In his article, Martin brings up the issue of video games as art. While the medium is still relatively new, there does not appear to be a heavy controversy around the issue. Equipped with lush landscapes or demonic worlds, video games do a good job of simulating alternate realities. To me the question is not whether video games are art or not, but how to utilize video games in order to achieve art. Considering photography, I can see very much more how this would spur a controversy when it takes someone half a year to finish a landscape painting, and it takes another person just a moment. nevertheless, photography is an art. It requires timing, an acute understanding of light, and soul. While a photographer may never know or never need to know how to use a paint brush, his/her impact with art may be the same. The point to consider with video games, as in photography, or any other art medium, is to consider its full potential. With photography, as opposed to painting or drawing, pictures capture the reality of the moment. With photography, a person holding a cheese grater is just that, a person holding a cheese grater. This in and of itself tells a story of how and why the person is holding the cheese grater. Whereas with painting or drawing, a person holding a cheese grater would be seen as some sort of metaphorical meaning taken into some abstract understanding. This too has its advantages in effect; sometimes you want to suspend a person’s belief from the start and in these cases animation, painting or drawing would work better. When one wants to depict the actual occurence, photography would often work better. That being said, video games can gain the acceptance of the artworld as its own form perhaps in their ability to transport the player into another world. This would provoke an altered consciousness in a way that only video games are able to. How well and how thoroughly a video game is able to do this would reflect its credibility as an artform.