Anyone else suddenly "Get" Roger Ebert's opinion?

[Sronpop]

I would say Limbo is the absolute closest and purest from of 'art' games have reached thus far. Ebert claims they are not art because they are interactive and that they are something you win. I did not play Limbo to 'win' it, I played it because I was sucked into its unique world, and wanted to see what happened, bring the story to a conclusion, exactly what film makers do when making their movie.

How can you argue that games are not art because dying is only a set back. In Limbo, dying is a deep affair, sure your progress isn't changed, you don't start at the beginning because you died, the game doesn't end because you died. What it does happen though is that the deaths in Limbo BECOME PART OF THE NARRATIVE! The deaths only cement the bleakness and unpredictable terror in the game world. Something that movies do as well, if you want to let the audience know how dangerous the movie world is, you kill a few people. In Limbo it is the exact same.

Ok, the fact that it is interactive. Thats the tricky one. But really, a movie has that same flexibility to it as well. If it didn't things like deleted scenes and editing wouldn't exist. The thing about games is that the are self edited by the player almost. They choose how to be affected by the game world. Take for example a dark forest. In a movie the characters may simple run though it. But in a game, the player may think, woah my character is really in danger here I better go through here very slowly. Or another player may think, its ok, i am a bad ass, a dark forest doesn't scare me, and then he runs though. Movies do not give you this, the player gets to dictate the experience he has in the game world, that is powerful and is the self editing I am trying to explain. Interactivity is a positive in terms of game story telling as an art form.

I find it amazing how anyone can argue AGAINST Limbo being art. Ebert needs to play this one for sure. Although maybe he is just too old to understand the nuances of this 'new' medium.

Games are art, Ebert is misinformed and biased.

 

[maturin]

What's the difference between beating something and finishing it? Books and movies are always finished. In fact, the more artsy the reputation of the film, the harder you have to work to understand it. That's a little bit of 'winning' right there. Everything's a continuum. You don't beat Half-Life 2 so much as you complete the story arc. There's no score or unlockables and they didn't even add achievements until years later.

 

[maturin]

They are greater than the sum of their parts.

Which is funny, because while I wouldn't call Sonic art, its parts are composed of art.

 

[Carnagath]

Ebert's article was:
1) Uninformed
2) Inflammatory
3) Unnecessary

Uninformed because he has played about half a video game in his life. Inflammatory because he belittled the experiences of millions of gamers who perceive many games as works of art and basically called them idiots. Unnecessary because the "art" tag itself is unnecessary. As many people wrote before me, any creation can be art if it provokes an emotional response to someone and affects them deeply.

There are many kinds of games, as there are many types of movies. There are competitive games whose main focus is overcoming challenges or outplaying your opponent, there are games whose main focus is to provoke an emotional response while being entertaining, and then there are combinations of the two. If we really have to tag something as art or non-art (even though it's unnecessary), I'd say Counterstrike is not art, but Bioshock is. The exact same thing applies to movies. Again, I'd say Transformers is not art, but Fight Club is. Ultimately, the distinction does not matter and it's silly to belittle gamers as well as developers who pour their hearts out to not only make fun games but also to communicate something through them.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

I've been saying this for HOW long now? And I'll say it again.

Roger Ebert is still right.

Games contain art elements. Those art elements (backgrounds, character models, story, and the like) are art. Games, however, are not art any more than a collection of paintings hanging in a room is itself art. An art gallery, maybe. Perhaps even an art museum. But not art per se.

Except these admittedly artistic elements aren't simply hanging in a room or a museum. They are presented in meaningful combination and progression. The overarching design that defines the organization and order of the otherwise disparate elements is art. It's the exact same principle at work in film. I'm not sure why that's so hard for people to understand.

The design of Shadow of the Colossus isn't that plot summarry and character motivation (which was a complete assumption of what the colossi and wander are all about) but instead it is the mechanics of finding and climbing the colossi. If the design is art then you failed to adress the artistic aspects of the game in more tan the most shallow manner. Not to mention you choose to emphasize a small and insignificant part of the game, you might as well judge Devil May Cry for the Afterburner part.

I agree with Simulord BTW.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

1 They are greater than the sum of their parts.

2 You cannot say that one medium is "just a bunch of mechanics" and switch over to another medium and not say the same thing when it is easily applicable to it. It's the collection of all those mechanics that create the supposed "art". You can look at Shadow of the Collosus and say "It's just a guy going around killing stuff," but that's looking at it from the wrong perspective. You can look at "A Clockwork Orange" and say "It's just a guy going crazy and juvinile porn" but again, that's missing the point and not looking at it with an open eye.

3 The problem with Ebert's opinion, like I said before, is that he's never played a video game in his life. If a high official said that "Movies are just moving picutres!" you bet your sexy ass that Ebert will be going all over the guy with his thoughts on the matter.

4 The first two arguments are valid points. Video games cannot be held at the same "artistic" standard as movies, they insert the characteristics and features completely differently. The fact that you can always try again in a video game doesn't detter the fact that I'm hanging on the edge of my seat praying to the gaming gods that I'll KO my opponent before I die.

5 That is completely true, I agree completely, games still are in their infancy as an artistic medium. That is why we care about Ebert's opinion, that is why we should debate what is a true "artistic" showing of video games, that is why we need to stand up for our medium...


6 ...but that's complete bullshit (just being honest here). You're assuming that the same isn't true for movies, books, music, or any other medium. No medium has a majority abundance of "art", just look at the Twilight franchise, the stupid hackneyed comedies out in theatres, the standard fantasy/sci-fi/drama books, the tired and sadly still popular "Bitchz n' Hoes!" rap songs and Justin Beiber.

I'm not going to quote your previous post because quoting a bunch of post is annoying but I'll answer you here. You were an jerk to cinnamonfloss and he was right to assume you were being grouchy. Also you are not talking about how games should be. You are talking about how you want them to be, and what you, me and cinnamonfloss want are different things, none more valid than the other.

And no, meaning isn't a valid criteria for judging a game, every game has infinite meanings or messages because the reception of the messages is soley up to the viewer. Can't anything have a meaning if you look at it with (in your words) an open eye?

Even if we imagined that games and other things can be imbued with messages and people will be receptive to them, the messages are still useless. I care about the messages of a video game less I care about messages on a random message board. What message does some indie game maker with an agenda have that is good enough for me to play their crappy game and try to interpret their crappy message when instead I could get clear advice form an actual EXPERT?

Actually responding to the post now:

1 No, this is wrong and mathematically impossible. Being a popular saying does not make it valid, what you just said was nonsense.

2 The summary of shadow of the colossus is a correct and with a little more detail could explain the game completely, answer questions how you things them and how you get there and you've described nearly the entire game. The A Clockwork Orange example you gave is less than half of a summary of the events. At any rate what you are trying to say is wrong, there is no point to miss in SoTC either you try to win the game according to the actual rules or you don't. It's like playing street fighter not trying to win but instead trying to pull off big combos, if you like that sort of thing that's OK but don't try to tell others that your inane restrictions are the right way to play.

3 Yeah but even an idiot can be right. If your sole attack on an argument is on the person proposing the argument, then it's not much of an attack. Whether or not Ebert has the experience to state his view point doesn't change how right he is. And if you read Eberts post then you will see that their are few innacurate statements. Personally I think Ebert is closer to the being correct the most of the SoTC fanboys. You repeated this exact statement so many times I had to delete four of your useless paragraphs (and Ebert has played Ninja Turtles BTW.)

4 You understand this yet...

5 "Games are in their infancy." I hate this stupid apologist argument and the people who propagate it. Some of the most masterful games have been made long ago by the most talented and experienced people in the industry today and we're suppose to evolve past them like a child grows out of his socks. This whole idea is an insult to every brilliant mind who builds games. Games aren't growing better.

6 Art conflated with quality. If this was true then we wouldn't have people in this thread elevating mediocre 3D action games above chess. The concept of art games has not improved gaming in the slightest, it has probably made gaming on average worse. Art isn't just a useless standard to judge games, it is detrimental because it is such a loaded term. People associate art with paintings and books which causes us to end up with shallow games that try to emphasize story or graphics. Games didn't evolve from art, they evolved from sport and a step away from sport into art is merely a garbage game.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

The design of Shadow of the Colossus isn't that plot summarry and character motivation (which was a complete assumption of what the colossi and wander are all about) but instead it is the mechanics of finding and climbing the colossi. If the design is art then you failed to adress the artistic aspects of the game in more tan the most shallow manner. Not to mention you choose to emphasize a small and insignificant part of the game, you might as well judge Devil May Cry for the Afterburner part.

I agree with Simulord BTW.

You think my interpretation of SotC is based on complete assumption?

The wanderer steals a sacred relic, trespasses on forbidden soil, and murders over a dozen clearly innocent creatures - all to save a dead girl at the expense of his soul. The game screams "obsession", and none of it was particularly hard to follow. If you missed it, I think I'm fully justified in questioning your powers of interpretation.

You also think the final player-controlled sequence was small and insignificant?

Didn't it strike you as odd that they returned control to the player despite the fact that you have no recourse but to eventually give in, let go, and watch yourself tumble into oblivion? What about the fact that the primary play mechanic takes the form of a "hold" button? You honestly didn't pick up on the importance of "letting go"?

I'm not remotely offended that you disagree with my interpretations, which seem fairly obvious given the content I've provided as evidence. People are wrong every day. But the idea that I'm the one addressing this game in "the most shallow manner", when all you apparently took away from it was "must climb colossus!", is ludicrous.

On the flip side, maybe I shouldn't be so confident in my own interpretive prowess. After all, I thought "Halo Fanboy" was an ironic handle...

 

[VeganG]

But that's not art. That's crossword puzzle or a lego project.

Both works of art. And, with that, it's a semantics argument again. Sigh.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

The design of Shadow of the Colossus isn't that plot summarry and character motivation (which was a complete assumption of what the colossi and wander are all about) but instead it is the mechanics of finding and climbing the colossi. If the design is art then you failed to adress the artistic aspects of the game in more tan the most shallow manner. Not to mention you choose to emphasize a small and insignificant part of the game, you might as well judge Devil May Cry for the Afterburner part.

I agree with Simulord BTW.

You think my interpretation of SotC is based on complete assumption?

The wanderer steals a sacred relic, trespasses on forbidden soil, and murders over a dozen clearly innocent creatures - all to save a dead girl at the expense of his soul. The game screams "obsession", and none of it was particularly hard to follow. If you missed it, I think I'm fully justified in questioning your powers of interpretation.

You also think the final player-controlled sequence was small and insignificant?

Didn't it strike you as odd that they returned control to the player despite the fact that you have no recourse but to eventually give in, let go, and watch yourself tumble into oblivion? What about the fact that the primary play mechanic takes the form of a "hold" button? You honestly didn't pick up on the importance of "letting go"?

I'm not remotely offended that you disagree with my interpretations, which seem fairly obvious given the content I've provided as evidence. People are wrong every day. But the idea that I'm the one addressing this game in "the most shallow manner", when all you apparently took away from it was "must climb colossus!", is ludicrous.

On the flip side, maybe I shouldn't be so confident in my own interpretive prowess. After all, I thought "Halo Fanboy" was an ironic handle...

I don't remember the game 100 percent so forgive me if I say something wrong but we don't know Wander's relationship with Momo, Momo's role in Wander's society or whether any one is actually good or evil.

Momo might be an important political figure and Wander a knight in her court, maybe Wander isn't doing anything in the game for himself but for the good of the village.

Maybe Wander was cursed by Dormin as soon as he first talked to him and had no choice but to do his bidding.

Maybe it was all a trick get rid of Dormin forever by luring dormin into Wander's body.

Maybe the colossi are set free every once in a while and wreak havoc on the world.

Your plot explanation is valid but so are mine.

"shallow manner" because design = mechanics and you hardly adressed the mechanics. Climbing the colossi is vital to the game while all the cutscenes, music and graphics are essentially fluff.

"Insignificant final scene" because insignificant = small and that scene is less than 5 percent of the game. You probably didn't understand my example so i'll explain it; in Devil May Cry the "final player-controlled sequence" is when the character gets in a plane and you have to navigate through a cave where crashing will barely hurt you or even slow you down making it impossible to fail and therfore a pointless sequence. Same thing with with SoTC, in other words: bad design.

Rarely does anyone talk about the airplane thing both because it was pointless and forgettable but also because the majority of the game and the game strenth lay in fighting enemies. "Fighting enemies" is to DMC what "Climbing Colossi" is to SoTC dig?

I thought "Halo Fanboy" was an ironic handle...

Oh, you.

 

[Condiments]

Rarely does anyone talk about the airplane thing both because it was pointless and forgettable but also because the majority of the game and the game strenth lay in fighting enemies. "Fighting enemies" is to DMC what "Climbing Colossi" is to SoTC dig?

I wouldn't praise the story, because Shadow of the Colossus had very little in the way of narrative. Actually Shadow of the colossus is one of the few games that I felt was "self-aware" in terms of game design. You have to track down and slaughter each colossus individually, but its brilliance stems from how it manipulates that. Instead of ferocious ugly creatures, Wanderer often ends up killing creatures that often seem docile, and sympathetic. So by finishing your objective you feel both a mix of accomplishment and regret. Due to its minimalist approach in terms of narrative, you don't know if what you're doing is good or bad(though most players quickly discern they are committing evil acts).

Also many players were felt terrible when

Spoiler

agro falls

despite him being merely a vehicle to expedite travel. The designers were able to connect the player with a horse, and KNOW how to deliver a well calculated player punch without having to bog a player with cinematics.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I don't remember the game 100 percent so forgive me if I say something wrong but we don't know Wander's relationship with Momo, Momo's role in Wander's society or whether any one is actually good or evil.

The specific nature of the relationship is unknown - she could be his sister, his lover, or his best friend. That he loves her, however, really isn't up for debate. He committed a series of trespasses and outright atrocities, culminating in the sacrifice of his very soul, to bring her back. When he reaches longingly for her in his final moments, you should be pretty sold on his affection.

Momo might be an important political figure and Wander a knight in her court, maybe Wander isn't doing anything in the game for himself but for the good of the village.

This is reaching. The only things you can reasonably surmise are that she's a gentle girl and wander had a great deal of affection for her. That's all the detail you need for this story. The specifics of their respective ranks or roles in society have no bearing on the personal relationship they clearly shared - a relationship he seeks to recapture at any cost.

Maybe Wander was cursed by Dormin as soon as he first talked to him and had no choice but to do his bidding.

That's beyond reaching. We're given no indication of this. Dormin even warns wander that there is a terrible price to pay for what he asks, and he ignores this.

Maybe it was all a trick get rid of Dormin forever by luring dormin into Wander's body.

The priest and his soldiers were surprised, furious, and disappointed, so they weren't the ones who perpetrated any trick. Who else acted on this drama?

Maybe the colossi are set free every once in a while and wreak havoc on the world.

By a lone wander who steals a sacred sword in order to revive a young girl he loves, right? Sounds like a tough one to reproduce, doesn't it?

Your plot explanation is valid but so are mine.

No, they really aren't. I don't mean to be flatly rude here, but yours sound mostly like fanfic addendums or even brainstorming. Your expanding on the intentionally sparse setting and characters hypothetically, and then you're deriving all kinds of themes and ideas about the game from your imaginary additions. Your explanations wouldn't hold up under the critical eye of even a mediocre professor because they have little or no basis in the "text".

"shallow manner" because design = mechanics and you hardly adressed the mechanics. Climbing the colossi is vital to the game while all the cutscenes, music and graphics are essentially fluff.

Wander's struggle to murder the colossi is emblematic of his refusal to let go. Every colossus he slays is a unique and innocent creature that will never be seen again, and every one of his killings decays him physically and spiritually. That he continues on, despite all evidence pointing to the error of his ways, indicates obsession. That's his failing as a character, and you, the player, reinforce it every time you scale and kill another ancient giant.

"Insignificant final scene" because insignificant = small and that scene is less than 5 percent of the game. You probably didn't understand my example so i'll explain it; in Devil May Cry the "final player-controlled sequence" is when the character gets in a plane and you have to navigate through a cave where crashing will barely hurt you or even slow you down making it impossible to fail and therfore a pointless sequence. Same thing with with SoTC, in other words: bad design.

It's pointless because you don't seem to grasp the game's central theme: refusing to let go corrupts and destroys your soul. It's a common theme throughout film and literature, and they executed it brilliantly with this game. That final scene, in which you, the player, must ultimately accept that the girl is gone to you in spite of all the sacrifices you've made, is the culmination of all that came before. The betrayal, the murders, the deal with the devil - all of that resulted in nothing but oblivion. It's not an instructive lesson for the character because he's lost. He's paid the ultimate price. That lesson is directed at the audience, the player.

Comparing the final player-controlled sequence of SotC to a throwaway vehicle section at the end of an openly flashy and shallow action game is just... misguided? It's an analogy so porous and ineffective that it serves to undermine not only this specific argument but also your stature as one who can effectively debate anything, really.

Rarely does anyone talk about the airplane thing both because it was pointless and forgettable but also because the majority of the game and the game strenth lay in fighting enemies. "Fighting enemies" is to DMC what "Climbing Colossi" is to SoTC dig?

Not remotely.

 

[zehydra]

There ARE games you cannot win. They are few and far between, but they exist.

 

[Galimor]

I'm sure this has been said already, but I'm too lazy to read through all the comments, but it's not always the goal, it's the journey there that makes it interesting. So what if you know that you always will win if you play a game, I think the story counts. Most can be said for most books. You know that the good guys will almost guaranteed win at the end, but it's the journey there that makes it worth your while. And some of them are considered art, so why not games too?

 

[Sneaklemming]

snip

There is another thread active with this link, but its something which is relevant to the topic.

http://wonderfl.net/c/tNGi/fullscreen

try this game - complete it even. Then tell me that this games purpose is something that you win.

as for this dude - everyone is entitled to their opinions.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Also you are not talking about how games should be. You are talking about how you want them to be, and what you, me and cinnamonfloss want are different things, none more valid than the other.

This is precisely how film works as well. Some people are only interested in a mindless two hour diversion with lots of explosions, but that doesn't invalidate the medium's potential for artistic merit.

And no, meaning isn't a valid criteria for judging a game, every game has infinite meanings or messages because the reception of the messages is soley up to the viewer. Can't anything have a meaning if you look at it with (in your words) an open eye?

No, not really. At some point a person is clearly projecting more meaning onto a piece than can be reasonably construed from its content. Drawing that line is tricky, a little subjective, and certainly open to some debate, but most people will tell you if you swing wide enough outside the acceptable margins.

Even if we imagined that games and other things can be imbued with messages and people will be receptive to them, the messages are still useless. I care about the messages of a video game less I care about messages on a random message board. What message does some indie game maker with an agenda have that is good enough for me to play their crappy game and try to interpret their crappy message when instead I could get clear advice form an actual EXPERT?

This section of your post is almost inflammatory in its pointlessness. You choose not to place any import on the messages contained in videogames, so videogames are incapable of containing valid messages? That's weapons-grade circular logic. Why would anyone even attempt to talk to you about this sort of thing if you're bringing that kind of nonsense to the table?

Also, please share with me the qualifications that would grant a person expert status in the fields of drama or tragedy? Would it be something akin to an English lit major? What kind of qualifications do you have? Are we fools to even entertain your views on this matter? Another brilliant non-starter, that "point".

No, this is wrong and mathematically impossible. Being a popular saying does not make it valid, what you just said was nonsense.

In reference to the phrase "greater than the sum of its parts", which is actually a poorly transcribed version of "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". This is a very common and logical idea that appears in several forms of complicated media, including film and videogames. These media typically encompass several different elements such as writing, acting, music, sound, animation, direction, etc. Each of these elements generates an emotional response in the viewer or participant, and this response varies with a great number of factors.

Anyways, were you to measure those responses individually for each of the separate elements, then add all of those values together, you would frequently find that the total sum falls short of the actual response evoked by the simultaneous deployment of all the elements. In this way, the "whole" ends up being greater, in terms of emotional impact, than the disparate elements added together.

It makes perfect sense in written english, and it only breaks down mathematically when you refuse to substitute appropriate terminology. Allow me to assist you with the latter effort; replace the term "whole" with the term "product" such that the phrase reads "the product is greater than the sum of the parts". Now it makes sense in all cases dealing strictly with non-negative integers. It's even a rather eloquent solution given the fact that multiplication better embodies the amplification taking place during the combination of the separate artistic elements.

2 The summary of shadow of the colossus is a correct and with a little more detail could explain the game completely, answer questions how you things them and how you get there and you've described nearly the entire game.

That must be why all the reviews (no really, almost every single review) made explicit mention of how difficult it is to properly convey the impact of SotC with a simple explanation of the game's play mechanics. How many of the reviewers said something akin to "you have to play it to fully understand what I'm talking about"? Your notion, that "climb things, kill them" somehow effectively explains SotC, is plainly antagonistic.

The A Clockwork Orange example you gave is less than half of a summary of the events. At any rate what you are trying to say is wrong, there is no point to miss in SoTC either you try to win the game according to the actual rules or you don't. It's like playing street fighter not trying to win but instead trying to pull off big combos, if you like that sort of thing that's OK but don't try to tell others that your inane restrictions are the right way to play.

Street Fighter and SotC, huh? The absurdity of your comparisons is undermining your position mightily.

Whether or not Ebert has the experience to state his view point doesn't change how right he is. And if you read Eberts post then you will see that their are few innacurate statements. Personally I think Ebert is closer to the being correct the most of the SoTC fanboys. You repeated this exact statement so many times I had to delete four of your useless paragraphs (and Ebert has played Ninja Turtles BTW.)

You're essentially saying that Ebert was right by accident. He didn't have the experience necessary to make a qualified judgment, and he owes the correctness of his opinion to sheer coincidence. Lucky him?

5 "Games are in their infancy." I hate this stupid apologist argument and the people who propagate it. Some of the most masterful games have been made long ago by the most talented and experienced people in the industry today and we're suppose to evolve past them like a child grows out of his socks. This whole idea is an insult to every brilliant mind who builds games. Games aren't growing better.

What Ebert should have said, because it's true, is that the videogame medium has a lower incidence of good/great art than other forms of expression. This is probably a byproduct of the interactive nature of the medium, which enables a wide variety of pure "games" with no artistic merit - or intention to provide any. A lot of successful games make no effort to engage the player on anything other than a very base gameplay level. That's simply an unavoidable aspect of the form. Is it a bad thing? Nope. But it does mean that videogames, as a whole, will produce fewer genuinely good/great pieces of art than film, music, television, etc. in a given year. Combine this with the relative newness of the format and you get a pretty severe paucity of artful games.

Gazing out across the entirety of gaming, it wouldn't be hard to mistake it for a medium that isn't capable of artistic expression. Only when you happen upon that small handful of games designed and intended to evoke real emotional response can you begin to understand the potential of the form. Ebert, as someone who doesn't partake in gaming, is extremely likely to have missed these rare gems. His view was uninformed, but I'm not sure I blame him for that. This industry doesn't put a premium on the elements he values.

 

[Snake Plissken]

I am still confused as to why everyone found his comments to be inflammatory...you all realize that he's a FILM CRITIC, correct? What weight does his opinion have? I understand that discussing important issues about the world of gaming is important. I also understand that each and every one of us gets defensive about our favorite hobby when someone says a seemingly negative thing about it. But it's not a matter of "getting" his opinion. Nobody needs to "get" his opinion. His opinion is null and void. It isn't worth deciding whether or not he's right or wrong based on his criteria. Based on his criteria, he's fucking right and can never BE wrong. If something you win can't be art to him, oh well. Find your own criteria for art, and make up your mind for yourself.

Let's also not forget that he hasn't always hit home-runs with his film audiences either. NOBODY liked most of the films he liked when he first started reviewing. He was the one of the ones to change how film was perceived. We still don't have anyone near Roger Ebert's caliber for videogame reviews (no offense to any certain game critics). Perhaps when we do, people may change their minds about gaming. Chances are, Roger Ebert never will. Get over it.

For those of you who haven't already seen it, the Game Overthinker has a fairly in-depth video on the topic. Rather than posting the link to a possibly rival site, I'll direct you to his blog.

http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-06-26T01%3A58%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=7

Just scroll down to Episode 35.

 

[Silk_Sk]

snip

There is another thread active with this link, but its something which is relevant to the topic.

http://wonderfl.net/c/tNGi/fullscreen

try this game - complete it even. Then tell me that this games purpose is something that you win.

as for this dude - everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I did just beat it so the general principle is the same. But I'm not saying you're wrong. I just think both sides of the argument are right and the sooner we realize it the better.

 

[Jumplion]

I'm not going to quote your previous post because quoting a bunch of post is annoying but I'll answer you here. You were an jerk to cinnamonfloss and he was right to assume you were being grouchy.

Dude, why are people assuming that I was trying to be angry against Cinnamonfloss? Seriously, I was speaking entirely from the heart, I meant absolutely no disrespect to him. Just because I disagreed with his opinion does not mean that I was being hostile over it, although now I'm getting a bit annoyed that people are thinking this way.

You two, however, are responding hostily to me without any reason, and I already stated before in this thread that I meant absolutely no harm, it was just a miscommunication. If you want to continue this debate, that's fine, but please do so civily and with no ill manner because I'm really trying to have an old fashioned friendly debate here.

Also you are not talking about how games should be. You are talking about how you want them to be, and what you, me and cinnamonfloss want are different things, none more valid than the other.

Well, yeah, I'm bassically just stating my opinion. Feel free to disagree with it in a civilized manner, I love a good ole fashioned debate.

And no, meaning isn't a valid criteria for judging a game, every game has infinite meanings or messages because the reception of the messages is soley up to the viewer. Can't anything have a meaning if you look at it with (in your words) an open eye?

Sure, my stool in the toilet can have meaning to someone. But I, nor the majority of people, would consider it "art". There's "good" are and "bad" art and most video games fall into the latter catagory in the majority's eyes.

1 No, this is wrong and mathematically impossible. Being a popular saying does not make it valid, what you just said was nonsense.

Wha? Mathematically? As much as I love mathematics, this statement has nothing to do with mathematics, it's looking at the entire product as a whole and appreciating it as a whole instead of looking at it's individual parts. Individually, eggs, batter, frosting, dough, ect... are all just fine individually. But mix them together, with the correct amount ingredients, cook it right, and you get a nice little delicious cake. You can look at the cake and say that "It's just a bunch of seperate stuff as a whole!" but that's missing the point of the cake. You have to look at the whole of it, not just the individual parts that make it up.

2 The summary of shadow of the colossus is a correct and with a little more detail could explain the game completely, answer questions how you things them and how you get there and you've described nearly the entire game. The A Clockwork Orange example you gave is less than half of a summary of the events. At any rate what you are trying to say is wrong, there is no point to miss in SoTC either you try to win the game according to the actual rules or you don't.

It's like playing street fighter not trying to win but instead trying to pull off big combos, if you like that sort of thing that's OK but don't try to tell others that your inane restrictions are the right way to play.

This part I'll give you some credit, many people will miss the imagery/symbolizm/whateverthehell in many movies/video games/books. But again, it comes down to just looking at one single mechanic, or just a group of mechanics individually, you can't do that in most mediums without losing something from it. You can't just look at a book and say "It's just a jumble of words with the mechanic of art around them!", it's what the words end up saying that's the important thing, and if most people don't get it that's fine. Could be the fault of either the author or the reader.

And now you're getting hostile on me. As I said before, I never inteded to sound hostile to cinnamonfloss, the least you could do is not step down to that level anyway.

3 Yeah but even an idiot can be right. If your sole attack on an argument is on the person proposing the argument, then it's not much of an attack. Whether or not Ebert has the experience to state his view point doesn't change how right he is. And if you read Eberts post then you will see that their are few innacurate statements. Personally I think Ebert is closer to the being correct the most of the SoTC fanboys. You repeated this exact statement so many times I had to delete four of your useless paragraphs (and Ebert has played Ninja Turtles BTW.)

Yes, playing a game from, what, the 1980s or something completely invalidates that Ebert has not played any modern games.

I'm not trying to say that Ebert is an idiot (infact, I don't recall saying that...) or that his opinion is entirely wrong, some of it does have it's merits. But overall, he's a film critic and he's good to debate on films. He has little to no experience in the culture/industry of video games, and yet he put out his opinion and expected everyone to treat him the same way as people do in the film industry. When Ebert gives a thumbs down to a studio, people listen. When Ebert gives a thumbs down to gaming in general, with having little to no experience with the industry he's backtalking, people listen with angry ears.

Again, I'm not saying Ebert is stupid or that his entire opinion has no merits, I respect the man for the industry that he works in and that I hope to get in. But when it comes to video games, it's like if Ice-T criticized Great Expectations or something, it's just not his area of expertise.

5 "Games are in their infancy." I hate this stupid apologist argument and the people who propagate it. Some of the most masterful games have been made long ago by the most talented and experienced people in the industry today and we're suppose to evolve past them like a child grows out of his socks. This whole idea is an insult to every brilliant mind who builds games. Games aren't growing better.

I hate that argument to, but I had to use it anyway. Games, compared to many other mediums, are still in their infancy. Books took many years, if not a thousand years to become respected. Movies took at least 50 years before Citizen Kane came along. Video Games are now in their, what, 30th year? 40th year? It's not restricted to a timeline, but when people say that games are still in their infancy they mean that they're not at the point where they are widely regarded as "art" (I wish I didn't have to use that word, but that's all I could think of)

There may have been a few child geniuses in the past, but the thing is that those child geniuses were our geniuses. They were not regarded by the whole world or whatever as great, only us gamers.

6 Art conflated with quality. If this was true then we wouldn't have people in this thread elevating mediocre 3D action games above chess. The concept of art games has not improved gaming in the slightest, it has probably made gaming on average worse. Art isn't just a useless standard to judge games, it is detrimental because it is such a loaded term. People associate art with paintings and books which causes us to end up with shallow games that try to emphasize story or graphics. Games didn't evolve from art, they evolved from sport and a step away from sport into art is merely a garbage game.

Really now? Art worsening games? I severely doubt that, personally anyway. What's wrong with games that emphasize on story? Silent Hill 2, at the time, had wonderful graphics/visuals and it had crappy gameplay, but that doesn't stop it from being regarded as one of the scariest games of all time. Shadow of the Collosus implements a story element, hanging on/letting go in the right places (R1 button), into the very gameplay. Okami, well, it practically is a painting.

If "artistic" games are making games emphasize more on story, atmosphere, and all around subtletly, something that so many games have a really hard time grasping, then I welcome their changes.

The only games that judged on the "art" standard are the games that make a concious effort to be different, such as Limbo and Shadow of the Collosus. You won't see Gears of War 3 or Fable 3 or God of War 3 (lotso 3s...) being judged by the standard of "art", just like you won't see "Sex in the City 2" or "Transformers 2" be judged as "art".

More "artsy" movies from Citizen Kane onwards didn't change a thing with the standard, drama-dey crap that Hollywood still pumps out day after day. Why would the same not be true for video games? You're trying to paint the supposed fact that "more 'artsy' games spell doom for us!" but what the hell would it change? Games having a little more focus on storytelling? More sublety in the story? Better atmosphere? Implementing the story within the gameplay?

If you want to continue this conversation, go ahead, I don't mind. Just keep it civil and clean, because for some reason you're thinking that I'm coming off as hostile when I have no intention. If I came off as hostile or raging in this post, it was completely unintentional and I'm sorry.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Maybe the colossi are set free every once in a while and wreak havoc on the world.

By a lone wander who steals a sacred sword in order to revive a young girl he loves, right? Sounds like a tough one to reproduce, doesn't it?

Ok, you win this round lol. I would have to play the game again to recall most of the specific details of the plot to form a better interpretation. but what I quoted was a complete nonsequitor response. I still don't agree with your interpretation 100 percent but I doubt I have enough knowledge of the game to challange you on any aspect of the story. Speaking of the story, I don't know if I'd give the high alcolades you give, I hardly felt anything for Wander or any Colossus, it's like I hardly even knew them.

"shallow manner" because design = mechanics and you hardly adressed the mechanics. Climbing the colossi is vital to the game while all the cutscenes, music and graphics are essentially fluff.

Wander's struggle to murder the colossi is emblematic of his refusal to let go. Every colossus he slays is a unique and innocent creature that will never be seen again, and every one of his killings decays him physically and spiritually. That he continues on, despite all evidence pointing to the error of his ways, indicates obsession. That's his failing as a character, and you, the player, reinforce it every time you scale and kill another ancient giant.

This response had nothing to do with what I said. You can't adress a game's design without adressing mechanics and you didn't do that.

"Insignificant final scene" because insignificant = small and that scene is less than 5 percent of the game. You probably didn't understand my example so i'll explain it; in Devil May Cry the "final player-controlled sequence" is when the character gets in a plane and you have to navigate through a cave where crashing will barely hurt you or even slow you down making it impossible to fail and therfore a pointless sequence. Same thing with with SoTC, in other words: bad design.

It's pointless because you don't seem to grasp the game's central theme: refusing to let go corrupts and destroys your soul. It's a common theme throughout film and literature, and they executed it brilliantly with this game. That final scene, in which you, the player, must ultimately accept that the girl is gone to you in spite of all the sacrifices you've made, is the culmination of all that came before. The betrayal, the murders, the deal with the devil - all of that resulted in nothing but oblivion. It's not an instructive lesson for the character because he's lost. He's paid the ultimate price. That lesson is directed at the audience, the player.

Well the culmination of the game for me was the fight with Malus, the tallest colossi to climb yet. After that, everything else seemed like an anti-climax. And I don't fail to grasp the theme, I just don't accept it. I'm cautious of any message that isn't clearly spelled out.

flashy and shallow action game

DMC's possibility space and the flexibility of its encounters make SoTC look shallow by comparison. The games aren't as different as you think they are, you figure out the best way to defeat an enemy and then execute it. The comparison isn't invalid at all. Are you just annoyed that I compared a game you like to something else?

Rarely does anyone talk about the airplane thing both because it was pointless and forgettable but also because the majority of the game and the game strenth lay in fighting enemies. "Fighting enemies" is to DMC what "Climbing Colossi" is to SoTC dig?

Not remotely.

In case I didn't make my self clear I'll explain what I meant. The primary Action in DMC is fighting and the primary actions in SoTC are climbing, shooting stabbing etc. I wasn't trying to imply the two games actions are the same (they actually are pretty similar.)

I was going to quote your big second post but because I don't want to feel like this is escelating I think instead I'll just clarify my ideas since I suppose I faild to communicate them the first time around.

On game design as mechanics: Mechanics in a game are allways primary while everything else (graphics, music, story) are secondary. Hence: "Wander will be unable to hold on to a surface when the grip meter runs out" is a bigger aspect of the game than "Wander is destroying beatufil and unique creatures."

On Messages: You even admit that messages are subjective and therefore up to interpretation. Messages are based almost soley on the recipient which means games and art are an extremely poor way to give a message when compared to merely typing or saying a message like we are doing right now. And when I said that the messages of game designers are worthless I meant that I have no more reason to trust the messages of a game designer than I do any random person on the internet. If most messages are crappy then I don't feel the need look for them.

On Games and Art: Games as I already explained are mechanics. Art is aesthetics.I don't min good art being a part of games and I really dislike everytime someone says something like "graphics don't matter" but IMO art should always be secondary otherwise the game will probably suck.