In this week's Answer Man column, Sun-Times scribe Roger Ebert takes on a kiss ass respectful reader on video games being inferior to movies and literature. Ebert's reasoning: "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."

You can, dear readers, see the flaw in this logic, right? More after the jump.

Why Did Chicken Cross Genders [Chicago Sun-Times]

Ebert is correct in saying that "by their nature [video games] require player choices," - games do require player choice and those choices often drive the game's narrative. Now, the authorial intent of a film is pretty strict. Barring various interpretations, a movie is made with a purpose, a message and it is a singularized experience. The film is a monologue, it talks at the viewer, there is no dialog.

Conversely, video games are a dialog with input and output on the part of both user and game. But, does the push-pull of interactivity negate the "authorial intent" of the work? Ebert says it does. But what about multi-narrative stories, where choice changes the outcome? Dynamic stories where your input as a gamer changes the output from the game? These changes, these dynamic shifts, were authored by developers. You, as the gamer just happen to have a front row seat to direct the action. Evolving storylines are more compelling than static, non-interactive media. Ebert overlooked the role of the developer and didn't factor in that each pathway taken in a video game is one the developers already expected you to take. And as a result they were prepared.

Contact information for this author is not available.