Ebert Re-Emphasizes That Games Will Never Be Art
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh noes THE Roger Ebert says games are not art!!! Wait who the fuck is Roger Ebert and why does his opinion matter ?
And let's not forget, even if you don't like violent games (and really, for the most part I don't), they are still ultimately power fantasies.Horben said:
SimCity? Power fantasy. You're building entire cities (or states/regions, in SC4) and controlling the unseen lives of the people in them.
Patrician/Port Royale? Power fantasy. Those games are about getting ridiculously rich in ways that you can't do in real life.
Sports games? Goes without saying, doesn't it?
The Sims? Oh boy. ULTIMATE power fantasy of a game. You are a hands-on freakin' god in that game.
All nonviolent. All just as power-fantasy escapism and childhood make-believe. And not a one could be called art, nor would it pretend to. And I for one am thankful for that. If I want art, I'll go appreciate art. When I'm gaming, I want to play a game (or, per Will Wright in re: SimCity/Sims, play with a toy). Arty crap gets in the way.
You know, there's really only one thing about the article here that frustrates me. I don't care what Ebert thinks about video games. He's not interested in them, and that's fine. But when he says "Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art?" the answer is that most of us really aren't. But if he went on record as stating that the sky is green, why should he be surprised that people argue with him?
Games clearly can be art. Most of them suck at it, which is fine, but honestly I think most of the examples people give are really terrible. Like Braid. Braid is a fun little puzzle game, with a very pretty art style and an intentionally obtuse plot, but it's actually really terrible art.
You want an example of good video game art? How about Grand Theft Auto? I don't even like it all that much, but the all the things you can do, the world it builds, the things it says about the people who play it from the way they play it. It's a great example of something that succeeds as a game and does something no other medium can do while offering something of genuine artistic merit. Of course the ultra violence is not so great for lots of people, but I very much doubt that even Ebert would try to argue that no violent movie has ever been art.
Really, all the violence is gaming's biggest problem right now. I mean, I don't mind killing some space pirates or something every now and then, but every single big budget title out there involves killing things. Even Mario smashes goombas. That's true of games across all kinds of genres too. The only genre I can think of where killing isn't normal and acceptable is sports games. Why? There's nothing about the medium of gaming that requires murder. Heck, most of the games that catch on with non-gamers don't involve numerous deaths. From Farmville all the way back to Tetris, there are lots of examples of popular games that don't involve killing, so why is only Nintendo trying make more of those kinds of games? And why do we deride them for being too kiddy friendly when they do? Video gamers are never going to be taken seriously and video games will never be taken seriously until we can give up this obsession with killing things.
Edit:
Heh, funny timing there. But yes, that's actually a very good point and complete irrelevant at the same time.
Almost all video games are power fantasies, it's true. But there's nothing about the medium that requires that. Is Tetris a power fantasy? A game doesn't have to be that way to be good. Or profitable.
Certainly most video games being made today are really lousy art. And that's fine, but that doesn't mean that games can't be art, or that it will be eighty or more years before games as art are fairly common. That's the statement I personally take exception with.
Games clearly can be art. Most of them suck at it, which is fine, but honestly I think most of the examples people give are really terrible. Like Braid. Braid is a fun little puzzle game, with a very pretty art style and an intentionally obtuse plot, but it's actually really terrible art.
You want an example of good video game art? How about Grand Theft Auto? I don't even like it all that much, but the all the things you can do, the world it builds, the things it says about the people who play it from the way they play it. It's a great example of something that succeeds as a game and does something no other medium can do while offering something of genuine artistic merit. Of course the ultra violence is not so great for lots of people, but I very much doubt that even Ebert would try to argue that no violent movie has ever been art.
Really, all the violence is gaming's biggest problem right now. I mean, I don't mind killing some space pirates or something every now and then, but every single big budget title out there involves killing things. Even Mario smashes goombas. That's true of games across all kinds of genres too. The only genre I can think of where killing isn't normal and acceptable is sports games. Why? There's nothing about the medium of gaming that requires murder. Heck, most of the games that catch on with non-gamers don't involve numerous deaths. From Farmville all the way back to Tetris, there are lots of examples of popular games that don't involve killing, so why is only Nintendo trying make more of those kinds of games? And why do we deride them for being too kiddy friendly when they do? Video gamers are never going to be taken seriously and video games will never be taken seriously until we can give up this obsession with killing things.
Edit:
Heh, funny timing there. But yes, that's actually a very good point and complete irrelevant at the same time.
Almost all video games are power fantasies, it's true. But there's nothing about the medium that requires that. Is Tetris a power fantasy? A game doesn't have to be that way to be good. Or profitable.
Certainly most video games being made today are really lousy art. And that's fine, but that doesn't mean that games can't be art, or that it will be eighty or more years before games as art are fairly common. That's the statement I personally take exception with.
I would love to see the look on Ebert's face if he ever played System Shock 2 or Bioshock.Syon said:
Games are art.
As long as it's telling a story, it's art.
When you think about it, a videogame is nothing more than a movie in which YOU are the main actor. You are able to enjoy the story to a much greater extent, because it's YOU who's pulling the strings, in stead of an actor.
Of course not every game is the new Venus of Milo, but then again, there also is elefant art.
And to the 2 people and the bacteria who still care about Ebert: stop caring.
As long as it's telling a story, it's art.
When you think about it, a videogame is nothing more than a movie in which YOU are the main actor. You are able to enjoy the story to a much greater extent, because it's YOU who's pulling the strings, in stead of an actor.
Of course not every game is the new Venus of Milo, but then again, there also is elefant art.
And to the 2 people and the bacteria who still care about Ebert: stop caring.
In the end everyone has they?re own perception as to what ?art? is. I?ve always thought video games as an art, sometimes more so than film. The characters have to be drawn and brought to life, and then theres the task of making them seem more human, in the movements and emotions.
But like I said that?s just my opinion.
But like I said that?s just my opinion.
Boudelaire and Kant were pretty much agreeing that Art was the process of producing a glimpse of nothingness and then making the observer of the Art contemplate it's meaning and through that educate him/herself (I don't know if educate is the precise word to use, but I believe it's adequate at least).
On the bottom line, Art pretty much boils down to some more or less abstract object that makes you think about stuff. By that definition (which I'm quite fond of) videogames certainly can be art. Not all games are, but heck... only a small percentage of movies, novels, songs, even paintings can be said to be art. The big difference is, that some media-objects are made to create social coherence, while others a made to make you contemplate life 'n stuff.
X-factor is a mass-media piece of junk, but it creates social coherence and allows two people with widely different backgrounds to talk about something, while standing over the water cooler. I.e. X-factor isn't Art.
Clockwork Orange (e.g.) on the other hand, doesn't really make a whole lot of sense when seen as just a movie, and needs to be interpreted for anyone to be able to make sense of it. Therefore Clockwork Orange can be seen as Art.
The same goes for videogames. If, while playing Braid, you're somehow forced to interpret what's happening in order to make sense of it, Braid could be deemed as Art. The same can't really be said about e.g. GTA, God of War or Unchartered.
On the bottom line, Art pretty much boils down to some more or less abstract object that makes you think about stuff. By that definition (which I'm quite fond of) videogames certainly can be art. Not all games are, but heck... only a small percentage of movies, novels, songs, even paintings can be said to be art. The big difference is, that some media-objects are made to create social coherence, while others a made to make you contemplate life 'n stuff.
X-factor is a mass-media piece of junk, but it creates social coherence and allows two people with widely different backgrounds to talk about something, while standing over the water cooler. I.e. X-factor isn't Art.
Clockwork Orange (e.g.) on the other hand, doesn't really make a whole lot of sense when seen as just a movie, and needs to be interpreted for anyone to be able to make sense of it. Therefore Clockwork Orange can be seen as Art.
The same goes for videogames. If, while playing Braid, you're somehow forced to interpret what's happening in order to make sense of it, Braid could be deemed as Art. The same can't really be said about e.g. GTA, God of War or Unchartered.
Nah, you and I both know it gets a bit deeper than that. Not mind-blowing, change your perspective on life deep, but they communicate more than a single sentence worth of info =)SimuLord said:
In any case, perhaps I should have worded it a bit differently. I don't think MGS or JRPGs are necessarily any more artistic than the aforementioned games. Take that as you will.
