The debate rages on regarding the question of whether or not video games can be considered art. Following the bloom of the gaming industry, along with the new technology that successfully delivers stunning visuals and graphics, one would have to admit that it does blur the thin line between the object itself becoming art, and the object just being the medium for relaying the art.

Sydney Morning Herald journalists Alexa Moses and Elicia Murray closely examined this issue recently. What they found was that those who weren't in favor of video games being tagged as art is basing their argument on the premise that the way video games are structured is essentially what hinders it from being able to jump aboard the "art ship", along with literature and film.

Movie critic Roger Ebert is one such member of the negative side of this debate. According to him, "There is a structural reason for that: video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control." Therefore, by the mere fact that video games allow for interaction between the story and the player, authorship is practically abolished, hence removing that primordial element of art. Steve Stamatiadis, co-founder of Brisbane studio Krome, agrees with Ebert, believing that while games do have the potential to become recognized as an art form in the future, they're not there yet.

While their argument may be deemed to be logically sound, it is not without loopholes. If one is to examine exactly how these story games go, it shows that an active interaction between game and player is necessary. However, the authorial control that Ebert claims to be lacking need not necessarily be missing in action. For while the players do get to choose their fate, it is not totally without the foresight of the developers.

Players are given choices in the game. They don't just make them on a whim. These choices are there as planted and as stipulated by the creative teams. The people behind the game know what will happen if player A chooses to go behind hallway X, or if character B ends up killing C instead of D. They know all these, because they themselves orchestrated it. While the illusion is there that the players are the masters of their own fate, even that illusion falls well within the so-called authorial control of the developers.

John de Margheriti, founder of Australian development studio Micro Forte, a considered leader of the video game industry in Australia, has this to say, "The author of the game has written some grand plot line, has created the races, the pretext of the stories...He's constrained you in a series of quests you must do, missions you must complete, objects you have to collect. There is a structure, but it's a structure that's interactive."

Game director for the upcoming film noir PS3 game L.A. Noire Brendan McNamara shares the same thought, saying that "We control the delivery of the information...We give players a setting and a framework, we control what they see and do. So how are we not authors?"

Indeed, this debate still has a long way to go before it can be fully settled. So feel free to share your thoughts on the matter, as you gamers are the most knowledgeable about this issue. Which side are you on?