Ebert Re-Emphasizes That Games Will Never Be Art
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Seeing that most people consider Uwe Boll's movies to be the worst in the world. If he considers them art I will find Ebert's potion a little Weird.Onyx Oblivion said:
Fun fact: My father, who was reading over my shoulder and hates videogames with a passion, said out loud: "What a douchebag."
So there you have it, folks.
~
His point is biased and blatantly incorrect, though. If something you can win is not art, then when you watch someone else play a game, wouldn't that be considered art? It's nothing different from a movie, really: As a viewer, you have no control over what's going on - You watch as the main character goes and does things, works through issues and eventually comes to an end, whether it be a successful overcoming or an ill-fated demise.
The movie may change each time, but it's still out of your control.
And what about games like Metal Gear Solid 4 or Final Fantasy? Games that are driven by plot. Sure, you do the fighting and the moving, but you aren't the character. You just control the pace at which the story progresses. You can put down a book to grab a cup of tea, but that doesn't stop the book from being a form of art.
So there you have it, folks.
~
His point is biased and blatantly incorrect, though. If something you can win is not art, then when you watch someone else play a game, wouldn't that be considered art? It's nothing different from a movie, really: As a viewer, you have no control over what's going on - You watch as the main character goes and does things, works through issues and eventually comes to an end, whether it be a successful overcoming or an ill-fated demise.
The movie may change each time, but it's still out of your control.
And what about games like Metal Gear Solid 4 or Final Fantasy? Games that are driven by plot. Sure, you do the fighting and the moving, but you aren't the character. You just control the pace at which the story progresses. You can put down a book to grab a cup of tea, but that doesn't stop the book from being a form of art.
Why is it important that games be accepted as art (or at least having the potential of being art)?
Gaming has come a long way in its short life. At least videogaming. However like comic books it has a somewhat juvenile image even now. Videogames for most people in the world is something children enjoy. It is not something a serious adult would see as a hobby or even something people can pursue as a career.
Basically games are considered to be a somewhat low-brow form of entertainment. If you are reading this or pretty much anything on the Escapist you will know that this is very much not the case. The amount of depth that you can cram into a game is staggering with so many distinct designs to consider (control interface, UI, story, levels and much more). We usually do not see a very great amount of depth in big block buster games that generally has more in common with blockbuster movies and pop music. But the potential is there and you see it in, as the article says, games like braid that has interesting mechanics, compelling art, a gut wrenching story and all of it is placed inside an old familiar style with the simple platformer.
What games are trying to achieve by being recognised as an art form is to more specifically to be recognised as a serious medium for spreading ideas, philosophy, stories and maybe even news. (personally and a bit counter intuitively I suppose I think is that this will be easier when we accept in-game commercials as a normal part of games).
So ultimately the reason that gamers are so eager to have games accepted as an art form is for the rest of the world to simple take games serious and not just as something that will corrupt their children.
Now on to another thing. Ebert says that games cannot be art because you can win them. That makes absolutely no sense. Wining in a game is pretty much to end an experience with success and in all honesty that is something you do with movies, music and books. Ending an experience is quite normal. But even when you finish a game with success it can feel like you lost. Case and point: Braid and Kane and Lynch.
I suppose what I am saying is that Mr. Ebert should stick to cinema and leave games to those that know about them. As I understand it Mr. Ebert agrees with me.
Gaming has come a long way in its short life. At least videogaming. However like comic books it has a somewhat juvenile image even now. Videogames for most people in the world is something children enjoy. It is not something a serious adult would see as a hobby or even something people can pursue as a career.
Basically games are considered to be a somewhat low-brow form of entertainment. If you are reading this or pretty much anything on the Escapist you will know that this is very much not the case. The amount of depth that you can cram into a game is staggering with so many distinct designs to consider (control interface, UI, story, levels and much more). We usually do not see a very great amount of depth in big block buster games that generally has more in common with blockbuster movies and pop music. But the potential is there and you see it in, as the article says, games like braid that has interesting mechanics, compelling art, a gut wrenching story and all of it is placed inside an old familiar style with the simple platformer.
What games are trying to achieve by being recognised as an art form is to more specifically to be recognised as a serious medium for spreading ideas, philosophy, stories and maybe even news. (personally and a bit counter intuitively I suppose I think is that this will be easier when we accept in-game commercials as a normal part of games).
So ultimately the reason that gamers are so eager to have games accepted as an art form is for the rest of the world to simple take games serious and not just as something that will corrupt their children.
Now on to another thing. Ebert says that games cannot be art because you can win them. That makes absolutely no sense. Wining in a game is pretty much to end an experience with success and in all honesty that is something you do with movies, music and books. Ending an experience is quite normal. But even when you finish a game with success it can feel like you lost. Case and point: Braid and Kane and Lynch.
I suppose what I am saying is that Mr. Ebert should stick to cinema and leave games to those that know about them. As I understand it Mr. Ebert agrees with me.
Ebert's gettin' pretty old. I respect the guy n' all when it comes to movies but I agree with a lot of people that Ebert's kind of in the position that probably all of the bookworms were when movies were first invented.
I mean he's right on some points about games but he just broadly categorizes them all as the kind of crazy stuff like CoD, BF:BC, TF2... stuff like that is just mostly in it for the fun kind of like the connection other posters are making between stuff like Transformers or Ewe Boll movies.
Videogames are still pretty new to the scene so they're don't have many shining examples yet but they are out there. Any game with a great atmosphere, story, or well-developed characters I would consider an art since that's just what makes books and movies a form of art. The games take it a step further by adding interaction and while that might not be very attractive to some old timer's like Ebert it's the way the future is shaping up.
I mean he's right on some points about games but he just broadly categorizes them all as the kind of crazy stuff like CoD, BF:BC, TF2... stuff like that is just mostly in it for the fun kind of like the connection other posters are making between stuff like Transformers or Ewe Boll movies.
Videogames are still pretty new to the scene so they're don't have many shining examples yet but they are out there. Any game with a great atmosphere, story, or well-developed characters I would consider an art since that's just what makes books and movies a form of art. The games take it a step further by adding interaction and while that might not be very attractive to some old timer's like Ebert it's the way the future is shaping up.
I like Ebert and I think he's right but here's why you shouldn't care:
Games don't need to be "art."
Let's ignore for a moment the obvious fact that no one really agrees what "art" means anyway. There's no universally accepted definition that appeals to everyone's sensibilities and someone's always going to play the devil's advocate and disagree when someone tries to draw the line (just like Ebert is doing). When it comes to art, we don't need to draw lines in the sand, it serves no purpose.
Which leads me back to the main point, that games don't need to be art. Yes, games need artists to craft breathtaking environments and emotionally fulfilling narratives and all the other stuff, but there's no need for the entirety of the game itself to be considered art. We don't enjoy a game any more or less based on Ebert or any other stubborn critic's judgement, so why do we care? Isn't it enough for our medium to tell great, pulse-pounding stories and treat us to stunning visuals and game mechanics? Can't we be satisfied with years and years of memories and stories and the promise of more in the future, with a medium that brings people together AND lets you shoot mythical beasts in the face? Isn't the thrill of escapism for a couple hours a day (more if you're on vacation) enough?
Does the word "art" even do it justice anymore?
I'm content to enjoy games for what they are, not what someone says they aren't. Let's get over the art/not art bullshit and just play!
Games don't need to be "art."
Let's ignore for a moment the obvious fact that no one really agrees what "art" means anyway. There's no universally accepted definition that appeals to everyone's sensibilities and someone's always going to play the devil's advocate and disagree when someone tries to draw the line (just like Ebert is doing). When it comes to art, we don't need to draw lines in the sand, it serves no purpose.
Which leads me back to the main point, that games don't need to be art. Yes, games need artists to craft breathtaking environments and emotionally fulfilling narratives and all the other stuff, but there's no need for the entirety of the game itself to be considered art. We don't enjoy a game any more or less based on Ebert or any other stubborn critic's judgement, so why do we care? Isn't it enough for our medium to tell great, pulse-pounding stories and treat us to stunning visuals and game mechanics? Can't we be satisfied with years and years of memories and stories and the promise of more in the future, with a medium that brings people together AND lets you shoot mythical beasts in the face? Isn't the thrill of escapism for a couple hours a day (more if you're on vacation) enough?
Does the word "art" even do it justice anymore?
I'm content to enjoy games for what they are, not what someone says they aren't. Let's get over the art/not art bullshit and just play!
Art grants, man. ART GRANTS!JakobBloch said:
So were theatre and film. Theatre was popular entertainment for the masses and the world's first feature length film was made in Australia, 1906's The Story of the Kelly Gang, about a folkhero outlaw - pure mass entertainment there.
The argument of 'games incorporating art but not being art' is bloody nonsensical, too, especially when if comes from people who consider film to be art. What makes film an art instead of a medium incorporating art (is it just pre-recorded theatre with effects?)? Ooooo, some mystical quality called 'cinematography'... That's nice but why is that an 'art' and creating gameplay not an art? Why is creating a passive scenario more artistic than creating an interactive one?
Also, what was Ebert smoking when he said art doesn't have rules? Art has several thousand years of accumulated rules and conventions. Just because you don't have to follow the rules and conventions doesn't mean they aren't there - that's how new movements in Art are created, some bright spark finding a new way to break the rules and still having their creations work.
Took the words right out of my mouth.Furburt said:
I remember attempting to educate the "Frumpy Mother" with a little challenge I issued to her. I challenged her to play through some games in a similar vein as the ones you named. But, sadly, I did not hear any reply. So... I was ignored. And the "Frumpy Mother" proved herself to be willfully ignorant. Just as Ebert has.
But oh well, take heart, they will die LONG before we will.
And as for those who ask "why do you care", I care because, while I do like video games, I can respect an anti-videogame platform if said platform actually bothered to do some fucking research. And since the self-dubbed "anti-videogame crusaders" continually refuse to do this on their own, I feel it is my duty to educate them. Sure, I may only be handing an opponent some ammunition, but at least it would be ACTUAL ammunition as opposed to the outright BULLSHIT they're using now.
This guy fails at life, solely because "art" is subjective, and can't really be defined by its medium. As a previous post noted, it's just something that affects the senses and/or emotions. This effectively makes everything art, in it's own way. This is why being an art critic is one of the most bullshit jobs on the planet.
Eberts opinions on games are about as worth as much as my opinions on film would be if I critiqued them purely on my visual arts background... after only watching Uwe Boll and Michael Bey films.
Someone sat me down and made me watch some Bergman films once.Furburt said:
How I felt afterwards is best described as 'psychotic fury' at someone I considered a friend making me sit and watch that shit.
... and after I'd loaned them all my Kurosawa vids and all.
Epic Troll on Eberts part.
Here's the thing: Why does he keep saying that gamers care about games being art? As a gamer, I don't care if a game is considered art, but it annoys me a bit when someone outright says they aren't. However, as a 3D animator, I care a lot about it, and it pisses me off.
Recently my college had an art show, and the 3D students were asked to put renders of their work into it, along with photography, drawing, etc. The 3D art was not judged. One student was upset enough to go to the president of the college to ask why. He said back that in the future, they will have a judge to award the 3D art.
The drawing/common art teacher at my school was talking to my 3D teacher about art and things and she said that 3D was not art because "anyone can do it" and "all you do is push buttons." So what is photography? Or film? Anyone can control a pencil, right? It's about the quality. The same goes for 3D.
My point is, it's not about gamers wanting games to be considered art. It's the people who make the games. They deserve credit for their work the way artists are given credit. Games aren't just a standalone artform, they bring together several different types.
Example: Halo. Look at the different parts that go into a game like Halo. First, the story. Writing is an art. Next architecture- Some of humanity's greatest art is in buildings: cathedrals, monuments, etc, and Halo has distinct architecture throughout the game. Music, obviously, listen to the soundtrack. It is one of the best in gaming. Then there's videography, which produces some amazing cutscenes. And of course, all of the 3D and programming (which is an art) that goes into making the game as well.
Here's the thing: Why does he keep saying that gamers care about games being art? As a gamer, I don't care if a game is considered art, but it annoys me a bit when someone outright says they aren't. However, as a 3D animator, I care a lot about it, and it pisses me off.
Recently my college had an art show, and the 3D students were asked to put renders of their work into it, along with photography, drawing, etc. The 3D art was not judged. One student was upset enough to go to the president of the college to ask why. He said back that in the future, they will have a judge to award the 3D art.
The drawing/common art teacher at my school was talking to my 3D teacher about art and things and she said that 3D was not art because "anyone can do it" and "all you do is push buttons." So what is photography? Or film? Anyone can control a pencil, right? It's about the quality. The same goes for 3D.
My point is, it's not about gamers wanting games to be considered art. It's the people who make the games. They deserve credit for their work the way artists are given credit. Games aren't just a standalone artform, they bring together several different types.
Example: Halo. Look at the different parts that go into a game like Halo. First, the story. Writing is an art. Next architecture- Some of humanity's greatest art is in buildings: cathedrals, monuments, etc, and Halo has distinct architecture throughout the game. Music, obviously, listen to the soundtrack. It is one of the best in gaming. Then there's videography, which produces some amazing cutscenes. And of course, all of the 3D and programming (which is an art) that goes into making the game as well.
Personally, it's because of my respect for Ebert that I am so concerned with this issue. He's a great argumentative writer, but whenever he talks about video games his ignorance on the subject overshadows his wit. Yes, he's entitled to his opinion, but it's just really disappointing to see his usually stellar reasoning skills being hampered but what is apparently just a simple bias.Sovvolf said:I have a great amount of respect for Roger Erbert, I think he's a good critic and he's entitled to his own opinion. I don't see why people are begging for is approval of video games as an art form to be quite honest. He's a movie critic and he doesn't agree with us that we think games are an art form... so?. I don't see the big deal. He doesn't think games are an art form... well I respectfully disagree and I'll carry on and play what I think is a form of art, while he carry's on review movies... I wish him good health and I can't wait to read his next review. Though I respect the fellow a great deal... that doesn't always mean I agree with him.
I know this is going to sound a bit elitist, but if you really feel that way then you might want to expand your gaming horizons a bit. Very few people in the "games are art" category would argue that cinematics are the artistic strong point of games.SimuLord said:
People are snippy about it because there are some gamers who play games primarily for their artistic aspect. Indeed, there are even developers that are more concerned with making art than making a buck. Of course people are going to be a bit angry if someone says "Sorry, what you're doing is impossible and a waste of time".SimuLord said:
For the past 20 or so years involved with creating art on computers I've constantly heard how computers do it all but I've yet to find one of these mystical art programs that do all the work. They'd save me weeks of work. I could just type in or whatever "steampunk mech going all stompy in a pseudo-WW1 trench warfare setting" instead of having to create every single aspect of it myself, which is time consume and, in my weaker skill areas, quite fiddly.CORRODED SIN said: