Alt-Tab: Don't Try Suicide...

[Tom Chick]

Games have no place trying to make social or political commentary. That's the business of things like "The Daily Show," art, and the first four episodes of last year's "Battlestar Galactica." (http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/813/813168p1.html)

[marxeil]

From dictionary.com:
Game: an amusement or pastime.
Art: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

[Deadron]

I dunno, I think social commentary is one potential element, like any other.

However, after watching the second in the "Masters of Science Fiction" series and being the recipient of the incredible not-even-thinly-veiled hammering upon my skull, I did want to go shoot myself like kids in a JRPG, so perhaps TV shows shouldn't be allowed to have social commentary.

[Quaro]

I think you missed the smiley face at the end of the article.

[Dirt]

I thought video games were art?

[Chuck Jordan]

I think you missed the smiley face at the end of the article.
Did we? I've seen so many smart-ass comments disguised as BS-free anti-intellectualism whenever you try to talk about games as art, I'd gotten the impression we weren't supposed to care anymore that videogames are still mostly pretty moronic and cliched.

I'll be glad when the 90s are finally over once and for all, and we can all just go back to liking things or not liking them, and say what we mean.

OR WILL I?

[Gordon Cameron]

Tom wrote something almost complimentary about Roger Ebert.

Woo!

[Gordon Cameron]

Just make with the fun and we'll get along fine.

*gasp*

[caesarbear]

The only thing we need is motel art.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Tom wrote something almost complimentary about Roger Ebert.

Yeah, but Alt-Tab's trademark is turning out to be wall-to-wall sarcasm.

[Mike Hussey]

Nothing exists in isolation. Any game that tries to simulate some form of reality makes social and cultural assumptions, whether it's the Civics sytem in Civ 4 or jokes about Starbucks in WoW. The thing is that if these assumptions are shared by most of the players, no-ne really notices, it's when a game makes assumptions that are not shared by the audience that it becomes noticeable.

If people want games rhat avoid tthese sort of things, they should stick to playing abstract games like Tetris, and even that makes the assumption that 'winning is good'. There's an old story about a missionary teaching a primitive tribe to play soccer, but the players wouldn't stop playing until both sides had scored the same number of goals as any other outcome would be 'unfair'.

[MatthewF]

Most of that article was supposed to be satirical/sarcastic, I think. I mean shit, shooting dogs in Resident Evil might just make you think about real people who abuse dogs! There's a ton of things in every different game that might qualify as a replacement for Tom's Persona 3 example.

[MatthewF]

If people want games rhat avoid tthese sort of things, they should stick to playing abstract games like Tetris, and even that makes the assumption that 'winning is good'. There's an old story about a missionary teaching a primitive tribe to play soccer, but the players wouldn't stop playing until both sides had scored the same number of goals as any other outcome would be 'unfair'.

I thought the assumption in Tetris was that winning was futile, since you can't ever win.

[Matthew Gallant]

Tom, I would have gone with a Heathers reference over Queen. And that's saying something.

[Khelavaster]

Most of that article was supposed to be satirical/sarcastic, I think. I mean shit, shooting dogs in Resident Evil might just make you think about real people who abuse dogs!
But RE isn't using that to illustrate any point.
Besides I'm sure they're demonic dogs. Those are the worst kind.

[forgeforsaken]

Games are not art, but then movies and photography are not art either. At their core these things as a collective are not Art, and this is what Ebert misses I think, but a movie, a photograph, and even a game can be art.

[mystery]

Don't Try Suicide...

Thanks, I'll go put on Queen's The Game, now.

[grinningman]

Luckily, not everyone (http://www.globalconflicts.eu/) agrees that games shouldn't be concerned with social commentary.

The article reminds of the Simpsons line - 'Are you being sarcastic?' 'I don't know anymore...'

[Charles]

So does this mean as our society moves more towards a dystopia, dystopia-based games become unpalatable to you Tom?

:)

[Ben Sones]

It seemed partly tongue-in-cheek to me. I thought the line about how games should just be concerned with fun was sort of a giveaway.

[Charles]

It seemed partly tongue-in-cheek to me. I thought the line about how games should just be concerned with fun was sort of a giveaway.

Well, that's pretty obvious simply because he attributes the ability to do such things to BSG.

[Kunikos]

I thought video games were art?

There's such thing as shitty art, though. I mean, if movies are art, then what is Death Race 2000?

[FIDGAF]

Hmm, I thought he didn't want to have to explain anything. Just Scrote 'em Tom.

[unbongwah]

Games have no place trying to make social or political commentary.
Someone should've told Elizabeth Magie that a century ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game).

I thought the assumption in Tetris was that winning was futile, since you can't ever win.
There's something distinctly Russian about that, I thought.

[MatthewF]

But RE isn't using that to illustrate any point.
Besides I'm sure they're demonic dogs. Those are the worst kind.

Neither is Persona 3 using killing yourself to illustrate a point. It's just a very odd piece of its battle system. Hell, the people in it don't even die when they shoot themselves. Now if we were talking something like Super Columbine RPG, that's definitely a piece of social commentary.

[Drastic]

Have any negative reviews of Persona 3 used the byline "Suicide is not painless" yet?

[Mike Hussey]

I thought the assumption in Tetris was that winning was futile, since you can't ever win.

Yes, I was wrong to exclude Tetris. Tetris is cleearly a subtle comment on the bleakness of of life in the Soviet Union.

[JPR]

Neither is Persona 3 using killing yourself to illustrate a point

I don't think you have the basis to make that assertion. Demonic dogs attacking you in video games is a pretty standard convention. I don't think game developers are making a statement about the dangers of technology when I have to shoot robots in their game, for instance.

School children only being able to affect the world around them by closing their lips around a gun is a different story.

It's probably just a meaningless image that somebody thought would be kind of cool, but you don't know it's not supposed to be more than that.

[MatthewF]

So it's not social commentary if it's a standard convention? The point is, you can pick just about anything out of any game and think it has deeper meaning, and even if it does, there's no way of knowing unless it's blatantly obvious. I honestly think the suicide mechanic in Persona 3 is just meant to be a quirky piece of its battle system. And honestly, how often is suicide used a way to affect the world around you? Most suicides revolve around desperation and a means of escape. Suicide bombings and Columbine-style suicides are a different story.

[Kyle Wilson]

I think you meant thesuperficial.com, not superficial.com.

[Drastic]

You could also probably make some sort of strained thesis about suicide imagery being of particular significance (of whatever) in Japanese media. I'm saying this based purely off of once watching a Japanese flick entitled "Suicide Club", which features one hell of an opening scene of a bunch of schoolkids in a subway platform...who are apparently performing some powerful magic.

[Adam B]

It's probably just a meaningless image that somebody thought would be kind of cool, but you don't know it's not supposed to be more than that.
But as long as it has symbolic, abstract, or layered meanings to the viewer, it qualifies as "art", no?

Eh, whatever. I despise all of the rhetoric about whether games are art or not. We're just arguing semantics anyway.

Also, Ebert is a tool when it comes to games. I don't pretend to know the difference in style or technical aptitude between directors and studios etc, and I'd appreciate if he'd stop with the mouth-running on subjects he knows jack-all about.

[JPR]

You could also probably make some sort of strained thesis about suicide imagery being of particular significance (of whatever) in Japanese media. I'm saying this based purely off of once watching a Japanese flick entitled "Suicide Club", which features one hell of an opening scene of a bunch of schoolkids in a subway platform...who are apparently performing some powerful magic.

There's always that Happy Birthday image, too. I'm assuming someone has it handy.

[Acosta]

Frankly, the "suicide" in Persona 3 looks more like a powerful image for summoning your Persona that other thing.

Books and films are allowed to have serious and entertainment works, don´t see why videogames shouldn´t, given there is not a inner limitation on the medium.

Bioshock is a better game because is not afraid to talk about society, moral and human nature, apart of having great gameplay mechanics.

[JPR]

But as long as it has symbolic, abstract, or layered meanings to the viewer, it qualifies as "art", no?


I would say no, but I also despise all rhetoric about whether games are art or not, so let's not discuss it.

In my earlier post, though, I wasn't talking about art, I was talking about social commentary. I draw a distinction there.

[deepruntramp]

The article reminds of the Simpsons line - 'Are you being sarcastic?' 'I don't know anymore...'
I agree with a refinement: This article is a delicately-crafted troll. No matter where you stand on the games are for art/fun/social commentary gradient, you'll find something incensing. I think Tom just wanted to stir the pot.

[Dean]

Have any of you tried the games from Bogost's company (http://persuasivegames.com/)? He's also got a deal with the NY Times to do games for their subscribers as part of the online editorial page.

The thing about the games... they're not fun. They're not what we would consider "good" games. You play one for five minutes or so, get "what it's trying to say" then never want to go back to it again. It's an interactive editorial, not a game (at least to me), and that's where I think they fail. As much as I hate the word "compelling" when it comes to games, it really does capture what I want most out of a game-- that is, when I'm not playing the game, I'm thinking about it. I'm working out ways to approach problems in-game, or sitting on gaming boards talking about the game, or looking up information about the game that has appeared in various other media.

And the persuasive games, and serious games movement don't get that. They say, "Every game doesn't have to be fun, just like every movies doesn't have to be fun. You can go see a Bergman movie and never crack a smile, yet no one would deny that a Bergman movie is worth the time it takes to experience."

(Okay straw man there, but I've heard that very argument from Ian B. himself.)

The thing about a "non-fun" film is that it is compelling. It sticks with you, and you think about it, and argue about it in the bar afterwards, and maybe go look up the Pauline Kael review, if it was from that time.

So perhaps games don't have to be fun, but they have to grab you and keep you coming back. Bogost's games are the equivalent of editorial cartoons that you have to stare at for five minutes before you get them, then you toss them, because it would've been so much easier just to tell me your point.

[rrmorton]

http://www.yourdailymedia.com/i/u/Gn174cTH.jpg

try, try again
head first this time
jump right in!

[Wobbo]

I thought video games were art?
Videogames are art, but they are not literature. The difference is crucial to understanding Tom's article and I agree wholeheartedly.

Unless it really was sarcasm, in which case ... Sh1T B0N3RZ!!!!11

[Dean]

Are you saying Tom stirred my pot?

Because I'm not sure I like how that sounds.

[Machfive]

Tom must be having an incredible laugh at all the people who think he's really advocating that games stay away from serious topics.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Tom must be having an incredible laugh at all the people who think he's really advocating that games stay away from serious topics.

Yeah, this is why there are laugh tracks on TV.

Troy

[Mordrak]

Nice article. So is this going to be regularly opposite editorials? And they took out crosses from Disgaea? How lame!

[Squirrel Killer]

Luckily, not everyone (http://www.globalconflicts.eu/) agrees that games shouldn't be concerned with social commentary.

The article reminds of the Simpsons line - 'Are you being sarcastic?' 'I don't know anymore...'
Your grin is Borat.

"If I want social commentary, I'll watch "Sicko" or "The View" or go to Superficial.com."

Come on!

[AaronSofaer]

This was possibly the best-crafted troll I have seen.

[FIDGAF]

I think we should all kill ourselves to show our support of the Video Game Industry...
Wait, whoa, where'd that voice come from? It must be all that advertising in our games.

[Acosta]

My sarcasm detector is broken it seems, I should know better.

[grinningman]

Your grin is Borat.

"If I want social commentary, I'll watch "Sicko" or "The View" or go to Superficial.com."

Come on!

It wouldn't be the first time something has gone over my head.

Then again, if the alternative is school students shooting themselves in the head being presented as a clear example of social commentary in games, I think I prefer ambiguous sarcasm.

[Deadron]

Tom is a meanie.

[Jasper Phillips]

I'm all for games being art, having social commentary, etc. But give me a break, Persona 3? That's not exactly the sort of deep thinking that I'd hold up to champion the cause. It's just lame and pretentious, like bad teeny-bop anime.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2007/20070808.jpg

Or maybe Tom's sarcasm is meant to have many layers, and I've been trolled too. In which case, [golf clap] Bravo Tom! ;-)

[Ryan A]

You all are retarded if you think this article was written in earnest. Which is why games journalism will never be real journalism... the audience generally sucks.

[Aeek]

assumptions are shared by most of the players, no-ne really notices, it's when a game makes assumptions that are not shared by the audience that it becomes noticeable.


Depends. One of my many favourite authors wrote space opera featuring an unreconstructed hero in a feminist universe. The assumptions were always there but far in the background. Subversive Fiction.

[Aeon221]

Here I thought this was going to be a post about how some games crash when you try to alt tab.

You heard me Oblivion! I can't play you at work if you don't work with me!

[grinningman]

I read it again, and it's clearly heavily tongue in cheek.

I still don't know what it's trying to say, though. It implies Persona 3 is an example of art/social commentary/whatever, in that it makes Tom think about teen suicide. I think it also implies that Shock Force is another example because it deals with an Iraq-like situation (but the final 'serves as effective escapism' line suggests it doesn't suceed, because Tom can enjoy it without arty/real world references impinging. Unless it's another layer of sarcasm...)

It seems to me that Tom is setting up a straw man argument that 'games don't even reference social and political issues', and then using trivial examples to show it's wrong. But that's not very interesting. I would guess (haven't played them) that neither Persona 3 nor Shock Force explore the social issues of teen suicide or an Iraq-like war in any kind of useful or interesting way.

The bit about the guy on the Colbert report is clearly heavy sarcasm. But the last paragraph about Tom wanting games only to be fun, that sounded like it was coming straight from the heart :)

[KieronGillen]

I think Tom requires to be even more sarcastic.

KG

[Deadron]

The ways of Tom are not for us to know.

[Khelavaster]

Oooh I see the genius of this. The article is cleverly designed to please every reader! Just assume it's sarcastic -- or not.

[deepruntramp]

I'm all for games being art, having social commentary, etc. But give me a break, Persona 3? That's not exactly the sort of deep thinking that I'd hold up to champion the cause. It's just lame and pretentious, like bad teeny-bop anime.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2007/20070808.jpg

Or maybe Tom's sarcasm is meant to have many layers, and I've been trolled too. In which case, [golf clap] Bravo Tom! ;-)
Have you played the game? No? Then you're a racist.

[deepruntramp]

You all are retarded if you think this article was written in earnest. Which is why games journalism will never be real journalism... the audience generally sucks.
To be fair, the writing isn't helping in this case.

[wumpus]

Yeah, but suicide is painless. It brings on many changes.

[Tom Chick]

This thread has kind of run its course, but just to elaborate a bit:

My point, admittedly buried, is that I find it curious that games as a form of entertainment don't have the capacity to address social and political issues the way movies, television, and music do. The goofy suicides in Persona 3 and the horrible insurgent gameplay in Shock Force are pretty much the limit of what I've seen lately. If you really wanted to stretch it, you could point to things like Civ's treatment of religions, or The Sims model for life as a system.

I really respected what the Battlestar Galactica arc was doing at the beginning of last season, even if it was a bit heavy handed. The writers obviously felt strongly about the invasion of Iraq, and they wanted to use their show as a platform to address those feelings. Where is that in gaming?

There are, I realize, a number of reasons games can't and/or don't do this. And the games that do try to do this end up being like Bogost dry preachy stuff, which aren't games so much as experiments. The lack of this sort of socially or politically relevant content in games is yet another signifier that whatever games are -- art, commerce, entertainment, product -- they're still very young, very juvenile, and very far away from the potential social impact of other forms of entertainment.

-Tom

[Khelavaster]

Haven't seen Galactica, but I find that when the reference to RL events is too obvious or direct (especially in fictional or removed settings) it completely ruins the experience for me.

Like seeing the puppeteer's hand. Or hearing beloved Obi-Wan taking a dig against republicans a long, long time in a galaxy far, far away.

Somehow stances in games seem to come across as even more juvenile, forced or preachy. I'm looking at you, Dreamfall.

[Deadron]

It's great when such reference to RL events take into account the complexities and subtleties of the situation and provide you with a nuanced view that furthers your understanding of both sides -- oh wait.

[RobotPants]

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet because the search won't accept "IGN", but they now have a feature called Alt-tab. (http://pc.ign.com/articles/816/816859p1.html) You should sue, Tom.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Don't they all own each other anyway?

[Chamot]

This thread has kind of run its course, but just to elaborate a bit:

My point, admittedly buried, is that I find it curious that games as a form of entertainment don't have the capacity to address social and political issues the way movies, television, and music do. The goofy suicides in Persona 3 and the horrible insurgent gameplay in Shock Force are pretty much the limit of what I've seen lately. If you really wanted to stretch it, you could point to things like Civ's treatment of religions, or The Sims model for life as a system.

I really respected what the Battlestar Galactica arc was doing at the beginning of last season, even if it was a bit heavy handed. The writers obviously felt strongly about the invasion of Iraq, and they wanted to use their show as a platform to address those feelings. Where is that in gaming?

There are, I realize, a number of reasons games can't and/or don't do this. And the games that do try to do this end up being like Bogost dry preachy stuff, which aren't games so much as experiments. The lack of this sort of socially or politically relevant content in games is yet another signifier that whatever games are -- art, commerce, entertainment, product -- they're still very young, very juvenile, and very far away from the potential social impact of other forms of entertainment.

-Tom

I've been thinking on this issue over and over since the threads on Ebert, games as art discussions etc. and I've come to the conclusion that this has to the with the approach of historical development of the medium - games are, after all development of toy guns and chess. In my opinion, the debate on game violence is actually kind of ironic as the reason for how developed shooters stems from the fact that 'pretend violence' is the accepted form of play for kids (boys, more specifically), and games have evolved themselves along this socially accepted path. Of course now that the visuals and environment/object interaction have become noticeably realistic and potentially disturbing for non-gamers, it's become an unavoidable issue for the people who thought them to be toys only.

On the other hand, I believe there are examples to social commentary in popular games, most significant of which is probably GTA3 as a harsh critique of 'The American Way' and its caricature of the American urban space with its fragmented society, rampant consumerism and corruption.

There are also other examples I can think of like DEFCON (30 years late but still), or the old Conflict: Middle East game where you ran the office of the Israeli prime minister; these are both enjoyable games with more developed expressive qualities than average for the medium. Obviously they are still simplistic compared to other mediums in this respect.

[Tom Chick]

That's actually an excellent point, Chamot. I love the idea of GTA as social commentary, and Rockstar certainly gets their licks in. I agree entirely with your point about the visuals and environments upstaging it all. Their sly humor is all but swallowed up in the sheer mountain of gameplay you get in those games. It's almost as if GTA simply is too big for its own message!

(And DEFCON -- good call! -- is another brilliant example of fiendishly clever social commentary. It is the Dr. Strangelove of videogames!)

What really kick-started the chain of thought that led to that column wasn't any of the games I actually mention (Persona and Combat Mission: Shock Force are, after all, very glib games), but seeing a demo of BioShock and listening to Ken Levine talk about it.

It's guys like him and Harvey Smith and Will Wright who, I think, have the potential to bring gaming into a new way of communicating messages, and hopefully a new sense of responsibility for what those messages are. Unfortunately, it seems to me Harvey has been swallowed up by Midway too much to get his voice out there (I hope I'm wrong), and Will Wright has peaked with The Sims, which is more a commercial juggernaut than an outlet for design expression (I would love to see a Sims type game set on a base in Baghdad, for example, as a way other than another fucking shooter of making people think about the situation of our soldiers overseas).

And while I wouldn't say there was a lot of relevant social commentary in BioShock, I would say it's one of the most brilliant examples of how you can use ideas in videogames without compromising the gameplay (a la Bogost's games, for example).

-Tom

[Charles]

I personally think that the reason why games don't tend to put forth much commentary on current events is simply due to the time required to make them. If you were to make a full production game about the Iraq war criticizing the entire thing, and it takes four years to make, and by the time it's released the US has a new president and is out of Iraq, and no one talks about it anymore... then it would probably be received with a lukewarm "Don't you think you are a little late?" kind of response.

Social commentary as a whole is one thing; as our society isn't likely to change state drastically in a period of four years. But political commentary is harder due to the applicable time spans.

[Andrew Mayer]

Social commentary as a whole is one thing; as our society isn't likely to change state drastically in a period of four years. But political commentary is harder due to the applicable time spans.

Well, except that the best examples of creative commentary often appear after the events they describe. Although MASH did a great job of commenting on a current war by commenting on a previous one.

[Tom Chick]

Charles, I see your point, but "commentary on current events" isn't the same thing as political or social commentary.

As for the war in Iraq, I think it's influence on videogames is clear. What isn't clear, however, is any sort of opinion on the war in Iraq, because it simply doesn't exist in games the way it does in entertainment like movies, television, and music. Games are mostly toys for the time being, which is why I'm mostly sympathetic to the point Roger Ebert is fumbling towards. :)

-Tom

[Mordrak]

As for the war in Iraq, I think it's influence on videogames is clear. What isn't clear, however, is any sort of opinion on the war in Iraq, because it simply doesn't exist in games the way it does in entertainment like movies, television, and music. Games are mostly toys for the time being, which is why I'm mostly sympathetic to the point Roger Ebert is fumbling towards. :)

Is there such a thing as a non-opinion? Toys reflect* the culture they are made in and since they are meant to be sold, they glorify those aspects that they reflect. In the same way, whatever influence Iraq has had on videogames that is reflected in them is their opinion.

*I use reflect loosely, because any reflection is going to be filtered by someone or a group of people who make the end product.

Edit: Way to totally miss your point on my part, you aren't saying there is no opinion, just that whatever opinion isn't as explicit and, well, intentional for lack of a better word as other media. I guess another way to say it is games aren't as focused around their opinions. *shrugs* Sorry.

[Chamot]

Going back to the political commentary point, wasn't Sam and Max's "Abe Lincoln Must Die" episode a political satire on the election system in America?

I also haven't been able to try it yet so correct me if I'm wrong, but my impressions from reviews have led me to think that Combat Mission: Shock Force, while glorifying -sorry for stealing the word Mordrak- the confronational aspect of the war on terror due to the inherent nature of its genre, has an inevitably confessional tone to it with the portrayal of asymmetrical warfare. This may be a stretch considering it's supposed to be a realistic war game but it could be set against a Syria that had strengthened its army, when one adds in the fact that it's a hypothetical near future conflict - again, i might be wrong as I haven't played the game yet.

[Gordon Cameron]

Since video games can and do contain writing, it seems to me trivially obvious that they are capable of commenting on politics or philosophy or whatever the heck else. Maybe the issue is whether they do so often, and/or whether such commentary is at the center of what the game is about or is just a fringe thing (window dressing) while we focus on shooting at moving objects or finagling inventory slots or whatever.

Not many videogames have made me think about "larger issues" through their gameplay (as opposed to through some dialogue a character in the game may spout*). Civ comes to mind insofar as it forced me to think about some pretty big questions about how a government is run. I suppose the Sim games could lead thoughts in a similar direction.

I do not think, however, that social/philosophical commentary is a sufficient prerequisite for something to be a "true" work of art. I don't detect any of it in Mozart's Jupiter Symphony, but if that's not art, I'll eat my hat.

*This could be viewed as a false division, i.e. in some videogame genres character dialogue can be seen as an important part of the gameplay experience. Occasionally I feel that way but I am usually more interested in the parts of a game that directly invite my participation.

[Chamot]

I do not think, however, that social/philosophical commentary is a sufficient prerequisite for something to be a "true" work of art. I don't detect any of it in Mozart's Jupiter Symphony, but if that's not art, I'll eat my hat.

I understand were you're coming from but I would think the existence of examples with such qualities to be indicative of the expressive spectrum of the medium. Currently it don't think it would be too unjust to claim that it's much too red with too little 'oygbiv' in video games. I don't want to make bold claims like early cinema theorists and probably I'm more optimistic compared to Tom on the issue of social, political and other 'grown-up' ideas in games (which may be fooling me), but I still believe games have a huge unfulfilled -due to limiting factors such as the one I've tried to say in my first post- potential in conveying these, and in being at least equal to other mediums and/or art forms in this respect.

[Mordrak]

I've seen this brought up a lot but never very well defined, but what is the difference between craft and art? Intent?

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Red? No, no. Games are mostly brown.

[Acosta]

Charles, I see your point, but "commentary on current events" isn't the same thing as political or social commentary.

As for the war in Iraq, I think it's influence on videogames is clear. What isn't clear, however, is any sort of opinion on the war in Iraq, because it simply doesn't exist in games the way it does in entertainment like movies, television, and music. Games are mostly toys for the time being, which is why I'm mostly sympathetic to the point Roger Ebert is fumbling towards. :)

-Tom

But Tom, my problem with Ebert's take is that he talks of videogames as a medium and he affirms that as a medium is limited for being interactive.

I believe videogames, as a medium, could express opinion of Iraq War in a stronger way that any other medium, I believe it has the potential for that. But the way is structured the industry right now and the natural difficulties of developing a game make it difficult, is just environmental as far as I can see.

A studio well backed financially and with a strong motivation and talent would be able to show it. But I understand is something extremely difficult and is possible there is a need for more maturity and a better understanding of the medium. What I refuse to believe is that videogames are limited in any way from its core.