• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Not This Again : Ebert : Video games can never be art

I'm glad to see that everyones having fun.

Interesting to see that enough people aren't just calling Ebert a stupid old man, but instead are coming up with arguments against him. That seems the better response, if you actually care about the subject.

All I can be sure of is that for the next week game's journalists will be writting articles on this subject, once again.
 
Himuro said:
Silent Hill 2. Case closed.
This is my favorite example, because it directly contradicts Ebert's stated theory that games are not art, because player interaction interferes with the auteur's singular message (or whatever).

The multiple endings of Silent Hill 2 inform the player about the greater narrative. For example, that you know the character can commit suicide in one ending enriches your understanding of the seriousness of James' condition, even if you go on to pursue a more happy ending. Or you can leave with Maria, seemingly happy ever after, but that you know she is a negative demonic force in one ending underscores the non-victory of being with Maria.

If someone wrote a book or film showing alternate "endings" to one story, it would be hailed as a masterpiece by the likes of Ebert.
 
jdogmoney said:
Not to be rude, but :lol .

What do you mean, "The story is told with traditional means."? Are you saying a book can't be a work of art because it has dialogue?
That's really not what I'm saying. The book is the manifest of a telling. It is indistinguishable from it. The game has the manifest of a telling on the one hand (pictures and stuff) and the rules on the other. The pictures and stuff you can call art, but these rules don't really affect that status, they are exempt of the label in that sense.

You could try to disprove this statement by naming a game that becomes more than what it's saying with traditional means by using rules. So that the rules are a form of communication to tell something non-trivial all by themselves.

It's hard to find such a game though.
 
jdogmoney said:
calvin_3.jpg
<3 Calvin & Hobbes
 
BocoDragon said:
This is my favorite example, because it directly contradicts Ebert's stated theory that games are not art, because player interaction interferes with the auteur's singular message (or whatever).

The multiple endings of Silent Hill 2 inform the player about the greater narrative. For example, that you know the character can commit suicide in one ending enriches your understanding of the seriousness of James' condition, even if you go on to pursue a more happy ending. Or you can leave with Maria, seemingly happy ever after, but that you know she is a negative demonic force in one ending underscores the non-victory of being with Maria.

If someone wrote a book or film showing alternate "endings" to one story, it would be hailed as a masterpiece by the likes of Ebert.
Like the movie Clue right?
 
I do consider games to be "art," but I don't care to discuss it here because I'm not the least bit interested in the counterargument. I will say this much, though: focusing on story-centric games in this argument is bad. Doing so de-emphasizes games that aren't story-centric, disqualifying some of the medium's strongest products. It's pointless to handicap your argument in such a way.
 
Monty Mole said:
Videogames contain art, therefore are a collection of art in themselves.
Certainly. But it's not all they contain. It's not even their principle. They are not just collections of art pieces. The pieces are carefully placed so that following the game rules exhibits them.

Then again, it doesn't work the other way around. The rules don't necessitate these specific art pieces, really. The story is superficial in terms of achieving the goal, whatever it is.

It is a coexistence. We humans enjoy art on the one hand and games and rules on the other. Intertwining them brings us a certain form of joy. Or pain, in the case of E.T The Extra-Terrestrial.

That doesn't mean that much, really. I like to have a softdrink at the museum, it tastes nice and I'm thirsty. Softdrinks aren't art because of that though, obviously.
 
BocoDragon said:
If someone wrote a book or film showing alternate "endings" to one story, it would be hailed as a masterpiece by the likes of Ebert.

Blind Chance, directed by master director Krzysztof Kieslowski, does this. Its MTV-generation remake Run Lola Run also does this. Ebert gave Lola three stars, and made the following interesting statements:

"indeed its heroine is like the avatar in a video game--Lara Croft made flesh."

"Film is ideal for showing alternate and parallel time lines."

"I would not want to see a sequel to the film, and at 81 minutes it isn't a second too short, but what it does, it does cheerfully, with great energy, and very well. "

Ironically, there is no review archived on his site for the superior Blind Chance.
 
T-Matt said:
Like the movie Clue right?
Well.... yeah.... The movie would also have to be good. And there having been other similar concepts like Sliding Doors, etc. Taratino films and Memento have used "time displaced" scenes to tell us about a greater whole story.

But the point is... this is a wonderful concept for gaming. Only games should tell stories like this, and they can tell unique stories that films actually cannot. Films probably couldn't pull this off it off in the same way... we'd have to sit through 4-6 different "endings" in linear order? No way. Only Wayne's World can do that! :lol Because it's a comedy.

EDIT: Thanks Freezie... Run Lola Run.. how could I forget about that? I will check out Blind Chance someday.. thanks.
 
The mistake many make is to equate art with simply experiences. Or with aesthetics and culture.

games are art in the anthropological sense that they are the cultural products of a specific culture group at a specific time in history.

Ebert's point is that beyond the curiosity of the anthropologist, videogames can't be more of an art than Mayan ball games were art.

Both were cultural constructs. But he doesn't believe the games we play today will have any artistic relevance in the future.

Maybe he's completely wrong, but I've tended to side with him on this issue and I love games and enjoy the experiences my favorite games have provided me.

I think, at its very core, people can get so upset about statements like this is because it is our medium and we're very protective of it. I'm not sure why games being art is such a big deal, because most designers who try tend to end up with contrived shit.

I'd argue though the artistry of games, if it exists at all, is 'gameplay'. It's not something you can easily describe, it is something you know, just as we know great art. It's really how the components of a game falls together in the same way the brush strokes in a Monet painting elevates it from someone who is a 'craftsman' who knows their trade to an 'artist'. It exists in all games, it's not a 'winnable' element, it's the glue that holds a game together and differentiates the high production mediocrity from the truly great games.
 
Eurgh...
Arguing the definition of art is always one of the muddiest confrontations I ever witness, and defining it in a traditional sense (logical argument) is unproductive.

The way I see it, when the public and academia acknowledge that video games have an established cannon, then it will be considered art. Not to take away from the games that are out now, but society just doesn't see it yet. In twenty years, games like Silent Hill will be more respected than they are now.

On this topic, I was reading our local paper the other day with predictions from an academic that our children would be educated by games rather than books by 2050, and he listed top 10 games considered current 'cannon.' Off the top of my head he listed something like:
-GTA4
-Civilisation
-Zelda (doesn't say which one)

Guy sounded like a bit of crackpot, I'll say that.
 
how can a restrictive environment achieve any art other than performance art? and if every performance amounts to a predetermined conclusion, how can it be considered art? it's a visual story (i.e. a movie) with gameplay bits between cutscenes.
 
blame space said:
how can a restrictive environment achieve any art other than performance art? and if every performance amounts to a predetermined conclusion, how can it be considered art? it's a visual story (i.e. a movie) with gameplay bits between cutscenes.
There is no more predetermined conclusion than a linear story found in a movie or book, though.
 
Never is such an ugly word

never


really never?

Not in a thousand years?

Ever?


I think few influental people have made statements including the word "never" that still holds true today...
 
Deku said:
I thin, at its very core, people can get so upset about statements like this is because it is our medium and we're very protective of it. I'm not sure why games being art is such a big deal, because most designers who try tend to end up with contrived shit.
I'm a lone programmer & designer and I'm making my own game. It's my only way to express something, because I want to share a world that's in my head. A world I created and I want others to experience that world. I plan to release it for free in the hope that as many people can experience it. So if I do it alone, don't do it for the money, every single part of it is made by myself (the visuals, the presentation, the concepts of interactivity, the feelings I'm trying to extract) and it's something I created... it's still not art? I don't really see that as fair. But if it's a definition and this doesn't fall under that category, then so be it. Then I'm making "just a game". But then the Eiffeltower is "just a tower".
 
wmat said:
That's really not what I'm saying. The book is the manifest of a telling. It is indistinguishable from it. The game has the manifest of a telling on the one hand (pictures and stuff) and the rules on the other. The pictures and stuff you can call art, but these rules don't really affect that status, they are exempt of the label in that sense.

You could try to disprove this statement by naming a game that becomes more than what it's saying with traditional means by using rules. So that the rules are a form of communication to tell something non-trivial all by themselves.

It's hard to find such a game though.

Indeed. Such a game would be nigh-impossible to find. An urban legend, striking fear into the hearts of superstitious, cowardly art critics...wait, what's this?!

BAM.

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask answers everything you've put forth so far. If you haven't played the game, shame on you. Go do that right now. Also, this will make more sense if you have.

The game has two main "rules", as you call them: the repetition of the three day cycle, and the masks that change your abilities in-game.

Now, you can dismiss these two things as simply elements of a game design that's meant to be different from the mega-success of Ocarina of Time, but where's the fun in that? Let's look at both rules, and see what they have to contribute to the artistry of the game as a whole:

The time limit. You only have three in-game days to save the world. And you can't. For a long time, you have to retreat at the end of each cycle, because you're powerless to stop the moon from falling. You fail, again and again, before you're finally able to succeed. That alone would be a decent theme, but the game goes further. Except for masks and a few other items, every time you start over, you start from scratch. You're back to square one every time you save (barring the statues, but those are only good for one use and not really relevant to the point). The point is, a central mechanic of the game is designed to make the player feel helpless against an omnipresent threat, until eventually you're strong enough to take it on.

[Incidentally, I've never sat through the game to see the destruction of the town. I couldn't stand it.]

The masks. The masks, again, alter gameplay somewhat, but why masks? Why not talismans, or tunics like in OoT? Masks have a strong anthropological significance. Tribes all over the world use masks in their rituals, and to this day masks are used in theatre performances. More importantly, though, the game offers commentary on the masks everyone wears, in day to day life. Anju, the innkeeper, has a mask of someone who is there to serve you with a smile, but the most involved sidequest in the game reveals how much is going on beneath the surface. Link wears masks to interact with the townspeople, just as you wear a mask to interact with your townspeople. Anytime you've felt miserable but elected to put on a happy face, you've worn a mask, and, indirectly, helped me prove objectively that Majora's Mask is awesome.

I could go on about the things that make this game a great work of art, but I won't right now, as it's three thirty in the morning, and I am sleepy.


If nothing else, the amount of academic waffling produced by games (see: above) should convince people that it's an artform in the making.
 
Zanken said:
The way I see it, when the public and academia acknowledge that video games have an established cannon, then it will be considered art. Not to take away from the games that are out now, but society just doesn't see it yet. In twenty years, games like Silent Hill will be more respected than they are now.
I don't think I'd agree. In twenty years, games will be far more sophisticated. Silent Hill will be perceived as a clever play on Pac-Man rules, with a horror story to make it sell well. Something like that.

Just like we judge over something like the original Sim City now. Every game loses its shine as time passes by. Only nostalgia (or the hunt for a highscore) keeps them in our minds.

That doesn't really diminish the value of them though. They once were current and interesting after all. They had cultural impact, certainly. In twenty years though.. Only old nerds will bother with them.

Look at how it is nowadays with the really old games held against the current AAA titles. Extrapolate. I think that's a pretty realistic outlook.
 
blame space said:
then what do you gain by participating?
Existing in the art space, having a chance for emergent moments of fun and beauty, instead of having it whiz by on some pre-scripted narrative with a set pace.
 
I would respect Ebert's opinion (that i don't necessarily agree or disagree with) if he actually played any games to come to his conclusion. In the end it's all just a load of self important waffle.
 
books = art
music = art
Paintings/sculptures/visual presentation (also acting etc.)/crafting in general = art

movies = books+music+visual presentation
movies = art

games &#8800; art
games = movies + interactivity

interactivity = ?



But seriously games are a showcase for all kinds of different forms of art (you know, that's why they pay artists to work on games), so that dude can fuck off for all I care. Not even a need to argue about it, he's simply wrong.
 
Corky said:
Never is such an ugly word

never


really never?

Not in a thousand years?

Ever?


I think few influental people have made statements including the word "never" that still holds true today...

Roger Ebert said:
Perhaps it is foolish of me to say "never," because never, as Rick Wakeman informs us, is a long, long time. Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form...

I still disagree with his argument, but he didn't say that games can never be art.
 
BocoDragon said:
Existing in the art space, having a chance for emergent moments of fun and beauty, instead of having it whiz by on some pre-scripted narrative with a set pace.

but using tools to have fun is neither art for the toolmaker nor the tool-user! it's just having fun.
 
Ok so I'm playing Gears and I'm doing Horde on Hardcore and this locust with a shotty comes at me so I duck back behind cover then pop out and saw him in half with me lancer right before he shoots me.
Videogames are definitely art, that was so artistic in the way it played out.
 
blame space said:
but using tools to have fun is neither art for the toolmaker nor the tool-user! it's just having fun.
I don't see how films are any different. Each scene is a tool to convey information. The dialogue conveys character traits and plot information, the camera pans across relevant imagery to further the plot, the music tells you the mood that you are expected to experience.

You could coldly reduce all art to "tools" which are intended for some entertainment-making purpose.
 
BocoDragon said:
If games aren't art:

Then a zen garden is not art.

A building's architecture is not art.

A sculpture is not art.

Performance art is not art.

Only Ebert's narrow-minded definition of a linear story in books or movies is art.
This post sums up my thoughts. Art is a personal thing, if someone says something is art, to them, it is.
 
rpmurphy said:
Can't wait for board games and tabletop games to be considered art.
It's really quite different unless you're just talking about deathmatch games and such.

I can't explore worlds, have a soundtrack, characters, plot points, emergent moments of artistic beauty, etc in Checkers.
 
jdogmoney said:
Indeed. Such a game would be nigh-impossible to find. An urban legend, striking fear into the hearts of superstitious, cowardly art critics...wait, what's this?!

BAM.

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask answers everything you've put forth so far. If you haven't played the game, shame on you. Go do that right now. Also, this will make more sense if you have.

The game has two main "rules", as you call them: the repetition of the three day cycle, and the masks that change your abilities in-game.

Now, you can dismiss these two things as simply elements of a game design that's meant to be different from the mega-success of Ocarina of Time, but where's the fun in that? Let's look at both rules, and see what they have to contribute to the artistry of the game as a whole:

The time limit. You only have three in-game days to save the world. And you can't. For a long time, you have to retreat at the end of each cycle, because you're powerless to stop the moon from falling. You fail, again and again, before you're finally able to succeed. That alone would be a decent theme, but the game goes further. Except for masks and a few other items, every time you start over, you start from scratch. You're back to square one every time you save (barring the statues, but those are only good for one use and not really relevant to the point). The point is, a central mechanic of the game is designed to make the player feel helpless against an omnipresent threat, until eventually you're strong enough to take it on.

[Incidentally, I've never sat through the game to see the destruction of the town. I couldn't stand it.]

The masks. The masks, again, alter gameplay somewhat, but why masks? Why not talismans, or tunics like in OoT? Masks have a strong anthropological significance. Tribes all over the world use masks in their rituals, and to this day masks are used in theatre performances. More importantly, though, the game offers commentary on the masks everyone wears, in day to day life. Anju, the innkeeper, has a mask of someone who is there to serve you with a smile, but the most involved sidequest in the game reveals how much is going on beneath the surface. Link wears masks to interact with the townspeople, just as you wear a mask to interact with your townspeople. Anytime you've felt miserable but elected to put on a happy face, you've worn a mask, and, indirectly, helped me prove objectively that Majora's Mask is awesome.

I could go on about the things that make this game a great work of art, but I won't right now, as it's three thirty in the morning, and I am sleepy.


If nothing else, the amount of academic waffling produced by games (see: above) should convince people that it's an artform in the making.
I wouldn't make an argument against MM being clever and awesome, telling an interesting tale, being highly involving, not prancing around like a hooker.

And sure, there's the three-day rule and the mask buff thing, both obviously being highly relevant as the story finds its conclusion.

Imagine for a moment that Majora's Mask was a book, a book with the exact story being told that you experienced yourself, that was so magical and involving to you. Certainly, there's a different level of involvement to someone who reads the book because you basically wrote it, right?

Wrong. What you did was you pressed buttons to fulfill conditions, and that all was masked (HA!) with the intricate story of MM as it was being awesome to make you have some button-pressing fun while a story was told.

———————

Imagine you bought a book. Everybody calls it art in the papers, it's really smart and touching and says important things and makes people dream about melting clocks, all that.

You read the book at home, and at page 126, the whole setting gets pretty steamy. The protagonist just met a hot girl and they're alone at his house.

The book describes the sex scene in full detail, and you find that highly arousing. So much so that you masturbate while turning pages until you come.

The book was quite involving, and your masturbation cleary made it very special to you. Clearly, masturbating while reading books is art.

See what I'm saying?
 
wmat said:
That's sort of a musical instrument, I suppose. A nicely looking sequencer that loops and accepts your input. On a DS.


You think so? Take a look at this: http://www2.kah-bonn.de/1/34/0e.htm


Electroplankton is an interactive art installation, scaled down and fit to your Nintendo DS. Yes, it is also some sort of instrument but that's why it is called interactive art, it requires input from the audience, or the artist.

If you saw this in an art exhibition, would you easily dismiss it as "some sort of musical instrument" or would you validate it as a work of art? Because you just watched what is considered a piece of art, just shrinked down and put on a Nintendo DS.

Electroplankton is miles away from your typical videogame, but in the end, it is a videogame.
 
Soneet said:
I'm a lone programmer & designer and I'm making my own game. It's my only way to express something, because I want to share a world that's in my head. A world I created and I want others to experience that world. I plan to release it for free in the hope that as many people can experience it. So if I do it alone, don't do it for the money, every single part of it is made by myself (the visuals, the presentation, the concepts of interactivity, the feelings I'm trying to extract) and it's something I created... it's still not art? I don't really see that as fair. But if it's a definition and this doesn't fall under that category, then so be it. Then I'm making "just a game". But then the Eiffeltower is "just a tower".
Are you making "Just an Eiffeltower defense game"?
 
People are continually comparing mainstream games to art house films and saying "games are not art".

No, mainstream games can't be art because they were not created as art, they were created to make money, funded not by the artists themselves and thus are not ultimately in full control of their work. Art house films that are truly art house films are never created to make money, only to create art.

Are mainstream games art?
No.

Are mainstream movies art?
No.

What is an art film?
Wikipedia said:
An art film is typically a serious, noncommercial, independently made film aimed at a niche audience rather than a mass audience. Film critics and film studies scholars typically define an “art film” using a “...canon of films and those formal qualities that mark them as different from mainstream Hollywood films”, which includes, among other elements: a social realism style; an emphasis on the authorial expressivity of the director; and a focus on the thoughts and dreams of characters, rather than presenting a clear, goal-driven story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_film

When is film art?
Michael Simmons said:
When is film art? When artists -- not compromised and spineless yuppies -- make films.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-simmons/when-is-film-art_b_91225.html

Can art house films be art?
Yes.

Can indie art games be art?
Yes. Jason Rohrer's work on Passage and Sleep is Death are great examples of a auteur with a single vision creating work not for profit but solely for artistic vision purposefully created against mainstream conventions toward an intellectual audience.

Must videogames be defined as games and thus have clear rules and resolutions?
No. Just like art films don't adhere to mainstream conventions such as three act structures or clearly defined goals of the characters. Art videogames by definition don't require the same structure as a mainstream, commercial videogame.

But it's called a videogame how can it be art?
Semantics is always a poor excuse when making a case for one's argument. It can easily be called an "Interactive Experience" the same way movies can be called "film" or "cinema" when they require the seriousness needed to convey their art.

Wikipedia said:
In the 1920s, film societies began advocating the notion that films could be divided into an "...entertainment cinema directed towards a mass audience and a serious art cinema aimed at an intellectual audience".
If movies can be purposefully segregated into art and entertainment can videogames?
Yes. In fact a very interesting trend has occurred in recent years regarding indie games, game societies and individuals are advocating the notion that videogames can be divided into entertainment directed towards the main stream audiences and a serious art game aimed at an intellectual audience.
 
I was going to write some long, thought-out posts earier in the night, but my feelings line up exactly with BocoDragon's, so it seemed redundant to do so.

One little note though: I generally think of Flower as the video game equivalent of Koyaanisqatsi. Both the movie and the game are quintessential examples of the journey being more important than the destination.

As much as I hate to admit it, I also think that it will be difficult for video games to be taken seriously if they keep that moniker. Heavy Rain calls itself an Interactive Drama and that's probably a step in the right direction if video games are going to be taken more seriously. Don't get me wrong, I'd likely still call them video games (just as I still call 'Graphic Novels' comic), but the word game has too many negative connotations.

Corky said:
Never is such an ugly word

never


really never?

Not in a thousand years?

Ever?


I think few influental people have made statements including the word "never" that still holds true today...
“Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night” --Dave Barry
 
I could rant for god knows how long about this mentality being the result of that lack of auteur theory I tote about when I'm feeling like a hipster kiddie when I can afford a Chai Frappucino, but it's late and I'm not feeling the argument so much tonight.

I can sum up my current feelings with the following:

Art, except in the rarest (or most offensive) of circumstances, is purely subjective.

Now, that having been said, this medium's main detractor is once again making blanket statements regarding how a potential method/medium of expression cannot, under any conditions, be art.

To me, this falls totally in line with Douglas Adams' excerpt about God refusing to acknowledge his own existence.
 
How the fuck can architecture be art but not videogames?

They're the same fucking thing...

Edit:

And how the fuck can "concept art" be art but once transfered to the digital realm it becomes non-art?

I don't know why I'm getting worked up over this.

He must be saying these things to stir discussion because he simply can't be that fucking stupid.
 
BocoDragon said:
It's really quite different unless you're just talking about deathmatch games and such.

I can't explore worlds, have a soundtrack, characters, plot points, emergent moments of artistic beauty, etc in Checkers.
Checkers, man, is so abstract. You gotta simplify, think abstract to appreciate the experience. The squares and disks are like totally out of this world. Black vs red in a black vs red world. Moving diagonally. Disk-eat-disk world. Stacking?! Put on some ambient music too.
 
He's definately not trolling games. He has a pretty strict opinion of what is art. What can you do about it...




But I agree with many points. Not many games have achieved anything that could be called art with a straight face. Then again, nowadays when anything can be art, this whole discussion won't lead to any solid answers.

But seriously games are a showcase for all kinds of different forms of art (you know, that's why they pay artists to work on games), so that dude can fuck off for all I care. Not even a need to argue about it, he's simply wrong.

He's not wrong that's for sure. He just narrows "art" as some kind of higher form of expression. Videogames are extremely commercial. Even more so than movies or music. I'm pretty sure Ebert can accept games as artwork once some game makes it to his levels of expectations.

Games are an artform IMO, but still 99,99% of them aren't art.
 
TheFLYINGManga_Ka said:
I don't know, Shadow of the Colossus seems like art to me.

But that's the only game I felt that way.
I just thought someone wanted to make a Malick film with giant monsters. Ico seemed like fantasy world Spielberg. I know people like to champion Ueda as the sole person who understands exclusive interactively, but to me his games just seem intentionally imitative of other works.

Anyways, this dude knows what is up. Sim City wouldn't work as a book, nor as a book, nor as a painting, whereas Ico or Flower or Braid whatever gamers typically like use as support are mediumistically fungible.

Also, this debate is painfully academic.
 
At my design college, the freshman core design studio (all design majors take it, whether interior, architecture, landscape, graphic, or studio art) has a project where students design and build a doorway installation. That is, something to alter the experience of walking through a doorway. When you walk through a doorway, the experience is very much pre-defined. You exit one space and enter another.

In a video game, you go from the beginning to the end, and at the end, you "win" as Ebert puts it. If the video game were like a basic doorway, there'd be nothing to the experience. You'd start the game, and then you win. (This, in itself, could be an expression of an idea, as could the idea of a simple doorway, though we're so accustomed to the latter that any thought given to it would seem awkward and silly.) However, when the design students put up their doorway installation, it alters the experience of walking through the doorway, putting new ideas and perceptions into the mind of the person experiencing it. This is a direct expression of ideas, done in an intentional matter.

Are expression of ideas and intentionality necessary to call something art? Maybe not. Scott McCloud, in his book Understanding Comics, claims that art can be defined at its roots as simply: anything that a living being creates or does that falls outside of the realm of actions for the sake of survival. Okay sure, video games are mostly created with profit in mind. However, an art/design student will create his/her work in the interest of graduating and getting a degree, therefore at least theoretically improving his or her chances of survival and a better quality of life. Then, is the work produced by an art & design student not art? OF course it is, because there's more that goes into it. There are ideas and emotions to be expressed.

The people involved in creating a game have clear idea they want to express. Even the makers of a game like Double Dragon had ideas they wanted to express. The player is interested in these ideas. Both parties invest time and energy into something that is not necessary for survival. The experience of both making and playing the game do affect one's ideas on life and reality.

The fact that Ebert is so interested in whether or not a game can "compete with" the great writers and artists of history just shows that he is not interested in looking at things from a core level. He is only interested in glossing over whatever surface he finds easiest to talk about, to ultimately serve his desire to assert his intelligence and authority. He seems to see the growing impact and popularity of video games and leap at it as an opportunity to shout out to the world: "look at how superior my tastes are!"

To be fair, the entire article focuses entirely on debunking one speech given by one person, and I would honestly take issue with quite a few points brought up in the speech. The speech, with its "hey check out these games I think they are as good as some of these other things which we consider 'art'" approach, seems to highlight just how silly it is to spend time debating about the value and legitimacy of certain types of media. It doesn't really matter. Video games make up a medium that completely oozes with creative potential. Any further discussion beyond that makes not a bit of difference.
 
Annoying Old Party Man said:
You think so? Take a look at this: http://www2.kah-bonn.de/1/34/0e.htm


Electroplankton is an interactive art installation, scaled down and fit to your Nintendo DS. Yes, it is also some sort of instrument but that's why it is called interactive art, it requires input from the audience, or the artist.

If you saw this in an art exhibition, would you easily dismiss it as "some sort of musical instrument" or would you validate it as a work of art? Because you just watched what is considered a piece of art, just shrinked down and put on a Nintendo DS.

Electroplankton is miles away from your typical videogame, but in the end, it is a videogame.
Following that logic, a nicely looking pencil is art because you can make really nice pictures with it.

Again, everyone has his own logic about this nonsense. I surely wouldn't find anything artsy about this interactive art installation, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Sixfortyfive said:
Ebert has been saying this for a while and probably won't change his mind. Why do you care?

I care because Ebert was one of the guys fighting hard to have cinema be considered art instead of mere entertainment.

Now that his precious cinema got into the art/culture status, he's joined the status quo and fights hard to keep off everything from "art" status.
 
ShockingAlberto said:
Shattered Memories.
emosternwx8.png

Thirs post got it completely right! This game did something that a movie or painting or book could never do. No point recommending to Roger though. He should just stop writing articles about it and say that he doesnt like video games much and thats it.
 
I don't think there is a clear line separating "mainstream" and "art", but otherwise I agree with Jackson, and not because I know a Jackson in real life and say that quite a bit.

And if Majora's Mask was a book, you wouldn't get to choose how to save the day, as you can in a game. You can go around solving everybody's problem (with the aid of your handy-dandy notebook!) or you can do the bare minimum of what's required to get to the end boss, or anything in between. There is choice involved, and you can go on that it's only an illusion of choice because every possible outcome is already programmed in, but that argument is wrong twice.

In a nutshell, even if it is only an illusion, that's still better than a movie or book in terms of alternatives, and two, if it is strictly pressing buttons to get a troy told, so what? You have to turn pages to get a story told in a book, and you aren't knocking the book for that, are you?
 
rpmurphy said:
Checkers, man, is so abstract. You gotta simplify, think abstract to appreciate the experience. The squares and disks are like totally out of this world. Black vs red in a black vs red world. Moving diagonally. Disk-eat-disk world. Stacking?! Put on some ambient music too.
If you can't see the "art" in the design of chess, I don't know what the fuck to tell you...
 
wmat said:
His thing is that games, with the inherent win-lose-concept, are already doomed because of that.

Except most games aren't about win/lose anymore. It's a win/delay-win-by-a-few-minutes/player-chooses-to-not-complete concept.
 
wmat said:
I don't think I'd agree. In twenty years, games will be far more sophisticated. Silent Hill will be perceived as a clever play on Pac-Man rules, with a horror story to make it sell well. Something like that.

Just like we judge over something like the original Sim City now. Every game loses its shine as time passes by. Only nostalgia (or the hunt for a highscore) keeps them in our minds.

That doesn't really diminish the value of them though. They once were current and interesting after all. They had cultural impact, certainly. In twenty years though.. Only old nerds will bother with them.

Look at how it is nowadays with the really old games held against the current AAA titles. Extrapolate. I think that's a pretty realistic outlook.
That's the thing really, you believe only nerds will be interested in video game history based on nostalgia, but I don't think so. I look at it more like music, where people will be able to trace back design influences to such games. Most people won't bother of course, but that's to be expected. There is some likelihood that people watching Citizen Kane in this day and age have some nerdy tenancies. Same with people listening to Bach.

That said there are a couple of reasons why I might end up being wrong:
-Technology will have to level out at some point, for gameplay styles to cross generations. Visuals don't concern me much here, but in twenty years time if nobody uses control pads anymore then you could very well be right. That is a real possibility. It might just be old folks rocking antique pads in the future.
-There really has to be more 'art games.' In my mind TV shows and comic books are two mediums that really stand out as 'common culture' rather than art. These forms have traditionally relied most on industry players and money to get out there. Games could head stay that way too.

Either way, I think there is some merit in fighting public perception that video games aren't (or cannot be) art. Looking at Australia particularly, the government is heavily invested in the film industry, often granting somes of money (millions of dollars) that the movies never make back, all in the name of art and culture. Meanwhile our games industry is had huge growth in the last couple of decades, but they rely heavily on international IPs to keep funding projects. If they got similar treatment to films, we'd be more likely to see some ground breaking games.
 
Top Bottom