"What's in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet."

- Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

Roger Ebert recently posted an essay stating his belief that videos game can never be art as a rebuttal to Kellee Santiago's TED talk. (1)The response to this has created an uproar among the gaming community. Ebert has caused many people to bluntly ridicule him for this thoughts, and too few are actually analyzing what he is saying and trying to further their understanding video games as a whole and their uniqueness in the field of art.

One very recent game that really complicates the entire process of video games being art is Heavy Rain.

And here is why Heavy Rain is vital to this discussion: Heavy Rain is a game that destroys any previous ideas of what games are and can do. It is difficult to talk about Heavy Rain without doubting its existence as a game, and when you attempt to explain it to anyone who has never heard of it before its gaming qualities are almost completely removed.

"What is Heavy Rain?"

"It's a game in which you control several characters."

"And?"

"Well, that's about it."

"Really? Can you shoot things? Do you have an inventory?"

"You can shoot things during certain scenes, but as the player you can't choose when. There's also no inventory or leveling up. Heck, there's no health bar or status of any type and no game over screen."

"Then what is it?"

"I don't really know..."

Obviously the conversation above is slightly hyperbolic, but the point still remains: Heavy Rain completely throws away many modern gaming conventions. (Even more than it's stylistic older brother Indigo Prophecy or Fahrenheit, as it is called in some places.) Heavy Rain's largest most glaring disregard for video game norms is its lack of a fail state. There is no failing or losing in Heavy Rain. You will always continue until the story ends despite characters dying.

Which brings me to this quote from Ebert's essay:

"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them."

Many gamers argue that Heavy Rain is not a game and that it is a movie more than anything; they like to use the term "interactive drama" to describe it instead. However, I find that calling Heavy Rain a move is the same as saying that navigating a DVD menu to watch a movie makes it a game. Nobody would ever call Xenosaga Episode 1: Der Wille zur Macht a movie, and it's possible that the total amount of non-interactive cutscenes in Xenosaga is longer than one play through of Heavy Rain. What makes Heavy Rain really that much different from other video games? Just because it is different and unprecedented does not mean it is not a game. It is a unique experience, but that is because whenever we wash our hands in Heavy Rain we would be sniping an enemy in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, whenever we drink whiskey, we would be eviscerating enemies in God of War, and whenever we are feeding our son we would be jumping from platform to platform in Drake's Uncharted. The interactivity of video games is there, but it is just not what we are used to. We should not patronize or elevate Heavy Rain because of its unique approach to gaming because inherently it really is not different.

I also call into question Ebert's use of the word "win" in the previous quote. When was the last time you talked to someone about a non-multiplayer game you played and used the terms "win" or lose? I honestly do not think I have ever used that terminology. Instead, I would say that I beat the game or that I died. Beat meaning that I overcame great odds in the face of great opposition and died meaning that I was not able to traverse my avatar's world. We are using words with such great meaning beyond winning and losing because games are no longer just about those characteristics; video games have grown to encompass death and life as a general consensus of success or failure.

Did you read any choose your own adventure book when you were younger? If you didn't, choose your own adventure books were stories that after a couple of pages you would be given a choice, and depending on your choice, the book would tell you to turn to a certain page. (Example: Jimmy found a wallet on the ground. Does Jimmy take the money [p. 2] or try and return it [p.3]?) These adventure books do not follow the conventional structure or form that almost all other books possess, but does that make them any less of a book? Are they any less artful? Does their varying story arcs, different denouement, and characters make them a less valid art form? I would argue no. They are written and planned just like any other book, but sometimes you need to turn ahead 100 pages to get to the next part of the story. Heavy Rain is a virtual version of a choose your own adventure book, but instead of just reading what is going on, you are seeing and hearing it! If choose your own adventure books are art, then Heavy Rain is art.

But some might argue that choose your own adventure books are not art. To a point they are correct. When was the last time a choose your own adventure book was critically hailed and any top seller list? When was the last time one was studied in school because of its amazing **** craftsmanship, and symbolism? I cannot think of any. The link between Heavy Rain and choose your own adventure books does nothing to prove that video games are art if the that genre of books' credentials are questionable.

Even so, is Heavy Rain great enough to be considered art itself? I would say that is not. It is so incredibly innovative and accomplished so many things that many video games wishes they could at least mimic, but the game itself has so many questionable and bad moments that it at times ceases to be great. For every time I almost cried at a touching scene, forced to pause the game for thirty minutes because I felt so horrible for accidently shooting and killing a character, or became so absorbed into a specific action sequence I felt that I was fighting for my own life there are is another moment with horrible voice acted lines, glitches that stop music from playing or characters from moving, or possible the worst animated sex scene I have ever witnessed. Heavy Rain has major faults that deny it to be true art, and I am most certain Ebert would agree.

So, what would I present to Ebert in favor of the argument of video game art? Silent Hill 2.

Silent Hill 2 is a game in which the protagonist, James Sunderland, received a letter from his wife who died three years ago. In her letter she tells him that she is waiting in their special place, Silent Hill. He comes to the town to find her. During his journey through the town, he meets up Angela and Eddie; Angela came to the town to find her mother, and Eddie came to Silent Hill because he is running from his past. The town of Silent Hill calls people to it that have sinned and need to repent and is the ultimate judge. As you play Silent Hill 2, the player discovers Angela was drawn here because as a child, she was raped by her father and recently murdered him. Eddie has been tormented by bullies his entire life and was called here because he finally retaliated by shooting people that laugh at him. At the story's climax the player discover s James's sin: he smothered his wife to end her horrible illness that has been tormenting her for years.

Obviously, the scenarios above are complex and complicated, and the juxtaposition of the m forces the player to rethink about their own morals. Why do I feel that Angela's murder is more justifiable than Eddie's when his mental and physical torment is arguably just as bad if not worse than hers? Do I feel James acted correctly, and would I be able to do what he did in his situation? The game poses these questions in an underlying narrative that is not necessarily stated but implied. You have to play Silent Hill 2 critically to get meaning from it.

That is why I would argue Silent Hill 2 is art. In school you are taught to read certain texts critically, to watch a movie critically, and to listen to music critically. You need to pay attention critically. I believe art is something that necessitates multiple readings, viewings, listens, and play throughs to fully understand what the piece is saying. Art should complicate or solve aspects of your own questions, opinions, and thoughts. Art should be an experience.

Adam Sessler said in a recent soapbox of his (?) that he does not think video games can be art because he believes , "That art needs to be somewhat static." He argues that the product needs to be the same thing for each person that experiences it. I would like to tell him that every single person who play Silent Hill 2 experience the same exact product, but that is not his point. I believe Sessler is arguing that one player in Silent Hill 2 might just blow right through the game and another player might explore every single crevice of every single building, and in that moment Silent Hill 2 is no longer static because one player might have gotten much more from the game than the other. However, using his wording, I would have to argue that no art is static because nobody ever has the same experience with it. This past summer, I saw Up in theatres. I thought it was a pretty great movie and nothing more. A month later I got into a car accident and was forced to take a semester off of school to go to physical therapy and to recover. Then I saw Up again.

And it was the same exact movie I saw seven or eight months before, but it meant so much more to me the second viewing. I literally could not stop crying because the film made me so happy because of how I was able to relate to it now. What happened since the previous viewing gave me the tools to experience the film in another more meaningful way. My second viewing does not invalidate the first viewing, it is just a different experience with the same static product. Every single play through of Silent Hill 2 is a completely different experience for me, and yes, it has a lot to do with the medium, but I do not think the ease of different experiences is a detriment to the art form, and if anything, I believe it adds to it.

To some people Heavy Rain may or not be art, and some might think it is not even really a video game. To some people, Silent Hill 2 is a devastating emotional atmospheric experience and to others it is an unplayable boring game. Whatever your opinion is, you must acknowledge that things are changing. The implication of Heavy Rain's success can lead to better and more game in its ****or will allow an exploration of what can be done in video games. Ebert allows that in the future video games may eventually become art, but that it is not there yet. The discussion of what is art is different to each person, but I think this quote summarizes that art argument perfectly:

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet."

- Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

Sources:

(1) "Video Games can Never be Art": http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

(2) Sessler's Soapbox: http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/704081/sesslers-soapbox-adam-vs-ebert---can-video-games-be-art.html