-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Not This Again : Ebert : Video games can never be art
- Thread starter Jex
- Start date
Annoying Old Party Man
Member
wmat said:
What i meant to point out is that there are already videogames that are considered to be art by academia, that Ebert (and all the Ebert's of the world) ignore. I can accept Composition on the Table as art, you can't. But there is a new kind of art form that is emerging from a generation of artists that Ebert can't probably connect to that has really strong ties to videogames. That's my little point to this nonsense discussion: videogames can be considered art and you already have videogames being used as art.
Whether you choose to accept this is as irrelevant as critisizing a broken piece of toilet that you may find in an exhibition of modern art.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
Well, I can surely live with this outcome, I don't have to agree with it though, can even make an argument against it being the right thing. But if that's what art turns into, whatareyougonnado. I'll still marvel at Turner's crazy seascapes in the museum, and I'll feel like a hero doing it.Annoying Old Party Man said:
It's really sorta like religion.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
Well, it's perceived as being a means to an end - categorize your prey and your hunters will make confident decisions out there. But I'm sure there were some women around admiring the craftsmanship in those caves, and the painter started putting more energy into making the pragmatic approximations (and himself) look pleasing, and then, it all sort of spiralled out of control, didn't it?zoukka said:
Now here we are, shitting in a white room and taking money for it. I say we still have ways to go.
astroturfing
Member
if only he knew how incredibly HARD videogames are to make. if it isn't art, it sure as hell is a craft that demands some respect. if he knew how much effort people put into a game's visual style for example, i'm sure he wouldn't use the term "pathetic" to describe a game like Flower.. these aren't products that are cheaply designed like most toys and churned out every week, it takes YEARS to craft almost any game. people work their asses off on games, and very often with a clear artistic vision. and he just can't deny that many aspects of games are art.. go listen to the music of Oblivion or Silent Hill 2 and tell me those beautiful and haunting tunes don't have any artistic value...
tino said:
Not if the cavemen didn't think of them as art. Am I doing it right?
Personally the more I practice arts, the less I care about the definitions. I used to aim really high and admire the sheer technical skill of it. Nowadays I admire my friend who draws stick figure style and only puts some effort in making dicks and vaginas recognizable.
beelzebozo
Jealous Bastard
ebert liked AVATAR
opinion discounted
opinion discounted
PowerSmell
Member
I think that Ebert also out-reviewed %99 of the people who've reviewed those games to date.
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
b-but I liked AVATAR
Ebert forgets, or doesn't know, that most video games aren't meant to be "won", though - but to be experienced. People play for the experience and the journey - not the "You win!" screen at the end.
And the "or at least no gamer today will be alive to see games as art" is utter trash. Ebert really has no idea what he's talking about in this context.
And the "or at least no gamer today will be alive to see games as art" is utter trash. Ebert really has no idea what he's talking about in this context.
GillianSeed79
Member
astroturfing said:
The thing that makes me mad is not the ”is it art or not art" debate, it's how he seems so arrogant in dismissing an entire medium. But the thing is, I'm sure at the advent of film probably every book critic in the world dismissed these moving pictures as trite or silly. Penny arcades way back when showed short silent film clips for example. He's just of that generation that didn't grow up with games, so it's kind of hard to get mad at him. But then again “pathetic" can be used to describe a lot of films and people don't dismiss the entire film industry because of it.
SuperAngelo64
Banned
Hey, isn't that Siskel's nerdy little buddy?
I'm sorry, I forgot about obsolete shit like newspapers and movie critics because I have the internet now.
I'm sorry, I forgot about obsolete shit like newspapers and movie critics because I have the internet now.
zoukka said:
The early, early pioneers? Maybe not. Citizen Kane came out like fifty years after it started, though, right? I'm sure a good number of them got to that point. Games are already over 30 years old - and just look how far they've gone in the last ten.
But the point he's making is not that people won't live till when games are socially accepted as art - but actually technically are art.
Metropolis and tons of others movies before Citizen Kane are art - and many of them were considered that at the time, even if it wasn't completely mainstream. To say that video games won't become art, or be accepted as art, for another hundred years is absolute BS.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
So his argument suffers from the "bullseye fallacy", it seems.
beelzebozo
Jealous Bastard
Rez said:
you're confused, rez. confused.
Chris Murphy
Member
Rez said:
Avatar is an amazing film. His review of Avatar however is terrible.
beelzebozo said:
Shhhhh. Great film is great!
SuperAngelo64
Banned
Maybe videogames will become art when old shits like Ebert are dead?
We're looking at a good 5 to 7 years here, people.
We're looking at a good 5 to 7 years here, people.
:lol
Games are factually art. If movies and music is art, so are games. I don't see how you can look at games like SOTC or Mario Galaxy and not understand they are art.
Between this and his horrifically unintelligent review of Kick-Ass, it's blindingly obvious that Ebert is just an out of touch old man.
Games are factually art. If movies and music is art, so are games. I don't see how you can look at games like SOTC or Mario Galaxy and not understand they are art.
Between this and his horrifically unintelligent review of Kick-Ass, it's blindingly obvious that Ebert is just an out of touch old man.
omg rite said:
Yeah not all music and movies are art =
Not all games are art =
The amount of games being art = subjective
See this is where we see that there's no clear answer to this question. I think there always has to be an artist to an artwork. In your point of view anyone can dictate anything as art, thus pretty much making any conversations about the subject inconsequential.
Chris Murphy
Member
zoukka said:
The definition of art is subjective, therefore anything can be art.
badcrumble said:
Yeah, if people must insist games are art (which is largely just a useless debate of semantics, anyway), then this idea fits the bill. Of course if most movies were like, say, Catwoman, and most novels like The Da Vinci Code, and most music like Vanilla Ice, I'd be saying the same about them. But they're not. All three forms have had amazingly rich histories that even the most devoted scholars can't fully comprehend. Video games are like a speck of dust in comparison. And yes, a part of that is because it's still a relatively new form, but guys, seriously. We're not talking about what entertains you or what you appreciate. Art forms like movies, music and literature influence and define our societies, while at the same time act as a record of what we're feeling and thinking and how we're behaving.
For instance, if someone 1000 years from now wanted to know what happened in the 1980s, you'd give them newspapers. If they wanted to know how we felt, how we behaved, what we were consumed with, what we were afraid of, and so on, you'd give them the movies, literature and music of the time. Video games generally don't fit into this. They don't comment on the human experience, they're more like pastimes, activities.
VALIS said:
You're purposely mentioning the worst possible things in each form. Catwoman? Vanilla Ice? You're implying that a good deal of games are at THAT quality. Most movies, music, and games are no where near that bad. You and I both know that, just like games, that a large amount of books, music, and novels are forgettable, disposable, and simply not very good.
But using those examples are the extreme "not good".
Be honest with yourself: how often does a movie come out that you would feel comfortable calling art? It's no different than video games.
Of course gaming is a very new form in comparison but it doesn't matter. A game like Shadow of the Colossus or Mario Galaxy takes brilliant ideas, artwork, and music that are worked on for months/years by a group of people and puts them into an interactive environment. How isn't that art? Being interactive isn't a reason.
Oh, I know that's not what's actually going on, but that's just the feeling I get hearing him talk about them. That he's so used to finding art in the same place that he has difficulty turning his gaze elsewhere. He dismissed flower as a pretty visual experience, and Braid as a...fortune cookie? His attempted criticism of Braid's gameplay was completely nonsensical. I don't think he has the ability to understand gameplay as tangibly as he does audiovisual elements.timetokill said:
But in a game, you would only be able to fap when the game designer allowed you to. And he would determine how you fap (underhand, overhand, sitting down, lube). And he would decide what your dick looks like (maybe it's purple and stretchy). And he could decide that when you fap, maybe your mom walks in and surprises you so you cum in your eye. The possibilities for creative expression are endless!wmat said:
Prentice said:
In what ways have games improved in the last ten years? Videogame writing has been getting progressively worse for the last twenty years, and although action games control better than ever I wouldn't say that the real substance of gameplay has improved much in the last decade or so. I like to think games will be art (one day) but 'm not sure if progress in the last ten years is anything to brag about either..,
omg rite said:
I'm not trying to put down games, I like them for what they are. I'm saying they're limited in the areas I've mentioned, or at least they have been to this point. They do not amount to much in terms of being a reflection of society or humanity. That's fine. I don't need them to. But it also makes them different than more traditional forms of art.
And yes, nowadays most games have stories attached to them, which brings them closer to that realm, but they're largely generic stories for the sole purpose of giving the game's objectives some reference or color. If people started producing meaningful stories which in some way commented on the human experience, I'd change my opinion. And I'm not even sure they should! I, like most people, play video games as a break from weightier matters and thoughts. Just like I follow sports as a break from the complexities of life. Neither are so much about our fears and hopes and mores and so on. They're about specific objectives and the entertainment we get in pursuing them.
Mihos
Gold Member
I will just keep dreaming, creating, then conveying an experience using the tools I feel I have mastered enough to convey that experience.
I couldn't give a shit less if he considers it art.
Expression between a creator and a purveyor is personal and does not require his opinion.
I couldn't give a shit less if he considers it art.
Expression between a creator and a purveyor is personal and does not require his opinion.
exactly!wmat said:
But really, it all comes down to this:
Everyone's opinion on the matter should come down to whether or not they agree with the bolded.wmat said:
After playing games like Ico and SotC, I have to wholeheartedly disagree. But if you played them and felt otherwise, I wouldn't really know how to disagree with you.
I like how the greatest method for proving games are art is by expanding the definition of 'art' so broadly as to remove any need of the word's existence. I personally side with Ebert in the whole 'Are games art?' discussion, but I think the above defense on the other side needs to be lost from a purely logical point of view. It ironically makes the term not only meaningless but illustrates why getting defensive about it is a waste of one's emotions and time. 'Art' has to mean something in particular, or all people defending games so aggressively wouldn't feel the need to do so.
TouchMyBox
Member
"This medium which just came came into existence will take some to surpass the artistic merits of mediums which had a three thousand year head start."
What's the argument again?
Personally, I thought Heavy Rain was a hopeful glimpse into the future of what video gaming can be. Despite the story being comparable to a B-grade movie, and Press "X" to "Jason", Heavy Rain managed to affect me in ways a movie can only dream of. It's definitely far from being perfect, and my nerddom definitely tends to give games a free pass during their more embarrassing moments. But I truly believe that we will see games that will cause people who have a bias against the medium such as Ebert to foam at the mouths within the next 15 years.
Hell, two console generations ago, gamiing stories could only be appreciated by Super Nerds like you and I where the epitome of the medium at the time involved bobbling heads to portray character speech to convoluted B-grade anime stories. Last generation brought us large worlds with extremely better stories but only with hardware powerful enough to make good looking cartoon-style graphics. This generation we have motion captured performances with real actors and breath-taking scores recorded at skywalker ranch. Only to be tied down by awkward animations, some cases of poor acting, some uncanney valley, and game design created by people too scared to deviate too far from what is expected by the public.
People are finally starting to seem to realize that game writing is in its own area of expertise from writing screenplays or novels and that skill in old mediums does not translate into a boxed-product of a game. Once "Game Writer" becomes a legitimate profession, and the aforementioned is eliminated in games, I think we'll see something truly spectacular.
What's the argument again?
Personally, I thought Heavy Rain was a hopeful glimpse into the future of what video gaming can be. Despite the story being comparable to a B-grade movie, and Press "X" to "Jason", Heavy Rain managed to affect me in ways a movie can only dream of. It's definitely far from being perfect, and my nerddom definitely tends to give games a free pass during their more embarrassing moments. But I truly believe that we will see games that will cause people who have a bias against the medium such as Ebert to foam at the mouths within the next 15 years.
Hell, two console generations ago, gamiing stories could only be appreciated by Super Nerds like you and I where the epitome of the medium at the time involved bobbling heads to portray character speech to convoluted B-grade anime stories. Last generation brought us large worlds with extremely better stories but only with hardware powerful enough to make good looking cartoon-style graphics. This generation we have motion captured performances with real actors and breath-taking scores recorded at skywalker ranch. Only to be tied down by awkward animations, some cases of poor acting, some uncanney valley, and game design created by people too scared to deviate too far from what is expected by the public.
People are finally starting to seem to realize that game writing is in its own area of expertise from writing screenplays or novels and that skill in old mediums does not translate into a boxed-product of a game. Once "Game Writer" becomes a legitimate profession, and the aforementioned is eliminated in games, I think we'll see something truly spectacular.