Mass Effect

Sony got the ball rolling in what is sure to be a long debate over whether games are art or not when they announced their "emotion engine" graphics chip thing for PS2, claiming the games will look so good players will be sucked into characters feelings and the games story in the same way movies and books do. That never happened. But over the span of the last generation of gaming boxes we did see graphics improve to, what we thought at the time, was near life-like representations of real life. Now with the Xbox 360 we're going even further down that path. And while this isn't the only key to gaining respect and "art" status for games, it does play an important role.

Later this year Bioware, makers of the smash hit "Knights of the Old Republic," will release their next RPG entitled "Mass Effect." The visuals do, at this point, offer, what seems to be, unparalleled realism, and the team making the game says they've gone to great lengths to create a dialogue system that rivals movies in dramatic effect. So...

Question: Will "Mass Effect" be the game that comes the closest or completely bridges the gap between games and dramatic art?

Comment: From my perspective, games have already achieved art status. To me, the team behind a game creates a world and a visceral experience that a user/player can only experience with a game, as opposed to a static view of a world in a book, play, or movie. The gaming world can be experienced in any number of ways, but the world also doesn't change. It's up to the user to choose how they interact, which makes gaming somewhat more exhilarating than watching even the best movie. Exalting this experience to a level that truly rivals other forms of media in the technical categories (plot, narrative, acting, etc.) is what we're really talking about here.

Snide Remark: If the game blows, "Mass Effect" may be the cinematic equivalent to "Heaven's Gate," with Bioware playing the part of United Artists.