Support NeoGAF

[BowieZ]

What would you describe video games as, other than what they are: games? Interactive media?

Do they all have to be painted with the same brush?

But yeah, how about "interactive art" or "personal/portable artistic installations"?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Do they all have to be painted with the same brush?

But yeah, how about "interactive art" or "personal/portable artistic installations"?

It's not as much being painted with the same brush as being in the same category imo. Obviously chess is different than Dungeons and Dragons, but both are "games." Likewise videogames are obviously interactive media, but I'd also put them in the category of gaming.

You bring up a good point though.

 

[chicken_ramen]

Is chess art? Dungeons and Dragons? They are games, just as video games are. Flooding video games with big stories and musical scores doesn't change the point..

Are you making the assertion that a constructed procedural system can't be expressive? Or are you simply using the art is art recursive definition?

edit: Sorry, I didn't like my original post, so I reconstructed the basics piece by piece.

 

[LiK]

Ebert just tweeted this:

I am proud that "my" gamers, even though they mostly dismiss me and some hate me, are literate and write well. Except for 4.

i wonder which 4?

 

[Jex]

Man his last few tweets prove that he is completely irrational -

"Over and over, the gamers tell me I am too old to appreciate video games. Not a one is too young to appreciate art."

So far, in 1,400+ comments, no gamer has has been so bold as to compare a video game with anything ancients like me consider art.

I guess thats because you haven't played any of them.

I'm literally shaking my head.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yes they are, if you actually understood what art meant. Anything that conveys an emotion of fun, competition, or ultimately is useless (as Oscar Wilde says what it takes to be art) can easily be defined as art just as much as film or literature. People experience fun while watching movies too but that doesn't stop the film medium to be art in total.

Ebert claims that video games doesn't have a "Citizen Kane" but this analogy is so flawed for many reasons. For one, it's implying that literature and music has a "Citizen Kane" that can be defined as the shining achievement of it's medium, and it's pretentiously implying that Citizen Kane IS the shining achievement of film. Ebert may watch a lot of movies, but he knows so little about his own specialty. If you read any of his reviews, or heard them, they are so basic and simplistic that for him to be defining the mediums and "art" is just completely ludicrous. He may've had a fun show with Sieskal, but he's a bad critic in his field. Ebert needs to figure out why film is art before he figures out why video games are art.

I do understand what art means. A game boils down to a set of followed rules. Games don't communicate emotion or feeling on the basic level, they instead rely on various aspects of art to do so: story, drawing (graphics), music, etc. The art in videogames comes from these aspects, not from the actual game

Having fun while playing chess does not mean it is art. Likewise having fun while playing Mario does not qualify it as a work of art. The more broad and generalized a definition becomes, the less meaning it has - to a point where it has no meaning. Only the broadest definition of art would include poker. I may find joy in masturbating: that doesn't qualify it as art.

I'm not going to address Ebert's comment on Citizen Kane because you're right, it is ridiculous; there are games that have garnered universal praise and influenced countless other games. With respect to your general criticism of Ebert though I'd have to disagree. I'm sorry, but suggest Ebert knows little about film is one of the dumbest comments in this thread. He has had a host of bad opinions on films throughout the years but his overall understanding of the medium is beyond question.

 

[Karrl1z4j2]

I do understand what art means. A movie boils down to set of different components. Movies don't communicate emotion or feeling on the basic level, they instead rely on various aspects of art to do so: story, drawing (sets, costumes), music, etc. The art in movies comes from these aspects, not from the actual movie.

 

[jdogmoney]

Not to mention, gameplay itself does convey emotion. The save system of Dead Rising did wonders for a sense of urgency, for example.

 

[Campster]

I think Ebert's getting a little more flak here than he deserves. That said, he's obviously wrong.

He's spent more or less his entire adult life analyzing a single medium - a medium that does some things very, very well. Things that games have some serious problems with - not just narrative in the abstract, but being able to effortlessly convey the human sides of any given issue.

Ebert continues to define the failure of games in terms he understands, and in so doing allows himself to be more or less correct. GTA fails to capture the human face of crime the way The Godfather does; Call of Duty's Normandy landing doesn't demonstrate the sacrifice of those men nearly as well as Saving Private Ryan; Fallout 3 doesn't capture the horror of violence man can inflict on himself as well as Children of Men or A Clockwork Orange. Ebert points to great works of film and insists that games will never live up to them. And he's right. He's defining art in a way that favors things movies do really well because of 40+ years of bias and as long as that definition is the one he uses he won't really be wrong. We won't out-Citizen-Kane the real Citizen Kane. We won't even come close.

Games aren't films, and we shouldn't be making such outlandish comparisons; to do so makes no more sense than to ask of film where its Beethoven is. There are plenty of things we convey that no film can. No film can do an analysis of human cooperation in all its permutations the way Left 4 Dead 2 can. Movies can't warp our perception of space-time the way Braid or Portal did. I've yet to see a film that epitomizes the lose/lose nature of nuclear war the way DEFCON does. And I doubt you'd find a movie that can simultaneously spark your creativity and teach you about the process of game development the way WarioWare DIY can.

But Ebert doesn't see these sorts of things as worthy of discussion. He has a strict definition of art - tell a story that reveals something clearly about the human condition. Anything that fails that litmus isn't art to him. And that's fine - but we don't help ourselves by simply saying "Nuh uh, games are too totally relevant by your arbitrary measure!" We can't respond to the finest examples of films with examples of games that badly emulate them. We will always come up short.

 

[Jomjom]

One thing I still don't understand is why Ebert chooses something as arbitrary as whether or not you can "win" as a determinant of what is and is not art. In his argument he seems to set up this mutual exclusivity between "winning" and "experiencing." Is it just me or does this not make any sense to anyone else? If "experiencing" is an essential part of something being art, doesn't a videogame allow you to "win" as well as "experience?"

Also it's not as if we, as the player, are the one's actually winning in each and every game. I mean sure in a game like asteroids or something, it really is pretty much you "winning" the game, but take any game with a narrative and I would say you are "experiencing" the character in the game "winning" if that is how the creator of the game or the game's story designed it to be. I don't see how this is really much different than watching a movie where the protagonist eventually "wins."

 

[Firestorm]

I do understand what art means. A game boils down to a set of followed rules. Games don't communicate emotion or feeling on the basic level, they instead rely on various aspects of art to do so: story, drawing (graphics), music, etc. The art in videogames comes from these aspects, not from the actual game

How about using interaction to convey emotion or feeling? Putting you in an immigrant's shoes to make you experience the ugliness of the so-called "American Dream". Placing you in a world that takes American popular culture and exaggerates it to a point where you laugh at how ridiculous it is, but think about how true it is at the same time.

I disagree with your earlier assessment that since Chess and Games both merely follow a set of rules, and Chess is not art, no games are art. That's like saying because this random YouTube video isn't art, movies aren't art.

A film is the sum of its parts, and so is a video game. The music, visuals, and interaction all play a part. People found Shadow of the Collosus moving because they were the ones bringing down those lumbering giants.

More recently, in BioShock 2 (major spoilers),

Spoiler

I felt more horror than I can remember when I unknowingly killed Mark Metzer after following his story throughout the game. Doing so, then picking up the audiobook, hearing his last words as I hovered over his body to see his name flash up instead of the usual text chilled me to the bone

. This was because it was an interactive experience. As a movie, book, or even ballad it would only evoke feelings of empathy towards the character. As a game, it was me. That's something I think games are unique in being able to do.

 

[HK-47]

How about using interaction to convey emotion or feeling? Putting you in an immigrant's shoes to make you experience the ugliness of the so-called "American Dream". Placing you in a world that takes American popular culture and exaggerates it to a point where you laugh at how ridiculous it is, but think about how true it is at the same time.

Except said immigrant was a psychopath before he ever came to America and he doesnt get dragged down by the system so much as walking the descent himself with halfhearted complaints that mean little since he never actually tries to get out nor is the player allowed too. Which means that narrative fails. It more about how sociopathy gets you lots of money and power in gaming worlds, and doesnt really say much about that fact unlike a NMH. And you can make anything look stupid (but not convincingly stupid) if all you do is build strawmen.

 

[Firestorm]

Except said immigrant was a psychopath before he ever came to America and he doesnt get dragged down by the system so much as walking the descent himself with halfhearted complaints that mean little since he never actually tries to get out nor is the player allowed too. Which means that narrative fails. It more about how sociopathy gets you lots of money and power in gaming worlds, and doesnt really say much about that fact unlike a NMH. And you can make anything look stupid (but not convincingly stupid) if all you do is build strawmen.

Yes, I agree that GTAIV failed on that part (although held promise at the beginning), but succeeded quite well on my second point.

 

[StevePharma]

I just Googled "define:art" and I got this from the guys and gals at Princeton:

"the products of human creativity"

So if I were creative and churn out a nice S-shaped fecal crown on Ebert's head, that's art for you.

/Ebert

 

[chicken_ramen]

I do understand what art means. A game boils down to a set of followed rules. Games don't communicate emotion or feeling on the basic level, they instead rely on various aspects of art to do so: story, drawing (graphics), music, etc. The art in videogames comes from these aspects, not from the actual game.

This is absurdly reductionist. Rules are an unique tool of the medium, but do not exist in a complete vacuum. Even in games where the two are meant to be separate theme and mechanic interact. The serious games industry is all about manipulating this interaction. Maybe the pure mathematics of procedural rules can't alone convey the sort of information you're talking about, I can't speak for how anyone else experiences reality, but even if that is true it means nothing. Mechanics don't exist in a vacuum and do interact with themes. Insisting otherwise is demonstrably wrong. Whether any games do this well or use it in interesting ways is very subjective and a completely different argument.

 

[HK-47]

Yes, I agree that GTAIV failed on that part (although held promise at the beginning), but succeeded quite well on my second point.

Oh yeah it did seem like it was gonna do it in the very beginning but then the rest of the game happened.

 

[Firestorm]

Oh yeah it did seem like it was gonna do it in the very beginning but then the rest of the game happened.

I got 10 hours in before the core game's repetitiveness killed it for me. I do hold what Rockstar did with the world to be pretty significant though.

 

[tetrisgrammaton]

i still hate this guy for trashing william burroughs

huh. interesting he used the exact same word to describe video games as he did william s burroughs, pathetic.

 

[neorej]

Having Braid or Flower as the main examples of how games can be art like films is like putting forth Fight Club or Citizen Kane to show that films can be art like Beethoven's Fifth or Shakespeare's Midsummer Night Dream. They're completely different media and should be treated as such.

IMHO, games can be considered art. Sure, there are mindless examples of how games are not art in the pile, hell, they make up 95% of the pile. But the same goes for films, music, architecture, sculpting and painting. Hell, we have a dude who wraps buildings and it's being called art.

 

[RPG Rambo]

Let Ebert have his opinion. He sit on top of a mountain of nothing. If he wants to assert his opinion, someone should just remind him that 99% of what comes out of Hollywood is pure, undiluted crap.

 

[Tellaerin]

I do understand what art means. A game boils down to a set of followed rules. Games don't communicate emotion or feeling on the basic level, they instead rely on various aspects of art to do so: story, drawing (graphics), music, etc. The art in videogames comes from these aspects, not from the actual game

That's patently untrue.

Look at something like the Mario games, which evoke a sense of wonder in the player by engaging them in the act of discovery. It's not just the presence of hidden areas in the game (which are made up of the artistic elements you describe) that inspire feelings in the player. That comes about as a result of the player searching for (or stumbling upon) something hidden and wondrous by experimenting with the environment. That sense of wonder arises as a result of the player's interaction with the game.

 

[Coeliacus]

This was an interesting reply I found in the Kotaku Australia comments for the original Ebert thing. He was replying to the question of why we as gamers should care about labelling games as art:

Why do gamers want games to be considered art?

Here’s a reason: Art hold a hallowed place, not only in our culture, but in our legal system. Whether or not a work is “obscene” (and thus should be censored) or “a provocative piece of art that demands we analyze our previously held convictions” (and thus not to be censored) is a matter of judgments of artistic value.

Both Australian and American legal systems and classification systems privelige works which are considered “artistic.”

Ebert should also note that this discussion is happenning in the political context of a moral panic about the evil of video games. People that enjoy gaming as a hobby will want to stop games from being a victim of censorship and as such demand games receive the priveliged title of “art.”

I do not claim to be able to provide a definition of “art” and nor do I claim that Ebert’s case is stupid. He does make an important point; there is a legitimate distinction between a “game” (of any medium) and “art” per se. Blackjack is a game, but I wouldn’t consider it art. Chess is a game, but the game itself is not art.

In and of itself, the fact that neither Blackjack nor Chess are art is not an attack on either hobby. Both can be deeply enjoyable, truly engrossing and entertaining. However, no one argues that Chess should be banned and most people in the civilized world tolerate Blackjack.

But video games are currently not classified as art, and far too many people are calling for video games to be forced to drink hemlock for the crime of corrupting the youth.

So, in other words, gamers want games to be considered “art” at least partly because their hobby is NOT considered socially legitimate and because (as such) it is seen as censorable. I’m certainly not suggesting this is the only motivation gamers have, but it is clearly a motive.

I think another point Ebert raises is whether a work that incorporates various genres of art can in and of itself be called art. Lets take BioShock; you have architecture and interior design and the overall art direction of the City of Rapture (visual art), you have music (the soundtrack), and you have a narrative which makes intelligent commentary on the issue of choice in video games. No one would argue that any of these individual elements are less than artistic. The music is exceptionally moody, the setting is highly stylized Rand-esque Art-Deco and the narrative critiques its own medium.

As for the art direction itself, I’m a Randian. The aesthetics of Rapture utterly nailed the embodiment of Randian ideals; man in ascendance etc. The setting and backstory are also a commentary on Objectivism; I don’t entirely agree with the commentary (it assumes man is too flawed to consistently practice any ideal) but that’s not the point. Commenting on serious ideas and being self-critical of one’s own medium have been considered hallmarks of true art by many philosophers of aesthetics, and BioShock’s narrative does both.

So, we have three elements which even Ebert wouldn’t consider non-artistic; a medium-critical and philosophically involved narrative, dramatic and atmospheric music, and art-deco-style art direction.

BioShock merely presents these three elements through a game. It doesn’t subtract anything from the three previous elements; it merely adds a game system through which the other elements are experienced.

Ebert wishes to conclude that “Video games are not art.” BioShock is a video game which includes indisputably artistic elements (as shown before). If confronted with BioShock, Ebert could only be correct if BioShock were not art. In order to argue that BioShock is not art, Ebert would have to embrace the following premise;

1) The presentation of artistic things (art direction, music, narrative) through a non-artistic “framing device” (such as a game) instantly renders the product as a whole “non-art.”

I would argue that this premise is at the very least a questionable one. It requires the mode of presentation to “nullify” the artistic value of the content.

Finally, and most importantly, I wish to bring some historical evidence to bear; the printing press wasn’t originally seen as a tool of art. The cinema wasn’t either; originally it was used as a news delivery service. The television was seen as degenerate. Rock music was originally seen as satanic and savage. Comic books were once seen as seducing the innocent.

All of these media are now considered forms of art.

I am not arguing that it is impossible to define art and I am not accusing Ebert of having malicious intent here, but I think that the popular understanding of “art” is more often a result of politics than anything else. It is a result of fears of new media forms (from both anti-modernity politicians and old media desperate to guard their priveliged positions in existing social institutions), moral panics, cries for censorship, followed by everyone finally realizing a new form of experience-delivery isn’t going to destroy society.

This pattern has repeated itself over and over throughout human history. I do not see how this time will be any different. It is only a matter of time before video games are regarded as another art form.

The rest of the replies, including some interesting rebuttals can be found here: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/04/roger-ebert-asks-a-good-question/

Some people might be tired of the argument as it comes up time and time again, but I've found the discussion here to be quite engaging. For those that sigh when these see these articles, it's really just the beginning. :lol

 

[mclem]

It's not as much being painted with the same brush as being in the same category imo. Obviously chess is different than Dungeons and Dragons, but both are "games." Likewise videogames are obviously interactive media, but I'd also put them in the category of gaming.

You bring up a good point though.

You appear to be saying that they're not art *because* they're games, the entire concept is mutually exclusive.

I think there can be art *in* science; any mathematician can recognise 'a beautiful proof', for instance; while http://www.perlmonks.org/?displaytype=displaycode;node_id=118799 is truly perverse - as most perl is, let's be honest - it's also beautiful. Algorithms can have a beautiful simplicity or complexity.

I think it's possible to take a ruleset and appreciate the beauty of its simplicity (Tetris) or its balance and intricacies (Chess), or its finely-honed risk-reward mechanism to encourage continued play (a dry, dull, scientific way of saying 'fun'). I think that's art, myself. It's just art in a form that you can't *see* unless you're familiar with games, and many people who *are* familiar with games still aren't aware of; they might feel it on a base level but not interpret those feelings the way I do.

Bizarre tangent time: Is cookery art?

 

[GhaleonQ]

Bizarre tangent time: Is cookery art?

As is perfumery. People who accept industrial design and architecture (i.e., the sense of touch) must accept those 2, except both are perishable. Then again, so is The Last Supper and so are lost works on primitive paper and film. Perishability has never been a standard for art, so it's really just a bias toward certain senses that would prevent people from saying so.

 

[Safe Bet]

Is chess art? Dungeons and Dragons?

The matches played on a chess board may not be art (some would argue they are due to the "abstract expressions" displayed via each player's style of play, ie aggression versus deceit) but the game itself is art.

It uses a set of rules to express an abstract message about Queens, Knight, Pawns, and how they can interact in the battlefield of life.

Yes, that message has been lost over the years because people don't "think" about it anymore, but it is still there and was put there by an artist.

D&D is not a game. You don't win it. It a set of rules designed to represent abstract ideas allowing them and us to interact.

When a person sits down and attempts to design a system that conveys his internal abstract idea of what a Knight is, it is art.

This is undeniable.

 

[Safe Bet]

Bioshock's problem is its gameplay had nothing to do with the game's "message".

Its basically a 3D movie that intermediately pauses until the audience passes a crisis test or solves a puzzle.

This has been highlighted by the "theme and gameplay should not be separate" discussions we've heard recently.

I think a good litmus test would be:

If a game can be made into a movie or book with very little lost, its not interactive art.

 

[outlawedprod]

To prove Ebert wrong Squenix is going to release a special DLC for FF13 called 4'33." For four hours and 33 minutes you will traverse a tube with Vanille without contacting any enemy or hearing any audio.

I think the reason a lot of people are so adamant about trying to prove something to Ebert is the desire to vindicate their own interests. To me that is the greatest flaw of the discussion on this issue.

 

[mclem]

To prove Ebert wrong Squenix is going to release a special DLC for FF13 called 4'33." For four hours and 33 minutes you will traverse a tube with Vanille without contacting any enemy or hearing any audio.

Actually...

http://www.kloonigames.com/blog/games/4mins33secs

 

[jdogmoney]

Bioshock's problem is its gameplay had nothing to do with the game's "message".

Three words, sire, in stark disagreement:

Spoiler

Would you kindly?

Spoiler

The gameplay was linear. You couldn't progress until you did what you were told. "A man chooses, a slave obeys" ties into the game's "message" pretty well, I think.

 

[spazzfish]

Isn't art almost timeless? Where video games certainly are not.
If you put say something like flower forward as art in 5 years time from now you'll be laughed at so hard it would be ridiculous, however a classic painting will still be considered art for centuries.
Why do people want games to be classed as art anyway?
Games are to be played for a sense of achievement/competition/enjoyment. If you seriously want anything else from games then it could probably be much better served to you else where.

 

[Mar]

Regardless if games are art or not. Ebert has a point. Why do the gamers care? Is it because they want to justify the hours they commit to the medium, or that they inherently believe what they are doing is immature?

Personally I couldn't care less. I play games because I love them. Obtaining the blessing of a critic means nothing to me.

 

[jdogmoney]

Isn't art almost timeless? Where video games certainly are not.
If you put say something like flower forward as art in 5 years time from now you'll be laughed at so hard it would be ridiculous, however a classic painting will still be considered art for centuries.
Why do people want games to be classed as art anyway?
Games are to be played for a sense of achievement/competition/enjoyment. If you seriously want anything else from games then it could probably be much better served to you else where.

Usually, if the thread is too long to read in its entirety, it's good to read at least the last two or three pages.

Could I get the sense of desperation I get in Majora's Mask anywhere else?
The sense of isolation of Portal?
The sense of WTF am I doing of Katamari Damacy?
The introspection of Shadow of the Colossus?

If you played SotC for the achievement of killing all the bosses, you're doing it wrong.

And as for your "five years" comment...
The sense of exploration in the original Legend of Zelda?

[Clearly, I need to play Flower so I can tell whether or not it's a good example of art...]

 

[BobsRevenge]

Bizarre tangent time: Is cookery art?

Without a doubt, it most certainly can be. The flavorfulness and aroma I sensed on my tongue and in my nose from the duck I made last week has rivaled the emotionality of some Chopin pieces.

There is no reason that taste and smell can't be used to present something beautiful and aesthetic. In some ways it is more powerful, for it appeals to baser instincts and has more access to the more primal brain.

 

[Mael]

Isn't art almost timeless? Where video games certainly are not.

Tetris sure aged badly and let's not even talk about all the star invaders wannabee...
Now games where enjoyment derives from gfx (Uncharted2 maybe?) now that is something that is certainly not timeless (but that goes for films too I mean rise of the Argonauts or whatsisname? King fucking Kong? Transformers?)

 

[Safe Bet]

Spoiler

Would you kindly?

I agree that part is pretty deep, but I was referring to the more obvious themes, message, etc...

*ponder*

Perhaps my frustration with the lack of choice and irrelevance of the gameplay is part of the point?

*sigh*

I fucking hate art...

 

[mentalfloss]

Art or no?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjGrHBpfqCo&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[Gaogaogao]

Irony...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjGrHBpfqCo&feature=player_embedded#!

thats not a game, thats machinima, which is art

 

[spazzfish]

Usually, if the thread is too long to read in its entirety, it's good to read at least the last two or three pages.

Could I get the sense of desperation I get in Majora's Mask anywhere else?
The sense of isolation of Portal?
The sense of WTF am I doing of Katamari Damacy?
The introspection of Shadow of the Colossus?

If you played SotC for the achievement of killing all the bosses, you're doing it wrong.

And as for your "five years" comment...
The sense of exploration in the original Legend of Zelda?

[Clearly, I need to play Flower so I can tell whether or not it's a good example of art...]

Emotion isn't art it's emotion. If i get a sense of desperation looking at modern day society is that then art? No.
What you experience emotionally doesn't then define what it actually is, only what emotionally it means to you. That's not art.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Tetris sure aged badly and let's not even talk about all the star invaders wannabee...

To go off of that Tetris thing, I think Osmos is the most artful pure gameplay game I've played. It has a beauty in the elegance of its design. The gameplay is genius, but simple, and the graphics and sound design are timeless.

The game is under-appreciated. I was struck by its elegance though, and I think it speaks towards an understanding of life and the cosmos on a very abstract level using the gameplay, sound, and graphics. It works, at least for me.

 

[Safe Bet]

Art or no?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjGrHBpfqCo&feature=player_embedded#!

Behold, I looked upon the demon and the demon was me...

 

[Kade]

Does the WWE count as art since they added a story, characters and conflict to a game?

 

[Nickiepoo]

'real' games might or might not be an artform, but playing them sure can be.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Does the WWE count as art since they added a story, characters and conflict to a game?

It is performance art that appeals to the most unappealing sects of society.

If the NBA or NFL made gimmicky characters and gave them all backstories would they be considered performance art as well then?

Maybe. If it is trying to convey something aesthetic (which I assume is a no) or an emotion (which is a possible yes) then I would consider it art. Horrible, horrible, and pointless, art.

 

[Kade]

It is performance art that appeals to the most unappealing sects of society.

If the NBA or NFL made gimmicky characters and gave them all backstories would they be considered performance art as well then?

 

[TheLegendary]

Not interested in getting into this whole discussion and I'm sure this has been addressed but I think Ebert is especially unqualified to discuss this considering he probably hasn't played a game in 20 years.

Would you be able to judge the artistic merit of a painting without "experiencing" it yourself? If someone describes the Mona Lisa by saying it's a chick smirking, you wouldn't get any of the emotional impact of the piece.

Art doesn't exist in a vacuum...an individual needs to experience it. For Ebert to sit on the sidelines and criticize a medium he has no experience with makes him sound like a cranky old man...which he probably is. I've been following him on twitter but more and more I find he complains about everything; politics, 3-D movies, and now video games again.

Edit: I'm not necessarily saying that video games are art. Just saying it's irrational to criticize a medium that you have no firsthand experience, especially when that's critical to a discussion of art.

 

[Monocle]

Bioshock's problem is its gameplay had nothing to do with the game's "message".

Its basically a 3D movie that intermediately pauses until the audience passes a crisis test or solves a puzzle.

This has been highlighted by the "theme and gameplay should not be separate" discussions we've heard recently.

I think a good litmus test would be:

If a game can be made into a movie or book with very little lost, its not interactive art.

(BIG BIOSHOCK SPOILERS AHEAD)

If I had to nominate a single moment from any video game to be named art, it would be

Spoiler

the murder of Andrew Ryan

in Bioshock.

Spoiler

When you arrive in front of the man you thought was the main antagonist, the game treats you to a scene of self-referential horror in which the archetypal guide character, Atlas, turns out to have been controlling your character the whole time with a code phrase that discreetly compels obedience. Presently your controls are disabled and you're forced to watch yourself bludgeon to death Ryan in a brutal demonstration of what it means to have your mind enslaved.

This arresting sequence makes a keen metaphor of the familiar passive act of watching a cutscene. Very few games venture insightful commentary on themselves as a medium, or the complacence we gamers develop as we grow familiar with common gameplay and plot devices. Bioshock did it better than any other title has.

 

[Safe Bet]

It is performance art that appeals to the most unappealing sects of society.

I know they can be annoying but c'mon.. kids aint that bad.

 

[Mael]

This arresting sequence makes a keen metaphor of the familiar passive act of watching a cutscene. Very few games venture insightful commentary on themselves as a medium, or the complacence we gamers develop as we grow familiar with common gameplay and plot devices. Bioshock did it better than any other title has.

Except that gaming is all about interactivity, the fact that the game make a point in showing how little your action affect the game kinda shows how much the medium fails at what it's meant to do and what it offers and separate it from the other media

 

[mclem]

Except that gaming is all about interactivity, the fact that the game make a point in showing how little your action affect the game kinda shows how much the medium fails at what it's meant to do and what it offers and separate it from the other media

That does depend, rather, on what you think the medium is meant to do.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Not interested in getting into this whole discussion and I'm sure this has been addressed but I think Ebert is especially unqualified to discuss this considering he probably hasn't played a game in 20 years.

Would you be able to judge the artistic merit of a painting without "experiencing" it yourself? If someone describes the Mona Lisa by saying it's a chick smirking, you wouldn't get any of the emotional impact of the piece.

Art doesn't exist in a vacuum...an individual needs to experience it. For Ebert to sit on the sidelines and criticize a medium he has no experience with makes him sound like a cranky old man...which he probably is. I've been following him on twitter but more and more I find he complains about everything; politics, 3-D movies, and now video games again.

Edit: I'm not necessarily saying that video games are art. Just saying it's irrational to criticize a medium that you have no firsthand experience, especially when that's critical to a discussion of art.

Hey, dude lost his lower jaw to cancer. He has earned his right to be cranky. Don't hate.