The game medium is young, but it is maturing quickly. Once upon a time, painting was considered nothing more than wall decoration. Film was considered nothing more than a technical novelty. Even the novel was just something that bored aristocrats did when they had too much time on their hands.

The interesting thing about games as an art form, however, is that they are developing in an era of unprecedented cultural, technological and intellectual growth. Never have there been so many people so passionate about and so involved with something so new.

With such rapid development, however, come growing pains. Devouring commercialization, juvenile subject matter, an absence of criticism - all contribute to a state of confusion and consequently inarticulate argumentation among proponents and detractors alike.

One of the most inhibiting roadblocks that games face today is that while many proponents consider them to be an art form, we don't judge them as such. We judge them based on graphics, sound, replayability, etc., culminating in a cringe-inducing “tilt,” a numerical denomination based on arbitrary scales. We would like to consider at least some games as art, yet we treat them all as products. Our approach is that of Consumer Reports as opposed to a publication such as October.

It is time to find new standards by which to judge games. It is time to realize that the criteria by which we traditionally judge games are not necessarily what matter most.

For example, graphics are important because they influence the visual aesthetic, which in turn conveys a sense of time, place and mood. Graphics are still relevant, but they are simply a means to and end, not an end in and of themselves. If graphics are used as nothing more than visual candy, then they have about as much nutritional and artistic worth.

So how should we judge games, then? There is a schism growing in games, and that is the difference between viewing games as entertainment activities vs. viewing them as art. The numerical scale works fine for games as entertainment, because such games really are nothing more than products, but for games that have artistic aspirations, they should be judged as such, and I posit that, in general, we judge art by its humanistic value.

What is humanistic value? I define it through 2 principles:

1. The work gives the audience an excuse to think.

2. The work compels the audience and leaves a mark.

Great art allows people to explore ideas, and inspires thought. It does not force thought, because then it becomes didactic, propaganda, and most people aren't interested in sermons or lectures from their art. I cannot think of a single great work of art that does not inspire me to think about something.

Great art is also not something you just gloss over; it is something that is truly worth remembering. It's something that bothers you when you lay down to sleep that night. It's something that just won't leave you a alone, and leaves a chemical imprint on your brain for you to refer back to for the rest of your life.

Engagement with the work is important as well, but engagement is not so hard to achieve as one might think. Human beings are hard wired to focus on specific things (look into the concept of change blindness if you're not convinced). A person can become engaged in watching American Idol, but that doesn't mean American Idol is compelling. Being compelled is different.

We can agree that this idea of humanistic value is a bit vague, but it is something highly personal, and can only become formalized and objective when decontextualized by pulling back and seeing the broader, overarching similarities, even if that means being less specific.

A good way to think about it is to think about mortality. Not to be a downer, but pretend that you are diagnosed with a terminal illness and you are notified that you have a month left to live. What is important to you now? What really matters? Actually think about it, because these are the things that have the most humanistic value to you, and these are the things that will matter most to you in the art that you create. This does not mean everything in great art has to be about mortality, it's just a place to start exploring.

Thought is the foundation of our existence. Discourse is the lifeblood of progress and maturation. However, this doesn't mean it always has to be about something so "serious." Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a great work of art because of its irreverence. It smashes our notions of the sacred with a holy hand grenade, and it's awesome.

But, no matter what, art is always about humanity and human interpretation in some form or another. Even landscape paintings are about human ability to appreciate nature.

When considering games and art these days, Roger Ebert inevitably comes to mind. He gets a lot of flak about his stance on video games. Proponents of games have attacked his arguments, one of the most glaring being that of authorship, but the most important aspect of his argument is often glossed over. He says:

“To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.” (source)

Ebert is talking about humanistic value. There are only so many hours in a lifetime, and to waste so many of them playing games, or engaging in activities of any sort with an absence of humanistic value is a tragedy indeed.

But playing games with humanistic value? That's when things become fun.