Support NeoGAF

[Error]

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

I agree completely, sometimes a minimalistic approach to the story works better than feeding the player with cutscene after cutscene

take SMT:N for example you can complete the game ignoring the story completely becuase the game does not force you to understand the story instead the game gives the player the option of talking to NPCs and then by talking to them you can understand the story, yet that is not required to complete the game. something that Xenosaga completely forgot.

same could be said about the approaches in terms of story by games like ICO and SoTC

and if the designer requires the player to watch cutscene after cutscene then by default the designer must present the player a good story as an incentive to sit 20 or 30 minutes of polygons talking which is what Kojima does so well.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Its art to the one who created it.

 

[Alcibiades]

btw, on a personal level, one of the only games that has ever leapt out at me as an example that videogames can be art is Majora's Mask...

I'd consider other games as well, and as a gamer appreciate many of my favorites, but if the videogame world were to ever lay it on a game to show how it can be appreciated as art, Majora's Mask should be the game without question.

even though it's not personally my favorite game (in fact probably not even Top 5)

 

[Matlock]

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

Every medium piggybacks on the foundation another medium...so I dunno about pushing plot in-game as opposed to cutscenes and traditional storytelling. Of course, you have CoD and HL that put you in the middle of things, but I don't feel that can work in all instances.

 

[Mr Mike]

Perhaps the case with Eva is true.

Here's another question - from something from Mr Jaffe's game - I recall a moment in God of War when I walked up some steps over looking that large battle against the giant guy (sorry, his name escapes me). And I remember the way the camera follows Kratos made this moment totally surprising as it revealed the spectacle of battle. It was awe-striking and I completely believed it. Was that a game creating emotional resonance like art? Or was it down to the way the animations worked, meaning it was really the discipline of animation, not game design, that caused me to feel that way?

 

[Virgin Wii]

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

It's posts like these that prove that even the most tasteful of games haven't begun to approach literature and film.

 

[Timbuktu]

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

Would you consider architecture as art then? Or paintings as art? I don't think story and narrative as the only key for games to be more respected culturally. Games can be fun, how many films or books makes you feel that? Gameplay would be what makes games an art.

 

[Mr Mike]

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.

I think you're right to some extent. I certainly don't play games for cultural enrichment - I play them to be satisfied via the audio/visual response a game gives, and whether or not my response to it means I 'win'.

 

[Chiggs]

It's posts like these that prove that even the most tasteful of games haven't begun to approach literature and film.

Seriously. But good luck trying to convince some of the people here of that.

 

[Open Source]

There will never be a choose-your-own-adventure book that is considered literature.

I wonder if you could consider a movie of a game being played "art".

 

[davidjaffe]

In the case of Ares, we took control from the player...albiet very quickly....so even there we were cheating. And it worked, but it was a cheat....and I'm tired of cheating. I wanna know once and for all, can the medium ITSELF inspire emotion.....

David

 

[Gahiggidy]

Everythings art!

Fixed it for you.

 

[SolidSnakex]

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.

Probably because the way they'd be treated compared to Stone. He's respected in the media and if he were to go on a news show to defend one of his movies they wouldn't get some whack job like William Donahue to debate him, but you know with GTA they're going to roll Jack Thompson out of his crazy chamber to attack them along with whoever is hosting the show. I've seen one of the Housers defend their games once on a website and that's all they need to do.

 

[Sapiens]

Ebert is totally right.

 

[hellfire]

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.

MGS is art...just really bad art - fantastic action/direction, worst hamfisted pretentious storytelling/pacing i've ever had the displeasure of sitting through. Cinematics don't necessarily make art.

2 metrics i use for art are emotional/intellectual response.

There are very few games that *move* people. ICO and Zelda:OOT (and maybe baldur's gate 2) are almost the only ones I'd say that have moved me, and I didn't even like the ICO gameplay (bad yorda AI, boring combat, same puzzles). To me, that's my motivating factor in painting and photography.

There are very few games that explore issues or open our minds. OK, MGS said 'nukes bad', but frankly, it was told in the worst possible way...possible...with laughably bad acting, writing, and pacing. Deus Ex 1/2 come close.


All that said, I think games like Condemned are art in the same way XFiles is (and it's a better experience than , say resident evil the movie). But it's no Seven or Silence of the Lambs.

 

[DopeyFish]

Games are the next evolution of art form.

You have written, drawn, musical, theatrical and interaction all rolled into one. People like Ebert can't really understand the medium yet because it hasn't matured yet. It's well in it's early years as an artform.

Games for the most part is the most difficult artform yet as you need all 5 tiers to work in tandem. Yes it's a game. Yes, to most people it might seem very archaic. But it's not nearly all choice. Some games stories are based on choice. Most are not and are based around a linear storyline/path. But the beauty of art in itself is choice as well. 100 people can look at a painting and see something different.

Or maybe he's just being an ass because there's been really no top-tier game movies yet.

 

[Timbuktu]

Everything's art!

art1 n
1. the creation of beautiful or thought-provoking works, for example, in painting, music, or writing
2. beautiful or thought-provoking works produced through creative activity
3. a branch or category of art, especially one of the visual arts
4. the skill and technique involved in producing visual representations
5. the study of a branch of the visual arts
6. creation by human endeavor rather than by nature
7. the techniques used by somebody in a particular field, or the use of those techniques
8. the skill or ability to do something well
9. the ability to achieve things by deceitful or cunning methods (literary)

npl arts
1. the activities enjoyed for the beauty they create or the way they present ideas, for example, painting, music, and literature
2. nonscientific and nontechnical subjects at school or college

Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation.

That should help.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

lol @ games as art

 

[Togeo]

The problem with cinematics in games is that they break the suspension of disbelief. Not disbelief with the world or characters but with the sense of being in control. Using cinematics as a way of emotionally connecting the player is simply not truly lending itself to the format.

 

[Kangu]

Silent Hill succeeds in inspiring fear in the player without taking control from him.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Games are the next evolution of art form.

You have written, drawn, musical, theatrical and interaction all rolled into one. People like Ebert can't really understand the medium yet because it hasn't matured yet. It's well in it's early years as an artform.

Games for the most part is the most difficult artform yet as you need all 5 tiers to work in tandem. Yes it's a game. Yes, to most people it might seem very archaic. But it's not nearly all choice. Some games stories are based on choice. Most are not and are based around a linear storyline/path. But the beauty of art in itself is choice as well. 100 people can look at a painting and see something different.

Or maybe he's just being an ass because there's been really no top-tier game movies yet.

Well, then I guess you would not consider a move to holo-games with basic geometric shapes as an advance?

 

[Virgin Wii]

Seriously. But good luck trying to convince some of the people here of that.

I wouldn't want to convince them of that to prove something. I just think that gamers who take gaming too seriously give normal people a bad impression of gamers in general. Kinda like a Britney Spears fan exclaiming that Britney is one of the All Time greats, much to the chagrin of the adjacent, much more realistic Britney fan grimacing at the attention being brought upon them.

It's like some gamers are asking to not be taken seriously.

Of course, serious gamers breed serious developers, and it's those people who will elevate gaming beyond what it is now. Some day.

 

[koam]

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

What's worse is that this guy has to see vin diesel and other shitty hollywood movies during his days alive.

 

[GitarooMan]

I would say that just because something isn't good "art" (i.e not as sophisticated or whatever elitist tag you want to put on "real" art), doesn't mean it's not art. Just because games aren't as developed or mature an art form as literature or movies doesn't mean it not's art, it just might be inferior art. To say the stories or visuals suck in games is simply to say it's sucky art, not that it's not art at all, IMO.

 

[Porridge]

.

 

[Virgin Wii]

I would say that just because something isn't good "art" (i.e not as sophisticated or whatever elitist tag you want to put on "real" art), doesn't mean it's not art. Just because games aren't as developed or mature an art form as literature or movies doesn't mean it not's art, it just might be inferior art. To say the stories or visuals suck in games is simply to say it's sucky art, not that it's not art at all, IMO.

Then again, you don't hear anybody calling Drawn Together "a work of art", even though it technically is.

Obviously, the use of "art", for the purpose of this discussion, refers to masterworks.

 

[Nerevar]

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.

I agree with your point in the first paragraph, but certainly not with the point of the second paragr. Something doesn't have to have a story to be considered good art. I'd argue that you'd have better luck arguing a game like Rez is more a work of art in how it fuses auditory, visual, and gameplay elements rather than focusing on trying to form a coherent and overarching "good" story.

 

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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

i agree with Ebert here

alot of us have wasted alot time in our lives on gaming, despite the fact it's a a legit hobby. i'm pretty certain if it weren't for gaming i would be alot more successful than i am now (even though i spend minimal time actually playing), and i know the same applies for many, though they'd vehemetley deny it

 

[GitarooMan]

i agree with Ebert here

alot of us have wasted alot time in our lives on gaming, despite the fact it's a a legit hobby. i'm pretty certain if it weren't for gaming i would be alot more successful than i am now (even though i spend minimal time actually playing), and i know the same applies for many, though they'd vehemetley deny it

No doubt true for some, but my problem is the elitist notion that implied that watching a bunch of movies somehow is superior.

 

[vitaflo]

I work in the New Media dept of a very large contemporary art museum. I will say this is not just an issue with people like Mr. Ebert, but museums themselves. People have a hard time associating anything New Media (let alone games) as art, for some of the very reasons Ebert gave. This is because New Media basically questions everything that art is.

For example, Jeremy Strick, who is Director of the Museum of Contemporary Art in LA said:

[New media art] questions everything, the most fundamental assumptions: What is a work? How do you collect? What is preservation? What is ownership? All of those things that museums are based upon and structured upon are pretty much thrown open to question.

This of course includes things that aren't video games (Net.Art, etc), though games would be included in New Media. The curators that are serious about this sort of thing are taking new media and thus gaming seriously. But there are still a lot of questions about it that many museums are still trying to cope with (which if you ask me is a good thing).

They will have to learn to deal with it sooner or later, because these days art is becoming more about convergence. For example, performance art intermixed with New Media art. The lines between disciplines are blurring, and if certian people like Ebert don't hop on board, it's going to hit them head on at some point.

I think the biggest obstical to gaming today is "social awareness". A lot of times this is what keeps it away from the eyes of those in the art world. The great thing is that there are a lot of indie artist games out there that do have quite a bit of that and are being taken more seriously now in that area (and unfortunatley are games nobody has heard of). The commercial realm just needs to catch up in that regard if it wants to raise eyebrows.

 

[jett]

I don't give a shit what Ebarf thinks(regarding videogames). He's a self-adimitted ignorant on the subject. I like him as a film critic just fine, though.

 

[Shogun]

I wouldn't want to convince them of that to prove something. I just think that gamers who take gaming too seriously give normal people a bad impression of gamers in general. Kinda like a Britney Spears fan exclaiming that Britney is one of the All Time greats, much to the chagrin of the adjacent, much more realistic Britney fan grimacing at the attention being brought upon them.

It's like some gamers are asking to not be taken seriously.

Of course, serious gamers breed serious developers, and it's those people who will elevate gaming beyond what it is now. Some day.

How should gamers try to be taken seriously then, not defending a medium when even it's potential to become art is laughed at? I'll be the first to say that we don't have a definative game that is our classic yet, something that others will look at and will define our genre. But we have only really had about 20 years, 40 if you want to get technical. Movies have been around since 1895, and yet Citizen Kane premiered in 1941, and Casablanca in 1942. Fritz Lang didn't get cooking till the 1920's and he is the first claim that any could have as a real movie artist. I believe games are on the edge of maturing as a medium, and that the first game to really show that is just around the corner.

You can see the primary work being done in games like Silent Hill where a world is presented in a way that is impossible in a movie. Where a movie must take us from a to b and not linger in fields or paint a city, Silent Hill's strength was that it allowed us to wonder in this horrible city, creating a feeling of aloneness and fear that would have been impossible in a movie where walking around searching and hunting for people would be seen as boring, where we have the need to empathise and thus there must be dialouge. That is echoed in a very different way in Shadow of the Colossus, where the world is also huge and empty, but not frightening. I think of Shadow of the Colossus is a student film of sorts, it's trying to figure out how to say something important.

 

[Sathsquatch]

I maintain that Deus Ex 1 was a great peace of art. It presented multiple perspectives on globalization, politics, and mankind's relationship with technology. It was relevant to the current political cultural while being extremely entertaining.

Deus Ex was even artistic in ways other mediums cannot be. It engaged players in its moral questions by presenting them with consequences for their actions, and it asked the player to take a position on the themes presented throughout the game. The player had to listen the equally valid arguments of three opposing factions and take a side. Other mediums cannot both engage the audience in moral dilemmas and force them to make a decision. Games do not merely have the opportunity for artistic expression. They offer new and novel means of artistic expression as well.

 

[Monk]

Games are the next evolution of art form.

You have written, drawn, musical, theatrical and interaction all rolled into one. People like Ebert can't really understand the medium yet because it hasn't matured yet. It's well in it's early years as an artform.

Games for the most part is the most difficult artform yet as you need all 5 tiers to work in tandem. Yes it's a game. Yes, to most people it might seem very archaic. But it's not nearly all choice. Some games stories are based on choice. Most are not and are based around a linear storyline/path. But the beauty of art in itself is choice as well. 100 people can look at a painting and see something different.

Or maybe he's just being an ass because there's been really no top-tier game movies yet.

I disagree with the idea that gaming is in its early years as an artform. Grim Fandango is deinitely art. Also the idea that authoritative control is required for art is complete bs. But i understand where he is coming from. The perfect example of why yuou need some level of creativeness, elegance and co-ordination is IGN's video's. Even when they play shadow of the collossus(sp?) or game that we consider to be art, there is a pain in our guts telling what we see is garbage not art.

So basically what i am saying is that gaming as art is dependant on the player.

 

[Shogun]

From my girlfriend the composer:

Art can only be defined within its given medium. If a painting is art, and a painting is a work which you see and analyze, is a piece of music not art because you hear it?
And since many instrumental works (and most paintings) don't have stories they are describing, are they paltry compared to a good book? In other words, every medium has its own characteristics which makes it "art". Games have yet to define what makes them "artistic" - story? gameplay? music? cinematics? It is still in the infancy of its development, whereas movies seem to have solidified its definition to some extent (hence critics, like Ebert). We can't say whether the gameplay and visual prowess of MGS makes it art, despite its (apparent) lackluster storytelling; if Katamari is art despite its total lack of story; if ICO is art despite its (apparently) uncompelling gameplay. What we CAN say is that in time, games will solidify its own definition of art, and games will become "art" when it happens (and we'll know it when it does).

 

[Ironclad]

But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art.

I don't think he could be more wrong here. It's the very nature of the medium that can "move it beyond craftsmanship."

Also, some people seem to think that it's only the story or writing that makes a movie "art." There is quite a bit more that goes into it, but that goes without saying.

 

[Pellham]

I don't believe that video games are art, that's some ridiculous pseudobabble invented by linear cinematic RPG fanboys (you know who you are). Video games are entertainment plain and simple. They're art as much as sports are. And sports aren't art.

However Ebert's last sentence is definately made out of ignorance. He is probably unaware of the many video games that do entertain us in a manner almost similar to the way a movie or good book or comic does. The loss of those hours is no different than when watching cinema.

edit: Basically Ebert is saying that art is only something that can be observed. Games aren't just observed, you interact and play them, so that's why they're not art. If that's the case, i am damn glad that video games are not art. I'm damn glad they're not movies or interactive anime either.

 

[Monk]

Maybe I should clarify what i said. The player is the key ingredient when it comes to games as art but the developer's artistic endeavor in the game is what makes it different from a 2 dollar painting or a picasso.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

Watching a bunch of movies probably is superior if you're watching good film. I mean, if exploring the human condition or emotions is at least a touchstone to good art. I understand some people here being a bit touchy to the label of elitism but shit, that's what maturity in games would partly mean. Let it grow a bit. Some people here talk about the deep art of a Shadow of Colossus or Ico reflexively and then are arguing in another thread over the deep merits of Harry Potter or something. The very best games that might be mentioned are really just rudimentary in that respect.

Games have barely begun to touch that barrier. I applaud that the cultural barometer seems to be suggesting that maybe games are getting ready to move a little in that direction, since it would be a shame that a media so entrancing couldn't occasionally strive for a bit more. And I applaud game makers like David as well who are at least interested in experimenting in that direction, the market isn't exactly pulling them that way.

I disagree with Eberts sentiment about authorial control because I don't think he appreciates the extent that it exists, and he assumes that we need a certain format to obtain the emotional response that would lead us to the vague term "art". But basically, he's more right than wrong in the sentiment. And I've got to say...that has probably as much to do with us "hardcore" as it does the game designers. A short glimpse around here shows how conservative and narrow we all can be about games. Not that some goofy optimism about games is any more clever than reflexive cynicism.

BTW....games don't need to merely make us cry to be art. That seems to be the holy grail right now. I think they could more broadly summon our most exhilirating emotions that are a little more thoughtful than pure excitement. And they might also say something about our culture or politics that are a bit deeper than a fairy tale or police drama.

 

[Mifune]

I agree with Ebert. A game is a game. Would you consider Connect Four "art"?

That being said, I know a lot of movie nerds and a lot of gamer nerds. And the gamers are far more well adjusted socially, articulate about things other than their hobby, and fun to be around. Plus, they have better taste in music. Movie people have the WORST TASTE IN MUSIC.

So the loser in his parent's basement stereotype is, in my experience, more applicable to the film geek. TAKE THAT, EBERT!

 

[DopeyFish]

Yeah, games like grim fandago and SotC are just examples of stepping stones. If they end up being milestones for the artform then maybe ebert is right :/

I agree with Ebert. A game is a game. Would you consider Connect Four "art"?

A game is a game, but a Video game is not just a game.

Think about it... long and hard.

 

[Monk]

I agree with Ebert. A game is a game. Would you consider Connect Four "art"?

Depends on the player.

 

[DopeyFish]

Depends on the player.

As games become more evolved, this should become less and less a factor. You think of games just as something you play. Eventually it will be something to experience.

 

[vitaflo]

If you want a "game" that's art, it's Electroplankton, given that many parts of that game are actually art installations in museums in various parts of the world.

Like I said, if you want to see the real games as art at the moment, you're going to have to look past the commercial realm.

 

[Monk]

As games become more evolved, this should become less and less a factor. You think of games just as something you play. Eventually it will be something to experience.

I agree but that element will always be there. An idiot playing makes garbage, a great player playing makes it art.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

This thread makes me sad.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

This thread makes me sad.

Why?

 

[Duck of Death]

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.

This is important to note, since many influential film theorists (particularly Walter Benjamin) have observed that film and architecture are similar in their reception by the spectator/audience.

Ebert's defintion of art is itself outmoded because he places more importance on authorship than on spectator reception. This is especially dangerous in film theory and criticism. A film may have one artist (but is it the director? artist? producer?), but the medium itself is collaborative. Video games are also collaborative, but they may have one artist or director (say Tim Schafer). So, are video games less authorial than films? Not necessarily. To use this as the thrust for an argument is placing the thesis on weak foundation.

 

[acidviper]

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

I can't believe he took the bait. There is no correct way to answer this question. He has to keep his reputation intact, but he is commenting on a topic that he is clearly biased against and has limited knowledge. Unless he wanted extra hate mail, I'm not sure why he didn't let the sleeping dragon lie.

Cue Rob Schneider rebuttal.

 

[the year 20XX]

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

.