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."
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.
Perhaps we can look forward to this program in some future edition of Adobe Creative Suite. But for right now, we have to slave for weeks or months to get an outcome like the one you mentioned (which sounds pretty wicked) plus rendering time.
Perhaps we can look forward to this program in some future edition of Adobe Creative Suite. But for right now, we have to slave for weeks or months to get an outcome like the one you mentioned (which sounds pretty wicked) plus rendering time.
I think it's rendering that confuses people into thinking the computer does all the work... Yes, the computer is doing a lot of work but that doesn't mean we artists haven't sweated blood to create all the input and controls that the rendering engine needs to operate. I keep telling people who say that, after asking where I can get one of those wonderful sounding do-all-the-work-for-you programs, that they're confusing a photo processing machine with the photographer.
Also, I'm hoping Newtek release a We-Do-It-For-You edition of Lightwave... Although I suppose if the program is doing all the work for me personal software preferences matter much, MUCH less.
Well, I posted a comment on his blog, and it was published. I posted it on the non-news thread, but fuck it, I'll post it here again.
I really don't think he's in the least bit qualified to make such a blanket statement. It would like me saying "All science is speculation" (I know jack-shit about science), I don't know enough about it and I obviously haven't done the research. It's the same with Ebert.
Anyway, without further ado, what I wrote.
And this is the point where I gave up on Roger Ebert.
Usually, you have reasonable opinions, but in this case, I cannot accept them. It is clear to me that your age is clouding your viewpoint as comes videogames, and I don't think you're qualified to make any sort of objective opinion on them.
Do me a favour Roger, play Grim Fandango, play Planescape: Torment, play The Longest Journey. These are games that stir emotions and contemplation, that cause us to question the very nature of reality. Even non-gamers can understand this.
But no, what you are doing is taking a fleeting glimpse at something you don't understand and condemning it. Imagine if somebody who knew nothing of films looked at Transformers 2 or 300 and condemned the whole medium as immature and base immediately. I think you'd be quite incensed with them, as would I. They're just looking at the most popular dreck and failing to dig any deeper before they come to a conclusion. A rational person would sit them down with some Bergman and Tarkovsky films and see how they feel afterward. I doubt they'd think the same.
Because that's exactly what you're doing, you only taking a glance at the mainstream dreck and condemn it based on what you see. It's bad reviewing technique, because you aren't digging deep enough before reaching a conclusion. I wouldn't mind so much, you aren't a videogame critic, but when you say 'Videogames can never be art', you take it upon yourself, and if you make a statement like that, you'd better know what you're talking about.
Incidentally, none of those games I spoke of are particularly violent. Planescape: Torment, somewhat, but only when appropriate and where it makes sense as relates to the story.
I suggest that you do your research before making such grandiose claims, otherwise this is just an old man ranting about something he doesn't understand.
As I'm sure you understand, nobody wants to be in that position.
Very, very well said, Furburt. You're sitting on some fantastic dialogue skills there.
On the topic, Ebert's sole purpose in life is to form elitist opinions on completely subjective creative outlets. He's old, angry, and bitter. And I would be too if I were him. If we wanted him to leave games alone, we should've stayed off his lawn.
Games that try too hard to be interactive movies (Heavy Rain) fail to be games, games that have cinematic parts in the more traditional sense cease to be games until the cinematics are over and control is returned to the player (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, and don't say quick-time events count as "control"), and the games that have objectives and succeed at the "game" portion have no pretense toward being an art form (all the games I like to play.)
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.
Expand my horizons? That part you bolded is 99% of game genres! Today alone I've played Fallout 3, Rise of Nations, and SimCity 4. I'd say my horizons are plenty expanded. Pretentious arty shit has no place on my gaming table, but this does not make me narrow-minded, it makes me someone who acknowledges that when gaming tries to be arty, it loses its strength.
Perhaps we can look forward to this program in some future edition of Adobe Creative Suite. But for right now, we have to slave for weeks or months to get an outcome like the one you mentioned (which sounds pretty wicked) plus rendering time.
I think it's rendering that confuses people into thinking the computer does all the work... Yes, the computer is doing a lot of work but that doesn't mean we artists haven't sweated blood to create all the input and controls that the rendering engine needs to operate. I keep telling people who say that, after asking where I can get one of those wonderful sounding do-all-the-work-for-you programs, that they're confusing a photo processing machine with the photographer.
Games that try too hard to be interactive movies (Heavy Rain) fail to be games, games that have cinematic parts in the more traditional sense cease to be games until the cinematics are over and control is returned to the player (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, and don't say quick-time events count as "control"), and the games that have objectives and succeed at the "game" portion have no pretense toward being an art form (all the games I like to play.)
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.
Expand my horizons? That part you bolded is 99% of game genres! Today alone I've played Fallout 3, Rise of Nations, and SimCity 4. I'd say my horizons are plenty expanded. Pretentious arty shit has no place on my gaming table, but this does not make me narrow-minded, it makes me someone who acknowledges that when gaming tries to be arty, it loses its strength.
I said this in my post a couple above this, that games are just a compilation of arts. Just because there is a lengthy cutscene doesn't disqualify one game from another as being art. It just emphasizes using different proportions of different arts. And the way art goes, its all or nothing. You don't walk through a museum saying this or that isn't art because you don't like it or it isn't your style. You say you don't like it because it isn't in your taste, or you don't enjoy it, but it's still art. I don't enjoy Final Fantasy but it's a brilliantly artful game.
Grumpy Old Fart values Battlefield Earth over Braid.
Yawn.
Why exactly should we care what Ebert thinks about games, a medium he has absolutely no authority or experience in, or about his opinion on art, which nobody can conclusively define, anyway?
Games that try too hard to be interactive movies (Heavy Rain) fail to be games, games that have cinematic parts in the more traditional sense cease to be games until the cinematics are over and control is returned to the player (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, and don't say quick-time events count as "control"), and the games that have objectives and succeed at the "game" portion have no pretense toward being an art form (all the games I like to play.)
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.
Expand my horizons? That part you bolded is 99% of game genres! Today alone I've played Fallout 3, Rise of Nations, and SimCity 4. I'd say my horizons are plenty expanded. Pretentious arty shit has no place on my gaming table, but this does not make me narrow-minded, it makes me someone who acknowledges that when gaming tries to be arty, it loses its strength.
Fair enough, I only said that because games don't need to cut into a cinematic in order to be arty. I just assumed that someone who played a wide range of genres would understand that.
Also, how do games lose their strength when they try to be arty?
Games that try too hard to be interactive movies (Heavy Rain) fail to be games, games that have cinematic parts in the more traditional sense cease to be games until the cinematics are over and control is returned to the player (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, and don't say quick-time events count as "control"), and the games that have objectives and succeed at the "game" portion have no pretense toward being an art form (all the games I like to play.)
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.
Expand my horizons? That part you bolded is 99% of game genres! Today alone I've played Fallout 3, Rise of Nations, and SimCity 4. I'd say my horizons are plenty expanded. Pretentious arty shit has no place on my gaming table, but this does not make me narrow-minded, it makes me someone who acknowledges that when gaming tries to be arty, it loses its strength.
Fair enough, I only said that because games don't need to cut into a cinematic in order to be arty. I just assumed that someone who played a wide range of genres would understand that.
Also, how do games lose their strength when they try to be arty?
'[...] no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form.'
If Ebert is trying to be a futurist, now, he may wish to return to school for it. He has some catching up to do if he thinks longevity is a barrier to most people currently under 35.
Anyway, if anyone can refer us to a dictionary without a definition of art objectively applicable to games, I'll be waiting.
williebaz said:
Personally in my opinion I've thought that since movies aren't interactive they are a more primitive and inferior form of art when compared to videogames. Since you can never become immersed in a film the same way you can be immersed in a game, videogames are clearly the superior art form.
[plug]
I recently responded [http://terroja.com/?p=41#comment-172] to a blog entry [http://terroja.com/?p=41#comments] which argues that games cannot be art strictly because art is, by definition, immutable, and that the interactivity of games renders them mutable, making interactivity precisely what disqualifies games from being art. I'm not sure whether this is more or less irritating than Ebert's arguments, but I think it's fundamentally flawed. See my response [http://terroja.com/?p=41#comment-172] for why.
[/plug]
Some of the things Ebert says, however, are very good examples of why I sometimes shy away from calling a game a game. Sometimes it seems to devalue the experience I've had in a way which seems greatly undeserved.
Incidentally, the games I play, I play for what I consider their artistic value, not to be entertained. Even if I am entertained in the process, I don't particularly care.
only recently have I come across more news and heard more about (and from) this guy...and so far my impression is that he's...kind of a jerk?
(and doesn't have a mouth anymore, but apparently still won't shut up)
"Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves?"
me: okay fine, I wasn't gonna argue about it any-
"They have my blessing, not that they care."
me: wtf? go get a lower jaw or something
Video games are marginalized as a juvenile pursuit. The point of them is usually a power fantasy: pretending you're someone you're not, with skills reasonable human beings don't have. The ubiquitous focus on violence exacerbates this problem.
Asking that games be considered art is another plea for validation. He's saying they're not art, demanding validation is pointless because they'll always be childish power fantasies. Gamers, to him, should just be happy to have their reindeer games about shooting people through the head, and get out of the way of adults while they make things with actual quality.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
