Video Games: An Artform for the New Millennium

For years now there has been a new form of entertainment in the world. We've all heard of it, many of us are a part of it... but it's still not considered an art form... When it comes to videogames, should the creation and the end product be seen as art on the same level as movies and television?

My work with the game development community might discredit me to some, but I argue that the only reason people consider movies and such art is because they know what goes into the making. There are still people I know that think making a game is just sitting down behind a computer screen and coding with no real creativity. They think the storylines are formulaic and poorly written, or that they aren't art because, as Roger Ebert claimed in 2005:

"...Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control."
Source

I know I'm taking on a big personality, but is this statement completely true?

Something like Cirque du Soleil where the audience feel part of the show and the experience, or a music concert where the fans contribute just as much to the energy and buzz shouldn't be considered art or forms of art by his definition. Should the very act of making the character move a few pixels to the left or right preclude something being art? It's reaching into the screen and changing what happens in the movie, but the presentation, story, music, acting, etc. should all still make up for a slight change in scenery due to a joystick.

It should be noted that games are not easy to make by any stretch of the imagination, most games these days take at least 12 months of consistent effort by hundreds of people working towards a common goal. The industry strives to push the technical envelope constantly using the latest and greatest hardware in each console making the pictures prettier, the sound more realistic, and the art style grittier and more realistic. I like graphical and auditory bells and whistles as much as the next person, but pretty pictures do not make the game a piece of art. It just makes it pretty.

Art has to be about the artist and the audience completely. You can't have art without either one. Collectively books are an artform to the majority of people, and yet even books have dabbled with interactive storylines with Choose Your Own Adventure books. If we want to argue that games aren't an artform neither are those books, and yet they are in libraries, schools, and private collections all around the world.

What I feel Mr. Ebert forgets is that even when a player is controlling what is on screen the game designers and developers still have control. Games are not an infinite experience, there are limits, rules and such. There is authorial control, it just doesn't have as rigid a structure always. Surly a realtime rendition of two people watching a sunset can be just as moving and emotional and awe inspiring as a painting or a movie.

In the end, art should really be about the creativity involved, and that is something gaming has in spades.