Art is a form which is protected as free expression. Because of this, the extent to which videogames can be considered 'art' (and, by implication, protected as such) is something which has been commented on a great deal. In 1999, Edge stated that they could not be seen as art because of the element of choice involved on playing a game - that "The primary interaction when playing a game is not between the emotional and spiritual themes of the game, but with manipulation of onscreen objects." If this argument is taken as true - that videogames are not art because they concern choice - what does this choice mean about games as a form?
This is concerned with the fact that playing a game is necessarily a choice in itself. It is possible to consume art passively - to take a trite example, many paintings are so familiar we can look at them without thinking about, or reacting to them. By contrast, any game (video or otherwise) must actively engage the user mentally and physically. The player has to respond in order to experience the game; they are involved in the form itself far more directly than with any other medium. Furthermore, in the case of many videogames as well as RPGs, the player will have to create a character. When this happens, the involvement is taken to yet another level - the aim of the game is not just to win, but to win as a certain character. The engagement is not just with an abstract problem, but with something within that abstract problem.
It could be argued on these grounds that this "manipulation of onscreen objects" does have the capacity to involve the player emotionally: whether or not it si to be considered art on these grounds is not the issue at stake. The fact that this involvement happens in the context of a game is interesting. In board games, the pieces on a board are not personified. If, in chess, another player takes one of your pieces, the response is not for the piece itself, but for the game as a whole: what does this mean for the strategy I had planned? In a game in which the player takes a role, all that happens, happens to a character - meaning that as well as strategy, and the player's response through the character they have developed is considered. This degree of (if not emotional involvement) immersion raises the game above the level of an abstract problem, meaning that the game is a space in which players can make meaningful choices about that space. It could be posited that this should afford videogames the protection which art enjoys.
(Obviously this raises other issues, particularly how we are to consider RPGs within this schema. It also (again obviously) requires more argument.)
Posted by alexandra at December 4, 2003 01:48 PM