Response to an Ebert quote regarding video games as a (potential) form of art

This was my response to a post on a message board containing an Ebert quote about whether or not video games could be classified as art. The board has a character limit on posts, so it's not quite essay-length, but I felt it worth archiving regardless. The quote and my response are as follows:

"To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic." --Roger Ebert

It's arguably true that there is no "game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers." That doesn't necessarily invalidate the whole medium; it took a while for film to come into its own, and it took painting a LONG time to become anything more than simplistic depictions of the hunt, which, historical relevance aside, are really no deeper than an Atari 2600 game--because that was as deep as they /could/ be back then.

So if we hope to eventually see a "game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers," what do we do? Simple: just let it happen. The best art is rarely born of people deliberately setting out to make something "deep and artistic"; such an approach results in games like Gone Home, which often feel quite ham-fisted and forced (not to mention that their statement is essentially "video games can be art, but only the non-game parts, and in order to be art, they have to have the video game parts subdued and de-emphasized"). Rather, it's simply people creating what they feel, with no ulterior motive or pretense; even the best of avant-garde tends to be like a stream of consciousness, or failing that it is no forced attempt to deliver a message in a weird or bizarre way, it's just that a weird and bizarre delivery came naturally, because the artist is a weird and bizarre person. If video games are anything like those other media that Ebert named (which they are), then they WILL follow the same course, and they WILL produce a game worthy of comparison to the greats thereof.

And, being on a board dedicated to retro vidya and all, that's not to say that there's no profundity to the simpler games of yesteryear. I would say that DOOM is a powerful statement on the human condition?the same "ultra-violence" approach has been used in many a lauded film. Eastern Mind is just Eastern Mind. Then if you think creatively, plenty of very early and seemingly "too simplistic" stuff has value as well. Sure, it's less story-focused and fleshed-out than what followed it, but that doesn't make the original 8-bit Metal Gear any less poignant. Even if the game ultimately boils down to "sneak in to the base and beat the bad guy (which was all that Big Boss was meant to be at that point)," humor me and ask yourself some questions: What does Outer Heaven represent to Snake? Consider him as a psychonaut; think of him as the ego, perhaps with his infiltration mission as an exploration of his own consciousness. What does it all mean? What is the significance of his various discoveries, from this perspective? Any other 8-bit '80s game could be viewed the same way if you dare to really analyze. If De Stijl and Brutalism can be considered landmark movements in art, then the brute simplicity of pre-1990 vidyer certainly can be as well.