Anyone else suddenly "Get" Roger Ebert's opinion?
- Thread starter Silk_Sk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd call Games art because while a movie the art of the director, games are one that let you finish the experience. Movies play whether or not you touch anything, but games will sit at the same screen until you take up controls. Death is like a missed stroke, or a botched line. But you have the chance to get it down before you continue on.
As stated, games and movies are totally different types of entertainment. Movies are made for us to relax and watch, characters and events happening for us to enjoy the viewing pleasure. But games are made for us to BE the characters, to cause the events, and to work through a problem the way we want to
Now not all games are like this. What I just said is mostly sandbox or more open games, like Bioshock, SoTC, even GTA games are like this. However, based on yahtzee's review of Siren Blood Curse, some games are more like a movie in their art, where you can only do it a single way. Pointing from his review, it lets you do one and one thing only to get the plot, but it's still made and caused by your actions, and lets you appreciate and feel for the characters when you control their fate. Even if just one fate.
I can understand RE's opinion, because again as stated, he hasn't played it, and only seen videos of it. Watching someone play a game and experiencing it yourself is different. While watching someone face Meta-Ridley in Metroid Prime is nice to watch, you have to play to really feel what it's like. I remember playing it once, and so into the game that I was moving the sliding chair I was in while dodging on the game. A good movie can do this possibly, but not the extent that games do it.
His opinion is right from the basis of how he's experienced games, but without ever having a controller in his hands, he won't ever be able to have one that's right in every aspect of a critic
As stated, games and movies are totally different types of entertainment. Movies are made for us to relax and watch, characters and events happening for us to enjoy the viewing pleasure. But games are made for us to BE the characters, to cause the events, and to work through a problem the way we want to
Now not all games are like this. What I just said is mostly sandbox or more open games, like Bioshock, SoTC, even GTA games are like this. However, based on yahtzee's review of Siren Blood Curse, some games are more like a movie in their art, where you can only do it a single way. Pointing from his review, it lets you do one and one thing only to get the plot, but it's still made and caused by your actions, and lets you appreciate and feel for the characters when you control their fate. Even if just one fate.
I can understand RE's opinion, because again as stated, he hasn't played it, and only seen videos of it. Watching someone play a game and experiencing it yourself is different. While watching someone face Meta-Ridley in Metroid Prime is nice to watch, you have to play to really feel what it's like. I remember playing it once, and so into the game that I was moving the sliding chair I was in while dodging on the game. A good movie can do this possibly, but not the extent that games do it.
His opinion is right from the basis of how he's experienced games, but without ever having a controller in his hands, he won't ever be able to have one that's right in every aspect of a critic
I lost a lot of respect for Ebert when he stated what he did. I don't know what self formulated defintion of art he is using but taking the base defintion from Merriam-Websters Online and Britannica online art is "a visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination" (Britannica Online), "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objectsalso: works so produce" (Merriam-Websters) You know what? Those definitions sound pretty good to me, so in that respect how the fuck are video games NOT ART? if video games are not art, than movies aren't art either.
Boy Ebert, you make me long for Siskel...
Boy Ebert, you make me long for Siskel...
I couldn't give two shits about the idea of "games as art", though saying that a game can't be art because it can be beaten is like saying a movie can't be art because it ends or because you knew the good guy would win in the end.
Edit: In regards to the "your character can die as many times as possible and just respawn, so what's the point in caring" argument, I half agree. On one hand, You lose a lot of emotion to your characters when you realize that. On the other, getting rid of that would mean that you can't die throughout the entire game. Meaning that you'd need to do a lot of redesigning of the game and how it can be played. A lot of thought and effort on the part of developer for something not many will think about.
Edit: In regards to the "your character can die as many times as possible and just respawn, so what's the point in caring" argument, I half agree. On one hand, You lose a lot of emotion to your characters when you realize that. On the other, getting rid of that would mean that you can't die throughout the entire game. Meaning that you'd need to do a lot of redesigning of the game and how it can be played. A lot of thought and effort on the part of developer for something not many will think about.
Games aren't art?
Play Myst.
Also:
I would say that games designed to be a work of interactive storytelling, whose focus is more on having the player experience and take part in a story/adventure, and less on beat this level then this level then this level then the game. (Its not about the destination, but the journey.) Done right, such games can be just as much a work of art as anything else, or more so even, as other forms of art work on the principle of crafting something to be observed to convey feeling. However, a player can experience a game, creating a much more immediate connection between the player and the medium.
Play Myst.
Also:
I would say that games designed to be a work of interactive storytelling, whose focus is more on having the player experience and take part in a story/adventure, and less on beat this level then this level then this level then the game. (Its not about the destination, but the journey.) Done right, such games can be just as much a work of art as anything else, or more so even, as other forms of art work on the principle of crafting something to be observed to convey feeling. However, a player can experience a game, creating a much more immediate connection between the player and the medium.
I'm just going to go with the simplest argument.
Art is completely subjective. It is up to the individuals mind to decide what's art and what isn't in their mind. I personally think games are art, but that doesn't mean they are to other people. You can never define anything as being art.
Art is completely subjective. It is up to the individuals mind to decide what's art and what isn't in their mind. I personally think games are art, but that doesn't mean they are to other people. You can never define anything as being art.
TC's argument is a failure in logic and also wrong.
-2 Try plaing a game that isn't spoon fed to you. Ghost n' Ghouls or Contra: Hard Corps. Try multiplayer games. This whole argument is phenomonoly backwards; even a mediocre puzzle game will have a higher failure rate than a "watch a cutscene for 2 two hours" movie.
-3 Valid points for adressing your wrong argument
-4 "Games are not games." And people wonder why gamers hate the art game movement.
I admit that I agree with Ebert even with all that said. Games being called art has no use to me.
-1 Your first mistake was elevating a random puzzle game to "most artistic" the industry can give you. Maybe if you talked about Halo instead I would have been able to take you seriously.Silk_Sk said:
-2 Try plaing a game that isn't spoon fed to you. Ghost n' Ghouls or Contra: Hard Corps. Try multiplayer games. This whole argument is phenomonoly backwards; even a mediocre puzzle game will have a higher failure rate than a "watch a cutscene for 2 two hours" movie.
-3 Valid points for adressing your wrong argument
-4 "Games are not games." And people wonder why gamers hate the art game movement.
I admit that I agree with Ebert even with all that said. Games being called art has no use to me.
Let me get this straight...
You couldn't suspend your disbelief while playing a game.
This made you incredibly cynical about it and decided that it was just something you win and not as artsy as you once thought.
You realize that it's not a very good argument you've got going there, right?
The entire blame is on your inability to produce a suspension of disbelief, which is most likely caused by cynicism or taking in the wrong perspective to have while gaming.
I'm going to go with the latter.
You can't have the wrong perspective of something if you're going to enjoy it. If you think "let's try out Eberts perspective for once" when going to play a game, you're going to lose your suspension of disbelief because you're in the mindset of someone who doesn't have the intent to enjoy a game, only be cynical about it.
It's like if you put an action-hungry teenager in front of a TV and make him watch Waltz with Bashir. He's in the mindset of "I LIKE ASPLOTIONS, DURR" and is going to be bored with the film really fast.
You couldn't suspend your disbelief while playing a game.
This made you incredibly cynical about it and decided that it was just something you win and not as artsy as you once thought.
You realize that it's not a very good argument you've got going there, right?
The entire blame is on your inability to produce a suspension of disbelief, which is most likely caused by cynicism or taking in the wrong perspective to have while gaming.
I'm going to go with the latter.
You can't have the wrong perspective of something if you're going to enjoy it. If you think "let's try out Eberts perspective for once" when going to play a game, you're going to lose your suspension of disbelief because you're in the mindset of someone who doesn't have the intent to enjoy a game, only be cynical about it.
It's like if you put an action-hungry teenager in front of a TV and make him watch Waltz with Bashir. He's in the mindset of "I LIKE ASPLOTIONS, DURR" and is going to be bored with the film really fast.
Eberts point wasn't hard to understand the first time, games are not art because they are games, activites based around a framework of rules either to test logical and visuo-spatial awareness or for games of sport physical skill and athleticism.
Videogames are not art
Chess is not art
Hockey is not art
I kind of get fed up when people talk about games as art and then only mention 2D indie games that don't warrent being called art over anything with a 3D perpective it mostly appears to be a term used to excuse the fact that they are often not much fun
Videogames are not art
Chess is not art
Hockey is not art
I kind of get fed up when people talk about games as art and then only mention 2D indie games that don't warrent being called art over anything with a 3D perpective it mostly appears to be a term used to excuse the fact that they are often not much fun
The problem in this entire discussion, I find, is that Ebert isn't wrong. But neither are gamers. Without going into a load of subjectivity bollox, I'll just state from the get go that I haven't made up my mind about Ebert's statement (But I do acknowledge that it isn't worth getting up in arms over) and as far as I can tell, he makes some decent points.
Why Ebert is right:
The mechanics of most games are not art, anymore than Chess, Yatzy or Canasta is art. The mechanics are made solely to give you a challenge, in much the same way that a crossword is. At its' core, each and every game exist to provide a challenge that must be beaten. This is closer to sports or other forms of competition than it is art.
Why Ebert is wrong:
Bioshock, KOTOR2, Dragon Age, The Witcher and Vampire: the Masquerade: Bloodlines to name a few games, have managed to tell stories that are in themselves better than some blockbuster movies and are told in such a way that the narrative itself could be considered art.
In the case of games like Bioshock and KOTOR2, the developers also manages to deconstruct and discuss philosophical ideologies in such a way that the game itself can actually stand as a platform for further discussion.
The problem here is that as a generalization, Ebert is right. Just looking at my own collection of games (and I love the 'deeper' games) makes me realize that most games doesn't have the many layers of Bioshock or the philosophical depth of KOTOR2. They don't have the storytelling genius of The Witcher or the great pacing of VtM.
Most games are meant solely as challenges to your skills in one way or the other, some times with a narrative to provide some reason as to why you are doing what you are. For every Bioshock there are a dozen Haze, Gears of War and Rainbow Six: Vegas games.
TLDR:
An individual game can certainly contain certain aspects that are art (Bioshock's ideological deconconstruction for example). But as a generalized genre, games simply haven't reached that far yet. Games are entertainment in the same way as crosswords or chess and you don't see old ladies getting riled up about how their crosswords are art, now do you?
Why Ebert is right:
The mechanics of most games are not art, anymore than Chess, Yatzy or Canasta is art. The mechanics are made solely to give you a challenge, in much the same way that a crossword is. At its' core, each and every game exist to provide a challenge that must be beaten. This is closer to sports or other forms of competition than it is art.
Why Ebert is wrong:
Bioshock, KOTOR2, Dragon Age, The Witcher and Vampire: the Masquerade: Bloodlines to name a few games, have managed to tell stories that are in themselves better than some blockbuster movies and are told in such a way that the narrative itself could be considered art.
In the case of games like Bioshock and KOTOR2, the developers also manages to deconstruct and discuss philosophical ideologies in such a way that the game itself can actually stand as a platform for further discussion.
The problem here is that as a generalization, Ebert is right. Just looking at my own collection of games (and I love the 'deeper' games) makes me realize that most games doesn't have the many layers of Bioshock or the philosophical depth of KOTOR2. They don't have the storytelling genius of The Witcher or the great pacing of VtM.
Most games are meant solely as challenges to your skills in one way or the other, some times with a narrative to provide some reason as to why you are doing what you are. For every Bioshock there are a dozen Haze, Gears of War and Rainbow Six: Vegas games.
TLDR:
An individual game can certainly contain certain aspects that are art (Bioshock's ideological deconconstruction for example). But as a generalized genre, games simply haven't reached that far yet. Games are entertainment in the same way as crosswords or chess and you don't see old ladies getting riled up about how their crosswords are art, now do you?
The problem is that you, and Eberts have a very limited understanding of what Art is. Dewey describes art as pretty much any kind of relationship formed out of experience, and he's right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_as_Experience In his book, Art as an Experience, Dewey talks about how a pot has an intrinsic relationship with the people who use/own/view that pot. Do you think Maximas Dickus the Roman soldier thought his bit of pot that got smashed up as art? Yet, here we are thousands of years later and we marvel at the smashed up pieces as a work of art.Silk_Sk said:
Ancient Chess boards are considered works of art. Yet, the games that people play on them someone (generally) wins. Ancient clocks are considered works of art, yet clocks are something that simply tells the time". Books are considered a work of art, yet they are something you read. The function of the device is irrelevant in declaring it a work of art. Eberts is heavily biased because his passion is fading so he ignores his biases and hides the weakness of his argument with a passionate plea. You're just ignorant.
Games are and have always been art. Any definition of art will never fit correctly because art is undefinable but from what I have learned art is something that is created and designed to convey come emotion or some idea. Paintings are created to induce feelings of awe or beauty or reverence or humor, etc. Plays convey notions about love and society. Sculptures can convey powerful emotions of love or pain. Anything we make is intended to make someone else think something or feel something and that thing we make is art. There is a certain art in painting yes, but by the same token there is a certain beauty and art in coding a program or playing a sport. There is an aesthetic beauty for those who can see it and appreciate it in my mundane human endeavors. Many things can become poetic and beautiful with the right flow and grace. Games too can be art. Many convey some idea or some feeling and flow and move with such grace that they are art. They are beautiful. They are the artistic fruits of the struggle of developers seeking to put there soul into the work and to bring pleasure to to the game players. I can see the same struggle of a painter to create in a developer and I can see the same inspiration and creativity.
Now, of course games can be improved as an art form and made much more poetic, as all art can but denying it even to be a bit of art, even as having any substance is to deny the struggling artist and creative spirit within the developers, within those touched by one moving game moment. It seem like a crime to me to deny it outright.
Now, of course games can be improved as an art form and made much more poetic, as all art can but denying it even to be a bit of art, even as having any substance is to deny the struggling artist and creative spirit within the developers, within those touched by one moving game moment. It seem like a crime to me to deny it outright.
My definition of art is "A man-made creation that emotionally educates."
Under my definition, there are many things that can be considered art. Almost everything. But games are of an artistic quality that can potentially rival movies and books.
True, games are "won", in the same manner that movies, books, and music "finish". Winning is not a choice, but a form of progression. Extra Credits clearly points out the difference between "problems" and "choices". "Problems" are a form of continuity.
Under my definition, there are many things that can be considered art. Almost everything. But games are of an artistic quality that can potentially rival movies and books.
True, games are "won", in the same manner that movies, books, and music "finish". Winning is not a choice, but a form of progression. Extra Credits clearly points out the difference between "problems" and "choices". "Problems" are a form of continuity.
You shouldn't base the artistic merits of an entire medium on the mediocre finale of a single indie offering. Limbo's ending was a simple setup for part two, in which
The trial-and-error gameplay fits perfectly with the story. Constantly dying only to find yourself mystically reborn in roughly the same spot sounds exactly like limbo to me. That was the game's thematic hook, wasn't it? Maybe the OP didn't make that connection.
Ebert's narrow view of art probably wouldn't include the vast majority of modern and performance art, which is typically even more ambiguous and, well, lame than your average videogame. Simply watching Limbo's silhouetted animations seems far more artistically satisfying than staring at a mostly blank white canvas hanging in some modern art gallery.
The fact that most modern games require writers, artists, and animators seems to neatly refute Ebert's take. Whether or not a game qualifies as legitimate "art" would seem to depend on the efforts of those producing it - you know, the same way it works in the movies. If a videogame critic were to base his entire appraisal of the film industry on nothing but Michael Bay movies, said critic might draw similarly misguided conclusions about artistic merit or lack thereof.
Anyways, Shadow of the Colossus will always, always prove Ebert wrong. This is a game with an actual character arc.
It's a story that puts the vast majority of films to absolute shame, and I'll gladly debate anyone who questions its artistic value.
On the flip side, games of similar thematic depth are practically nonexistent. SotC may end up being the exception that proves Ebert's rule. Still, that's more on the developers and consumers than the medium itself. The potential for storytelling in videogames is almost unrivaled, potentially encompassing almost every other form of art.
you guide the boy and his sister simultaneously, Ico style, through a new set of puzzles. How can that not be where they're taking it?
Ebert's narrow view of art probably wouldn't include the vast majority of modern and performance art, which is typically even more ambiguous and, well, lame than your average videogame. Simply watching Limbo's silhouetted animations seems far more artistically satisfying than staring at a mostly blank white canvas hanging in some modern art gallery.
The fact that most modern games require writers, artists, and animators seems to neatly refute Ebert's take. Whether or not a game qualifies as legitimate "art" would seem to depend on the efforts of those producing it - you know, the same way it works in the movies. If a videogame critic were to base his entire appraisal of the film industry on nothing but Michael Bay movies, said critic might draw similarly misguided conclusions about artistic merit or lack thereof.
Anyways, Shadow of the Colossus will always, always prove Ebert wrong. This is a game with an actual character arc.
The wanderer acts recklessly and selfishly, destroying ancient and beautiful creatures with a stolen relic in a forbidden land, because he can't let go of the woman he loves. He sacrifices his very soul in exchange for her life. In the finale, as the sword pulls him towards the water, you, the player, struggle in vain against the light. You can hold on to the floor or the steps indefinitely. You can even make your way to the altar, where your lost love lies waiting for you - but you can never reach her. In the end, you have to physically (and emotionally) let go. Only then will the game end. You don't win. You accept the fact that she's gone from you, and you take responsibility for your actions.
On the flip side, games of similar thematic depth are practically nonexistent. SotC may end up being the exception that proves Ebert's rule. Still, that's more on the developers and consumers than the medium itself. The potential for storytelling in videogames is almost unrivaled, potentially encompassing almost every other form of art.