Support NeoGAF

Shogun · Nov 30, 2005

This week's Movie Answer Man has a response to Ebert's yelling at the Doom movie as indicative of the lack of imagination in videogames. He still don't like em. Shogun am cry. I like Ebert but I totally disagree with him here.

Eberts Piece

Ebert said:
Q. I was saddened to read that you consider video games an inherently inferior medium to film and literature, despite your admitted lack of familiarity with the great works of the medium. This strikes me as especially perplexing, given how receptive you have been in the past to other oft-maligned media such as comic books and animation. Was not film itself once a new field of art? Did it not also take decades for its academic respectability to be recognized?

There are already countless serious studies on game theory and criticism available, including Mark S. Meadows' Pause & Effect: The Art of Interactive Narrative, Nick Montfort's Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fiction, Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan's First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game, and Mark J.P. Wolf's The Medium of the Video Game, to name a few.

I hold out hope that you will take the time to broaden your experience with games beyond the trashy, artless "adaptations" that pollute our movie theaters, and let you discover the true wonder of this emerging medium, just as you have so passionately helped me to appreciate the greatness of many wonderful films.

Andrew Davis, St. Cloud, Minn.

A. Yours is the most civil of countless messages I have received after writing that I did indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. 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.

I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. 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.

GitarooMan · Nov 30, 2005

Ebert said:
But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.

This is one of the most elitist and ridiculous things I have ever read

human5892 · Nov 30, 2005

Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.

That statement reveals that Ebert's understanding of the subject is too limited for him to be talking about it. In fact, very few videogames enable players to make decisions that affect their artistic -- by which I mean the plot line, character dialogue and emotions, musical score, etc. -- outcomes. Most are completely linear with a player merely moving the character from one set story point to another.

Mejilan · Nov 30, 2005

I fully understand the first part of his response, though I don't think I agree with it, but that second paragraph is malarkey, IMHO.

MightyHedgehog · Nov 30, 2005

While I agree on some level with what he says, he'll kick the bucket before he can broaden his definition of art. Too bad for him.

Date of Lies · Nov 30, 2005

2 thumbs down

RiZ III · Nov 30, 2005

Play SotC you fat bastard.

pxleyes · Nov 30, 2005

Has he never heard of performance art or interactive art? There is plenty to be found in countless museums across the globe. As an artist myself, I find this respones by Ebert to be of the narrowest of mindsets. What a dick.

TWO THUMBS DOWN!

Dante · Nov 30, 2005

But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.

Says the guy who gave Spawn the movie 4 stars :lol

Mr Mike · Nov 30, 2005

Part of his comments kinda right, in that the concept of authorship goes out the window during some games. But by that same regard, what about the performing arts? Or any live performance of an artistic work? Simply ignoring how they could relate is ignorance on his part. That closing sentence just proves it. Shame, as someone like him debating this subject rationally would be very positive - but instead games just get brushed away, yet again.

Tiktaalik · Nov 30, 2005

I can understand him not liking videogames based on the sort of movies he's had to review that are based on games.

But on the other hand, he's a dinosaur and it's really unlikely that he's ever played a videogame before so his opinion isn't really worth anything.

Error · Nov 30, 2005

Roger Ebert said:
Q. I was saddened to read that you consider video games an inherently inferior medium to film and literature, despite your admitted lack of familiarity with the great works of the medium. This strikes me as especially perplexing, given how receptive you have been in the past to other oft-maligned media such as comic books and animation. Was not film itself once a new field of art? Did it not also take decades for its academic respectability to be recognized?

There are already countless serious studies on game theory and criticism available, including Mark S. Meadows' Pause & Effect: The Art of Interactive Narrative, Nick Montfort's Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fiction, Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan's First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game, and Mark J.P. Wolf's The Medium of the Video Game, to name a few.

I hold out hope that you will take the time to broaden your experience with games beyond the trashy, artless "adaptations" that pollute our movie theaters, and let you discover the true wonder of this emerging medium, just as you have so passionately helped me to appreciate the greatness of many wonderful films.

Andrew Davis, St. Cloud, Minn.

A. Yours is the most civil of countless messages I have received after writing that I did indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. 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.

I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. 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.

sadly this game disagrees with him

Shard · Nov 30, 2005

Dante said:
Says the guy who gave Spawn the movie 4 stars :lol

Not to mention calling The Cell one of the best films of 2000.

The Bookerman · Nov 30, 2005

He needs to play Sotc, Ico and MGS 3 stat.

cvxfreak · Nov 30, 2005

Well, while the world progesses, Ebert will be left behind. No big loss.

MightyHedgehog · Nov 30, 2005

Zaxxon said:
But on the other hand, he's a dinosaur and it's really unlikely that he's ever played a videogame before so his opinion isn't really worth anything.

Actually, he and Siskel semi-championed the TG-16 back in '89-'90 against the Genny. :lol Still, it's really something that is natural...old people generally didn't like (or understand) rock 'n' roll, and their kids did. The same happened to those kids as they didn't like or understand hip hop, but their kids did. Same ol', same ol'.

Zaphod · Nov 30, 2005

RiZ III said:
Play SotC you fat bastard.

That's what I was thinking while reading that. Without the fat bastard part that made me laugh.

Mr Mike · Nov 30, 2005

Last year Katamari, this year Colossus. Pick a new Japanese game to champion, someone!

soundwave05 · Nov 30, 2005

He's right for the most part.

ICO, Zelda, MGS are the very, very rare exceptions to the rule.

And even then, the story for MGS is kind of laughable when you think about it. It's cool because its in a video game and no one expects a half-decent/cinematic type of experience from a game.

pj · Nov 30, 2005

Here's ron gilbert's (monkey island) response:

OK, this is me, Ron, again. You can tell by the lack in indenting.

Given the fact that Roger is not a game player, and that there is enough debate about this very subject from within our industry, this is not surprising.

The one line that really jumped out at me was this:

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.

"Authorial Control".

1) Is Authorial Control necessary in art? Is Art someone expressing an idea, and therefore requires there to be a someone behind the idea?

Yes, I think this is true.

2) Do games have Authorial Control?

This is where I disagree with my childhood hero Roger Ebert.

I think games need and have Authorial Control. There has to be someone at the helm who is giving us their vision for the experience. Movies have a Director, Books have a Author, and Games have a Designer (titles in games in a complex issue I won't get into here).

I don't think Roger has thought about this. He sees toys and doesn't see the person or people behind them and that is our fault (dear lord... when will be stop screwing up).

Take GTA:SA. Who designed it? I don't know. I could probably look it up but I won't because I shouldn't have to. During the debate about GTA, where was the designer? Why was he or she not speaking out, letting us know why they did things the way they did, defending their art? Did I miss it?

During the controversy surrounding Natural Born Killers, Oliver Stone was very vocal about the film and his vision behind it.

This is why the games industry needs more visibility to the people behind the games. It is this humanizing that will ultimately pull them into the realm of art.

http://grumpygamer.com/

lexy · Nov 30, 2005

What games do you guys consider worthy of comparison to great cinema/art/literature?

ToxicAdam · Nov 30, 2005

Why would Ebert bother commending gaming? There is nothing in it for him. His whole business is movies.

GitarooMan · Nov 30, 2005

The Bookerman said:
He needs to play Sotc, Ico and MGS 3 stat.

I agree with you but I think sometimes that all the talk that Ico, SoTC, etc are "art" dismisses or marginalizes most every other game, which is also art. In other words, games other than Ico, etc. are just as much art as Ico is, IMHO.

He's right for the most part.

ICO, Zelda, MGS are the very, very rare exceptions to the rule.

Obviously I 100% disagree with this, but everyone has their own opinion.

argon · Nov 30, 2005

The problem is the industry keeps trying to shoehorn "cinema-style" narrative to videogames. It rarely works, because gamers want to play, rather than watch, games. I admit there are a few exceptions, but for the most part narrative and gameplay seem to have a tug of war with most modern games.

The artistic value in games don't necessarily come from the traditional linear narrative. They may come from a sense of freedom of expression and non-linearity the game gives you: rewarding creativity and curiosity. Mario 64 is most certainly art in this respect.

soundwave05 · Nov 30, 2005

lexy said:
What games do you guys consider worthy of comparison to great cinema/art/literature?

None. If you're talking about the absolute peak of cinema/art/literature, gaming isn't even on the same planet.

Yeah occasionally games can create a nice mood/ambiance, but it doesn't go much further than that.

Error · Nov 30, 2005

soundwave05 said:
He's right for the most part.

ICO, Zelda, MGS are the very, very rare exceptions to the rule.

And even then, the story for MGS is kind of laughable when you think about it. It's cool because its in a video game and no one expects a half-decent/cinematic type of experience from a game.

same could be said about a lot of movies right now.

GitarooMan · Nov 30, 2005

argon said:
The artistic value in games don't necessarily come from the traditional linear narrative. They may come from a sense of freedom of expression and non-linearity the game gives you: rewarding creativity and curiosity. Mario 64 is most certainly art in this respect.

Bingo. "Art" just doesn't mean a good narrative or story.

Timbuktu · Nov 30, 2005

By Ebert's definition, architecture is not an art and architects cannot aspire to be more than craftsmen. I would accept that videogames haven't yet produced anything of the cultural sophistication that literature and film have, but it is foolish to say that it's structurally incapable of achieving the same level of artistry in its own terms. Sure, the player must make choices, but then how you would influence that decision making is an art in itself. I don't think Ebert would deny that architecture can be art, even if it's a practical, functional art. The organisation of space, the art of signage and ornament can be the product of, and influence, how a society works. I think that games can have the same potential, it is the medium in the virtual realm that most seriously considers the notion of 'space'. Videogames, in a sense, marries the writer and the architect. A great game gives the feeling of freedom, of choice, but more than ever the gamer is still under the tyranny of authorian control.

Gahiggidy · Nov 30, 2005

argon said:
The problem is the industry keeps trying to shoehorn "cinema-style" narrative to videogames. It rarely works, because gamers want to play, rather than watch, games. I admit there are a few exceptions, but for the most part narrative and gameplay seem to have a tug of war with most modern games.

The artistic value in games don't necessarily come from the traditional linear narrative. They may come from a sense of freedom of expression and non-linearity the game gives you: rewarding creativity and curiosity. Mario 64 is most certainly art in this respect.

Freedom of Expression is art? In that case you can commend Crayola for thier "artistic" products. Or the makers of tot-lots who allow children to explore thier imaginations.

Games are games.

soundwave05 · Nov 30, 2005

Error2k4 said:
same could be said about a lot of movies right now.

To be brutally honest, even a crappy movie generally has a better story than what are some of the best video games.

Shogun · Nov 30, 2005

Shard said:
Not to mention calling The Cell one of the best films of 2000.

Which he did almost entirely because of the overwhelming visual design. Which further makes me WTF the idea of him thinking gaming can't be art let alone good art ever. This is the guy who championed Anime being accepted as more than just cartoons. I just wish I had the wherewithall to give a proper response, a better thread title would have been, what games are art and why?

Nerevar · Nov 30, 2005

Mejilan said:
I fully understand the first part of his response, though I don't think I agree with it, but that second paragraph is malarkey, IMHO.

qft.

Seriously, I can understand the whole concept that "choice prevents authorial control, a vital component to it being art" (which I would also disagree with and cite most modern art which is at least mildly interactive, but I digress), but to suggest that playing games is a "waste of time" is absurd, especially considering the numerous studies pointing to the effect playing games have on intellectual development.

siege · Nov 30, 2005

The people who think SotC/Ico is art are as crazy as Ebert is.

Cheebs · Nov 30, 2005

I feel games are art and can be and in many cases are just as good as films. However citing MGS, ICO, SotC as proof when it comes to stories is laughable. Games while as just as much art as a film or novels don't have stories that even come close. I played all the MGS's, Final Fantasy's, Ico, SotC...etc but we are as gamers so used to very weak and tired story lines that the SLIGHTEST thing with a sense of thought and effort is seen as something absolutely amazing. MGS? SotC? Equal in story telling as a novel or a film? Compare the story of one of these games to novels such as the LotR trilogy, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, To Kill a Mockingbird...etc They just don't plain compare in the slightest.

Gaming in story telling is what film was in its infancy with very uncomplicated in a way corny silly little tales. The stories of gaming ARE growing better and will continue to grow better but at this point you can't compare ANY games story in terms of quality to a high quality novel or film.

Red Blaster · Nov 30, 2005

Cheebs said:
I feel games are art and can be and in many cases are just as good as films. However citing MGS, ICO, SotC as proof when it comes to stories is laughable. Games while as just as much art as a film or book don't have stories that even come close. I played all the MGS's, Final Fantasy's, Ico, SotC...etc but we are as games so used to very weak and tired story lines that the SLIGHTEST thing with a sense of thought and effort is seen as something absolutely amazing. MGS? SotC? Equal in story telling as a novel or a film? Compare the story of one of these games to novels such as the LotR trilogy, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, To Kill a Mockingbird...etc They just don't plain compare in the slightest.

Gaming in story telling is what film was in its infancy with very uncomplicated in a way corny silly little tales. The stories of gaming ARE growing better and will continue to grow better but at this point you can't compare ANY games story in terms of quality to a high quality novel or film.

Xenogears was just as much a pompous load of horseshit as 2001: A Space Odyssey was.

Zilch · Nov 30, 2005

soundwave05 said:
None. If you're talking about the absolute peak of cinema/art/literature, gaming isn't even on the same planet.

Yeah occasionally games can create a nice mood/ambiance, but it doesn't go much further than that.

Agreed. The only games you guys can point to as examples of games as art are Ico/SOTC... games that are simply different than most games.

Alcibiades · Nov 30, 2005

Although I personally see videogames as art, I can sort of see where he comes from, and he's dead on with this statement:

"But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic."

IMO of course, since I believe more time is spent along the lines of Madden (which I like BTW, nothing against sports games), than SotC...

argon · Nov 30, 2005

Gahiggidy said:
Freedom of Expression is art? In that case you can commend Crayola for thier "artistic" products. Or the makers of tot-lots who allow children to explore thier imaginations.

Games are games.

True game design comes from an interplay of the user's choices and the game designer's creative ideas. It is a dance between the user and the game designer-- control, response; cause, effect.

If I took some Crayola crayons and drew a rosebud, some raindrops, and a sun; and then the rose suddenly bloomed-- I would consider Crayola as art.

davidjaffe · Nov 30, 2005

An interesting topic for me as right now, I am in the process of working with the team on our new game to decide if we should REMOVE alot of the more cinematic aspects (i.e. a character who goes thru a profound change as the story moves forward; scenarios that unfold the way I want them to in order to create an emotion in the player)....but the more I work on the game, the more I lean towards PULLING THESE MORE TRADITIONAL CINEMATIC ELEMENTS OUT of the design as they just feel forced....I have NEVER played a cinematic game- that uses cinematic elements- and really felt the game WORKED as an emotional experience...I get the game is TRYING to make me feel and I applaud it but it's using elements from a medium that is not OUR medium and in doing so, pulling me out of what makes our medium so great...

...so for me, right now, I am embracing more of the minimalist approach that games like ICO and HALF LIFE do, where you leave alot up to the player but you create and craft key experiences that you feel WILL create some form of emotion in the player BUT you are not FORCING that emotion (like you would in a movie)....in other words, playing to the strengths of the medium while STILL trying to create something more than just a virtual playground that has no artistic meaning...

...not sure if it's gonna work, but it sure is fun to try!

David

Togeo · Nov 30, 2005

Roper said:
During the debate about GTA, where was the designer? Why was he or she not speaking out..
http://grumpygamer.com/

Probably because Jack Tompson would be camped outside of his house anally raping a chicken.

Probably......

Now that the new systems have "parental protection" I think we'll more likely see more controversial game designers coming forward into the public eye.

Gahiggidy · Nov 30, 2005

Y2Kevbug11 said:
Part of what art IS is how it connects with the reader/viewer. The author cannot control that response. Did Ebert think about that? All art, to some extent, requires participation by the reader/viewer for the communicative aspect of art to be realized.

You are reaching.

Games will never be "art" as that aspect has little to do with the qulaity of the game. You can have outstanding games with no artisitic/story value whatsoever. But a lousy, not-fun-at-all, game with a great story and artistic graphics is still a bad game.

There will games that have both, but the gameplay will always be the bottom line of why we enjoy games.

Red Blaster · Nov 30, 2005

But but...Speilberg wants gamers to cry.

Shogun · Nov 30, 2005

Zilch said:
Agreed. The only games you guys can point to as examples of games as art are Ico/SOTC... games that are simply different than most games.

Art isn't just about story at all, it's a combined medium. Movies may have great stories at times, but they can't hold a candle to books, anymore than games can to movies. Art is about making a unique signifigant creative product. Games shouldn't try to be movies, or portraits, or music, they are a multimedia with rules and standards all their own. I mean I could try to really adapt War and Peace to a game, but even if I had every event and environment it wouldn't be the same if it was direct.

Mr Mike · Nov 30, 2005

David,

I think cinematic moments - if that's what you'd call them - are best used when they inform the oncoming action. Two examples:

Metal Gear Solid 3

The cut scene before the end, where Eva gets hurt, leads to one of the more memorable stealth sections, where you have to drag a wounded civilian around with you.

PoP:Warrior Within

Much hated, I know - but the twist at the end, where in the Prince finds out about his destiny, and then turns into the sand wraith was very dramatic and great for the gameplay. The resulting device, that the mask was killing him, added real urgency and drama to the following level as you journeyed back through the castle on the brink of death.

I guess one question is how far have we moved on from the much joked about games from the CD boom, when you'd have hours of crappy acting scenes padding out a point and click game?

soundwave05 · Nov 30, 2005

Games are also derivative of movies.

Many franchises draw heavily (or outright copy) elements from popular films and some B-movies

Metroid (Alien)
Metal Gear Solid (Escape From New York, James Bond)
Resident Evil (Night of the Living Dead; Texas Chainsaw Massacre)
Grand Theft Auto (Scarface, Boyz N' The Hood)
Halo (Starship Troopers)
Legend of Zelda (Legend, Raiders of the Lost Ark)

Difference is art has a meaning to it as well. There's no meaning to Grand Theft Auto. There is to Scarface or The Godfather.

Gahiggidy · Nov 30, 2005

Would you people consider thematic amusement park rides to be art?

Chiggs · Nov 30, 2005

You know, I don't think of games as art, either. I don't believe Hideo Kojima does, as well. A lot of art may go into the game itself, but the end result, to me, is not art. Does that make them less relevant? Maybe to some, I guess, but not to me.

So it's not considered art by a film critic. Big deal. I know that a lot of people consider "art" to be mankind's ultimate achievement, but I really don't. Who knows - maybe games will eventually transcend art. Maybe they already have (in some ways).

davidjaffe · Nov 30, 2005

Yeah but Eva getting hurt works because you've had over an hour of cut scenes where you've become attached to her using more cinematic elements/tools....no real difference than playing a game based on a movie you love where you care about the characters because a different medium has conditioned you to feel that way...and this is great, I LOVE MGS....but it's still really the game piggybacking on the other medium (film) in order to get an emotional punch...

...for me, right now ,I'm struggling to see if we can get our OWN emotional punches JUST using our own tools....or at least primarily using our own tools....

David

The Bookerman · Nov 30, 2005

GitarooMan said:
I agree with you but I think sometimes that all the talk that Ico, SoTC, etc are "art" dismisses or marginalizes most every other game, which is also art. In other words, games other than Ico, etc. are just as much art as Ico is, IMHO.

Maybe, but these days we hear more and more about games and movies converging. Those titles are the closest thing the VG has to movies(especially MGS). Even Miyamoto acknowledged this when he said he had to understand camera shots when they moved to 3d.

Virgin Wii · Nov 30, 2005

I agree with Ebert. A lot of gamers try to justify the time they spend with videogames, proclaiming that they are enriching their lives by experiencing works of art. That's BS.

I do think videogames can eventually become a legitimate form of art. It's nowhere near that point now, though.

Support NeoGAF

Ebert Hates on Games as Art

Member

Member

Queen of Denmark

Running off of Custom Firmware

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

1 million Canadian dollars

Member

Jealous of the Glory that is Johnny Depp

XBLAnnoyance

Member

Member

Member

Member

1 million Canadian dollars

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Jealous of the Glory that is Johnny Depp

Member

Member

My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.

Member

Member

they call me "Man Gravy".

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

The Fucking MAN.

Member

My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.

Member

Member

1 million Canadian dollars

Member

My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.

Gold Member

The Fucking MAN.

Member

Banned

Similar threads