like film. It's not the same experience, but it's somewhat comparable as opposed to a sculpture that exists by itself. Like film, video games depend on many variables to complete the package, and are judged on the sum of their parts, not just the visuals or music alone. Eventually there will be a video game experience or perhaps a change in the vanguard of culture, and video games will finally be considered art, and then the video game community will set it's own definitions of what is art and what is not. Certainly both the film industry and the video game industry have more than their fair share of uninspired sequels. I totally agree with the previously commenter that there are a huge number of movies that do not make me "cultured, civilized and empathetic".
But I would love to see video games take more cues from the art world. Games that don't look hyper-realistic, but look like you are playing in a world that Picasso created. Q*Bert would have looked damned good cubist, it was already pretty darn close. I'm a little surprised that someone as creative as Gondry would pan video games, I think gaming could use more innovators like him, willing to take risks, and elevate the...well...art form.
I don't suppose there are public grants to make video games, as there are for other "arts". A starving artist making video games will starve that much longer. Whereas on the other hand those that typically bankroll are less concerned about art and beauty, because there's not always a direct relationship with profitability.
But video games will have their day in the museum, maybe not today, but eventually. Perhaps the "museum" or the "cinemas" themselves will change along with the video games, and provide a more compatible environment for the art form.
Consider IF and non-video games
First, I find it difficult to compare video games with Dada art as the former appears to be part of the mainstream while the latter is not, at least given the large number of people who play video games.
Second, in regards to the view that art that makes us "cultured" follows a "linear narrative," perhaps one can add that several works that do the same do not follow a "linear narrative." Examples include the various stories and epics of Asia. Also, we can argue that many computer games follow a "linear narrative." Some may branch out to different endings or allow players to have different scores but there is still cause-and-effect and specific outcomes given particular actions. In many ways, the most popular video games are nothing like films by David Lynch or Jackson Pollock's works. Finally, it is possible to have a work that is "deep and engaging" without having a "traditional narrative."
Third, about the claim that Gondry's definition of art is "old fashioned," what is a "fashionable" definition of art? If it is playing video games, what will happen if video games are usurped by another medium? Will viewing them as works of art be "old fashioned," too? And if it is "conceivable that The Sims have inspired people to take up architecture," then anything that inspires one to take up art can now be defined as useful. And since anything can now be defined as a work of art, the definition of art becomes irrelevant.
Fourth, about the argument that video games are works of art because they have "self-contained structures and internal orders," then anything with the same, ranging from a legal contract to a leaf, may now be defined as a work of art, too. In many ways, one will be hardpressed to argue which object isn't a work of art.
About distinctions between popular and fine art, is it possible that the latter can only be shown in galleries because there is only one copy of each work whereas hundreds of thousands of copies of video games can be made and played anywhere? Perhaps Walter Benjamin's essay might help.
The argument about narrative is difficult to prove given examples of works like Cortazar's *Hopscotch*. On top of that, what applies to video games may also apply to any form of play. This means nearly anything involving such can now be considered a work of art.
The statement about cut scenes is a better argument, as well as graphics and sounds, to argue that video games are works of art, but many ordinary objects or activities may also involve the absence of cut scenes or the presence of visual imagery.
About the statement that video games "[add] a bit of unpredictability to the user's actions," it is likely that all possible actions are programmed in the game and anything else can cause it to crash. And it might not matter if it's "one choice, a few choices, or hundreds of choices," it is still a limited number of choices set by the programmer through "rules". Of course, games can be hacked, but that can lead to various results.
In reference to a "critical vocabulary," many human activities involve the same.
I do not understand the need to argue that games are not always fun because "leveling" is involved, as one can, for example, cheat or modify characters. It is even possible that some will grow tired not only of leveling but also discovering that there is nothing more to do in this "open world," unless programmers are compelled to add (and probably even sell) more content. And that's sometimes based on the number of players who are still online and who are willing to pay for new content. And in the end, the game is "abandoned" and a new one is created. And sometimes, players will even argue that the new game is better than the last one.
Indeed, games can be scrutinized in the same way as works of art, but things that aren't considered works of art can be scrutinized, too.
Not just any "true art" but funny, sad, or frightening images or sounds can make people respond emotionally. But since one can do that using acts like telling a joke or screaming at others, then that makes almost anything a work of art.
In the end, it is not very helpful to argue that video games are (or aren't) works of art. Claims that they make people intelligent, that they contain narratives, structure, and visual and audio element, and that they improve motor skills are not helpful as the same can be said for reading, physical sports, or even playing board or card games. The best that can be said is this: video games are popular because the human brain is attracted to color, fast-moving images and loud sounds, and the same can be said about films. Literature, on the other hand, involves interactivity on a much higher level: the reader will have to create the images and sounds described in the work in his mind because all he has is the text. If any types of games can be seen in the same light, they would be interactive fiction with very few or almost no images and paper-and-pencil role playing games.
Great essay, David, I'm sure
Great essay, David, I'm sure it got you an A (I'm assuming this was for a class?) Otherwise, I'd try submitted this to Gameology.org, since I'm sure they'd like to see it.
I've always been intrigued by the supposed split between art and trash, or literature and pulp, or whatever sort of line in the sand you want to draw between stuff that's great versus stuff that's produced for the unwashed masses (high culture vs. pop culture). Ultimately, I think you can say that something is literature, art, or what-not, only when it exists more for the sake of enlightened talking about it rather than simply experiencing it. Visit a modern art museum and you'll see piece after piece that are actually quite mundane and required very little effort to produce. I'm thinking in particular of a "painting" I saw that was literally only a canvass that someone had painted black, and I think the title may have been "black" or "black mirror." Obviously, the value of something like that comes from the people who see it and talk about it, perhaps critically. It exists as part of a conversation being had by a certain class of people with certain interests, backgrounds, etc.
I've thought whether a person would be better off, say, reading Homer's Odyssey or seeing a production of it rather than watching Star Wars. Would a person be better off going to the opera rather than seeing a rock concert. I think it's really a question of which social class the person wants to fit into. If the goal is to seem more "cultured," that is, part of the elite, then obviously reading the Odyssey or going to the opera would be better choices. I might repeat, though, that a great deal of the pleasure (if any) that comes from such activities comes from talking about with similarly motivated people and being part of that conversation. People generally don't have very interesting conversations about, oh, Kung Fu Panda, because those themes are clear and the motives straightforward. It's a lot easier to talk about, oh, Godard's Weekend or Cellini's 8 1/2 simply because there is a certain "WTF" element to those films, and you have to struggle to understand what the director was trying to get across. Sometimes the thing they're trying to get across is specifically the paradox or futility of getting anything across, so it's sort of a snake eating its tail kind of thing.
I think we are seeing a "high culture" of gaming emerging already, particularly among the "game studies" community. They are clearly talking about games in the context of some very difficult theory culled from continental philosophy, so naturally that excludes almost everyone else who also happens to enjoy gaming. Naturally, the games they most like to talk about are the ones produced from within their own community, such as September 12th and some of the more self-consciously artsy type productions. One thing that's striking about these people is that they argue that games dont' need to be fun; indeed, the best ones are probably not fun at all, but do lead to interesting and difficult conversations.
Nice article David!
I tend to share your view and would like to see videogames as an art-form. But what hinders the 'video-games are art'-view is the fact that the games themselves are treated as 'throwaway consumptional experiences'. People spending money on them in the here and now is what counts for the industry, not people enjoying those games 10 years - or even longer- down the road. The consoles the games are played on are 'closed', proprietary media is often used and by this very nature - hardware failure / os incompatibility (when a pc is used) / activation servers dropping out of existence / scarcity of working units - the video-game-art will become less and less accessible and saving it for posterity is a daunting task.
Thank god this is not the case for regular art forms like literature, music and movies - although the latter might become just as inaccessible with all the download/pay per view schemes and companies deciding to change the DRM or just pulling out of a DRM scheme altogether. -> take a look at my 'DRM gives me a headache statement' from a couple of days ago on this website.
Today video games - although they could be considered an art form - are treated as expendable entertainment. Contemporary gamers don't seem to care but retro-gamers feel this pain and would like to see it differently. I have adopted warm feelings towards the 'emulation'-scene that is out there because their - often open source - software opens up the 'closed' nature of the video-game distribution and makes it possible to play the games on generic 'open' devices.
Take the original xbox for example. Microsoft has decided to pull-out of the original xbox the moment it started shipping the xbox 360. A month after the release no original xbox peripherals could be bought over here in Europe in general consumer electronic stores. Only specialized game shops continued to carry the hardware for a little while longer.
The xbox library is extensive and not all games will run on the 360 - or won't run well on the 360. This leaves out quite a few good games inaccessible to people without a working original xbox. Sony has adopted a similar backwards compatibility scheme with the ps3 being backwards compatible to ps1 and ps2 titles. Although compatibility with ps2 titles is varying and the latest ps3 is not backwards compatible with ps2 at all - because Sony was loosing money on contemporary ps3-game sales because people were still buying and playing ps2 titles. It is frighting to see how the games industry goes about with their own cultural legacy. Backwards compatibility is a way of preserving access to older games and doing it with software emulation is a good choice when you don't want to hinder the contemporary newer hardware with legacy stuff. At least Sony still is supporting the ps2 and people wanting to play ps2 can still get a slimline ps2 unit - until that will become economically uninteresting for Sony and ps2 games will become a thing of the past. Unless the pcsx2 emulator is catching up some speed and then you'll be able to play the ps2 games on a regular pc - just like it is possible to do with ps1 games on the latest epsx 1.7! Pop in the originial disk in the dvd-drive of your computer and you're up and away. The games industry has adopted emulation as well in a scheme that is economically viable for them.
Editor / Pixelator - Armchair Arcade, Inc.
www.markvergeer.nl
Roger Ebert
I have read the whole passage in the interview and I'm somewhat disappointed of the limited view he demonstrates.
His view is so incredibly backwards that I'm really surprised that this is actually coming from him. I would have expected some conservative puritan to argue in such a way but one never learns out, I guess.
I read many of his movie reviews and always thought that he had an open mind - especially compared to other film critics.
And no I won't defend each and every game out there as being art - lots of them clearly aren't - but this is equally true for most films.
But I certainly can say that the Russ Mayer movies he authored didn't make me more "cultured, civilized and empathetic".
take care,
Calibrator