With the game industry expanding at an incredible rate, it is now a challenge to identify how much respect the creators and designers get in comparison to people who create other forms of media. Some may argue that the designer of an immensely popular game should get as much respect for his work as James Cameron gets for his blockbuster films. In reality, however, there is still an impression with the general public that video games are a somewhat juvenile form of media. This is why they do not receive as much exposure as some other forms of media, and as a whole are not considered “art” in the same way a captivating movie or a classic novel is.
The definition of art is very broad, and can stretch to encompass many things such as: painting, sculpture, architecture, writing, film, etc. When I look down this list, however, I am not inclined to put games in with the rest of these examples for the following reason. Let’s take Assassin’s Creed II, set in renaissance Florence, Italy. (I apologize for continuing to bring this game up in my posts, but it’s just a great example of everything). A beautifully done digital reconstruction of the Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore (the Duomo) is part of the world within the game:I think you’ll agree that it’s incredibly well done. Some may say that this is art, but when you consider the effort and the time required to build the cathedral in real life (approximately 140 years), it is obviously a much more impressive feat than constructing something digitally.
I do realize that countless hours are put into the development of a video game, but the problem is that the general public do not universally respect the gaming genre, making it difficult to call it an art form when the group of people that it appeals to is still so small.