Roger Ebert still maintains that video games can't be art.

[Stabby Joe]

I tend to not voice this view but here it goes:

For games to be widely accepted we need need to wait for older generation to die off with age, that's the blunt and sad truth.

Once people like Ebert are out of the debate, such vocal concerns are absent.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

Don't hate me, but I agree w/ Ebert.

I don't think games should be called art because art is non interactive in my opinion. Movies music and anything you can hang on a wall is art. Any artist who makes you work/play something is being lazy. Screen shots from games could be considered art, but it's only a game you are playing. Cut scenes from a game could be artful, but a game in it's entirety isn't art in my opinion. This is all just silly word play I'll admit, but that's just what I think.

Games are games, art is art.

Who says art has to be non-interactive (aside from you of course)? True entertainment art doesn't set out to be art it sets out to be entertaining. Plus when it comes to some games (especially horror) there are few better mediums for atmosphere in my opinion (with the exception of books) because of the interactivity.

You see, most of the time, when you're watching a film you're always thinking "Oh this horrific being is going to jump out at him at any moment". When you're playing a good horror game however you can find yourself so immersed that you feel like you're really there and you end up thinking "Oh some horrific being is going to jump out at ME at any moment". Immersion is something that a game can do better than any other form of medium and that's just one of the reasons I consider it to be art.

The big hitter, from my point of view would be the creativity and innovation you can find in the gaming world. There are plenty of examples of this such as the gravity gun, the portal gun, Eternal Darkness's sanity bar, a town (Silent Hill) in which the hero is haunted by horrors created from his own subconscious and the sight jacking feature from the Siren games. Creativity and innovation play a big role in art.

Next there's emotion. A good game can make you feel sad, happy, angry, all sorts of things and the same can be said for paintings, books and films.

You say that "it's lazy for the artist to make you work" and I say "what the hell are you talking about?" The people who make this games work their arses off to keep it from feeling like a chore. The fact that a game can actually make you WANT to do all this "work" is another thing that makes it art.

In this day and age we like to think that we've abandoned the idea of "high art" but we haven't have we? We've simply declared what was not considered art before to now be high art. I'm probably gonna get a mountain of hate from art snobs for saying this but paintings may well be one of the lower forms of art. I say that because they are essentially one of if no THE first things to be named as art and are essentially the basis for all the different kinds of art that followed. All other forms of art follow at least a few of one of arts basic concepts and principles but are also a form of art in their own way. Games are art. Period.

 

[Uszi]

It seems like it all hinges on your definition of what art is.
Is game cocnept art not art?
Is the 3D render of a piece of concept art not art?
Is the blood splatter effect that imitates life, as Ebert said, not art?

I mean, if I were to combine 2 parts art with 3 parts art, and add a sprinkling of art for final effect, how could I have anything but art?

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

Let's just lock him in a room with one of Tim Schafers games for a few minutes and see if he still says video games can't be art.

 

[Cody211282]

I would like to remind him that some games have better story's then 90% of movies, so maybe movies are not art anymore

Yep, possibly one or two games (most of which use movies to tell their storyline) may have storyline better than some movies - therefore movies are not art despite the fact the vast majority of films, even blockbusters tell a better story than most games...

Good point -_- [small]/sarcasm[/small]

Bioshock, Mass Effect 1 and 2, Fallout(all of them),KOTOR 1 and 2, Portal, Half Life(all of them, StarCraft, WarCraft 2 and 3, Dragon Age, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy (4,6, and 7 mostly), Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, Psychonauts, and these are only the ones off the top of my head. Maybe you should play games that have better stories?

 

[lukemdizzle]

Then I suggest Portal, a game where you can see the Antagonist's final intents as being either justified or not, depending on the interpretation you make of the hints laid on your path to said-antagonist

Ah, see you've taken my point completely out on context - we were discussing a game environment - not a game storyline. The games storyline in of itself is not art.

off topic but the game environment is often part of the story so they must be connected. imo good games have meaningful connections between the two.

 

[Bynine]

Well, it depends on what you define as art and what you define as a video game. It's all based on opinion.

 

[la-le-lu-li-lo]

:snip:

Thank you good sir for making a rational argument.

Ah, see you've taken my point completely out on context - we were discussing a game environment - not a game storyline. The games storyline in of itself is not art.

So why are books considered art then?

OT: And does Ebert think all movies, books, music, and paintings are art? That's, that's just ridiculous. So we're not trying to say that all games are art... No, just the few that meet the definition of what art's supposed to be.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

What do emotions have to do with it? If ones dog dies that can move you more profoundly than any art you have ever seen, that doesn't mean that Fidos Corpse will be sold at an auction any time soon.

The latter has always been the case in my experience. Making the game as a whole, art. Because without all of the elements of the game's design working together, it may very well have not given you the same heightened sense of meaning, or specific emotion at all.

That just means that the game is well made, that doesn't make it art. People get very emotional and attached to their team, particularly if the team play well, that doesn't make it art either.

You're ignoring the most important parts of what I said. That no part of a game, interactive or otherwise, disqualifies it from being considered art according to my definition or the dictionary's definition. Now, you may have a definition of art that is different from the dictionary's, but you certainly can't presume to call your definition of art better than the dictionary's, now can you? If you don't, then games can indeed be art. If you do, well...then you are just as arrogant and/or self-important as Ebert, and your opinion can't be taken very seriously. Either way, I believe our debate has reached an impasse.

No because the game isn't the soundtrack or the environments or the voice acting.

It is like me calling you an organ because you have a liver or a spleen.

Just because the game contains art as part of its make up and structure does not make the game itself art, any more than my house is art because I have a few pictures stuck up on the wall.

 

[otakucode]

Video games can't be art. At least not now, they can't. I believe that videogames contain the potential to be a powerful artform, but we have guaranteed that no art will come of them. The ESRB in the US, the BBFC in the UK, the OFLC in Australia, and all the other censorship organizations around the world took videogames in their youth, castrated and paralyzed them. They have absolutely guaranteed that videogames will remain simple, stupid childish playthings.

Consider this for a moment. Videogames do not feature people. They feature animated characters. If a film is made with animated characters instead of actors, they can get away with anything. They can have fully detailed sex scenes (see the puppet sex scene in Team America: World Police). They can have extensive, intense gore. They can have anything, and it'll manage an R rating and get into every theater. A videogame, however, can be rated M for a 2-second cinematic clip of a characters smoking a cigar. Gamers, for some unknown reason, simply assume that the ratings system for videogames and the one for films are equivalent. They're not. Any M-rated videogame could be produced as a PG-13 film. And any R-rated film would be rated AO if it were translated faithfully. In addition, an NC-17 rating in the film industry means little. The movie will still play on your DVD player. In the games industry, console manufacturers have banned AO OR Unrated games from ever booting on their console. The banning Unrated games part is important. Having a game rated by the ESRB is not free. It's not cheap, either. This produces what is legally known as a "chilling effect" on speech, and it is equivalent to censorship. Anyone producing a game, and paying the tens of thousands of dollars to have their game rated, not to mention the tens of thousands (if not more) of extra money you have to spend producing custom edited versions for different countries, necessarily has to take into consideration the audience dynamics. If they can produce a T-rated game instead of an M-rated game, their audience is automatically much larger. And gamers have proven, time and again, that not only are they willing to accept censorship of their entertainment, but they often praise it.

Now, the usual lame, un-thought-out response to the idea that the ESRB and other censorship organizations are doing tremendous harm to the videogame industry is "but the ESRB was created to prevent the government from passing laws censoring videogames." While that is certainly the line they sold to society, it most certainly was not the effect they had. Their presence has not stopped dozens of states from signing into law videogame censorship laws. On top of that, you have to consider that fear of government censorship of videogames in the US is complete nonsense. EVERY single videogame censorship law that was passed (despite the ESRB "protecting" us from exactly that, they claim) was struck down by the courts. You can't pass a law censoring videogames in the US. Period. Unless a videogame can actually rise to the level of being considered legally obscene, there is no chance in hell of the government stepping in and censoring games. So the primary reason behind the creation of the ESRB is a load of bullshit. Additionally, there is also the claim that videogames can cause harm to individuals and society and the ESRB protects us from that by enabling parents to better know what their children are playing. This, also, is a load of bullshit. Mountains of research has been done into potential negative effects caused by media. And not a single legitimate study has ever found the slightest bit of data supporting such a psychotically stupid idea. Now, just because the idea is widespread doesn't mean it makes any sense. If you step back and get some perspective on the issue and stop letting the blowhards and busybodies and censor-fetishists control the discussion, it's very obvious that anyone who actually believes such effects are possible should be diagnosed as clinically insane and locked in an institution to protect society from them.

So long as videogames remain the most heavily censored form of media, it will be essentially impossible for it to be used as a medium for art.

Imagine a future where anyone can walk into a store and buy a game without any rating attached, with it ever having been reviewed by government or private industry censors. And if you want to buy a game for your child, you do the same thing you do today when you walk into a bookstore, you go to the Children's department. You don't need ratings. You don't need any rules or laws preventing kids from buying more mature games. A 4 year old could walk into a bookstore anywhere and walk out with a copy of Naked Lunch or The Story of the Eye, and the world still turns. Gamers need to start standing up for their favorite media and start fighting for the destruction of these censorship organizations. I don't expect to see it any time soon though, gamers have established themselves, sadly, as the most spineless group of fans ever. They accept repeated abuses on every front, and keep asking for more.

 

[Grampy_bone]

This essay is just Ebert refuting that very ignorant presentation posted up on the 'tubes recently, with which I agree. He also makes a very good point when he says that games are usually heralded as "art" the less "game-like" they are.

e.g. Tetris? Not art. Heavy Rain? Art.

Personally I feel there's more art in a single game of Tetris than a million Heavy Rains.

 

[dorkette1990]

Okay, the point that video games aren't art because they're interactive....

Has anyone ever BEEN to a museum, with constructions that encourage interaction. What about the Vietnam War Memorial - it was designed to be interacted with, and is considered a very popular piece of art by the artist Maya Lin.
As an animator for games, maybe I'm a little biased, but games can compel you just as much as a movie or well-written story - what about in Fallout when you FEEL BAD about killing an NPC? Or Fable? And those are just the obvious examples. That emotional play defines art - the game doesn't exist for a reason besides "entertainment" - the goal of art.

 

[lukemdizzle]

What do emotions have to do with it? If ones dog dies that can move you more profoundly than any art you have ever seen, that doesn't mean that Fidos Corpse will be sold at an auction any time soon.

The latter has always been the case in my experience. Making the game as a whole, art. Because without all of the elements of the game's design working together, it may very well have not given you the same heightened sense of meaning, or specific emotion at all.

That just means that the game is well made, that doesn't make it art. People get very emotional and attached to their team, particularly if the team play well, that doesn't make it art either.

You're ignoring the most important parts of what I said. That no part of a game, interactive or otherwise, disqualifies it from being considered art according to my definition or the dictionary's definition. Now, you may have a definition of art that is different from the dictionary's, but you certainly can't presume to call your definition of art better than the dictionary's, now can you? If you don't, then games can indeed be art. If you do, well...then you are just as arrogant and/or self-important as Ebert, and your opinion can't be taken very seriously. Either way, I believe our debate has reached an impasse.

No because the game isn't the soundtrack or the environments or the voice acting.

It is like me calling you an organ because you have a liver or a spleen.

Just because the game contains art as part of its make up and structure does not make the game itself art, any more than my house is art because I have a few pictures stuck up on the wall.

Its how all the artistic components of artistic creation are fit together to form a single, story/world in a game is what makes it art similarly to how all the individual components of art that goes into making a movie fit together to make a single product. This is the last Ill say on the subject because I obviously won't change your opinion I just hope video games will eventually be more widely accepted as an art form.

 

[D_987]

Bioshock, Mass Effect 1 and 2, Fallout(all of them),KOTOR 1 and 2, Portal, Half Life(all of them, StarCraft, WarCraft 2 and 3, Dragon Age, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy (4,6, and 7 mostly), Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, Psychonauts, and these are only the ones off the top of my head. Maybe you should play games that have better stories?

Yeah, because the concept of a "good" storyline isn't completely subjective or anything...

Bioshock - Poor storyline overall - just a lot of fetch quests with some well written characters and a bullshit "reveal"/

Mass Effect 1 and 2 - varies entirely on your play style - I thought ME1 had a good storyline, but ME2 was abysmal

Fallout(all of them) - Fallout 3 had a good storyline?

KOTOR 1 and 2 - See Mass Effect

Portal - Had no true storyline and one decent character

Half Life(all of them) - I dislike the storyline for a number of reasons I ca't be bothered to explain at this time.

StarCraft, WarCraft 2 and 3 - I haven't played these.

Dragon Age - Great characters, cliche, typical Bioware storlyine...

Chrono Trigger - I agree, but it's nothing films haven't done a million times before

Final Fantasy (4,6, and 7 mostly) - See Chrono Trigger

Shadow of the Colossus, Ico - Two games based entirly on the atmosphere rather than the storyline of which there was little.

Psychonauts - I disagree.

So you're telling me that of these few games there's not a single movie with a better storyline than them...?

So why are books considered art then?

Because they create an experience without the need for pictures and are much more subjective than a game could ever be.

off topic but the game environment is often part of the story so they must be connected. imo good games have meaningful connections between the two.

Part of the story yes, and that's exactly why they aren't art as I explained earlier...

You have succeeded only in demonstrating that you only play games without good stories.

"Good" is subjective...

 

[Ericb]

They can only be art until society accepts it as art, until then it's

not.

I find very little confort in leaving definitions of anything in the hands of society in general.

Masses have a tendency to make very poor judgements.

I don't think games should be called art because art is non interactive

in my opinion

So you can probably throw any music concert of any genre and artistic interactive performance (like a LOT of modern

theater, from the 19th Century onwards) out the window, as far as art is concerned.

IMO videogames cannot be an art form until we get the graphics

bullshit out the way. By this I mean we have to get to a stage where the development of graphics is so lifelike that

we no longer quibble over their level of realism.

You had something going there, but then you mentioned that utopic stage of graphical realism.

This is besides the point, because there is a lot of good art that is very life-like without actually being

realistic.

IMO videogames cannot be an art form until we get the graphics

bullshit out the way. By this I mean we have to get to a stage where the development of graphics is so lifelike that

we no longer quibble over their level of realism.

You had something going there, but then you mentioned that utopic stage of graphical realism.

This is besides the point, because there is a lot of good art that is very life-like without actually being

realistic.

I don't consider a painting of a soup can art. I don't consider a bunch

of random splashes of paint art. I don't consider a piece of metal twisted into a pile of junk art. Am I wrong??

Nope because that is my opinion. You may think I am wrong but that is your opinion.

Adding subjecvity to protect your view from criticism is very convenient.

The other point I agree

with him on is: why are we so concerned with all this "games are art" stuff? I own Shadow of the Colossus, I love

the game, I don't feel the need to tell all my friends about how artistic it is. I own and love Silent Hill 2 and

feel that it tells it's (beautiful) story in a way that is far more visceral and impactful than just text or film

could ever be. However, I don't need to justify me playing it by calling it art.

I think it's because many of us don't like to think we're being looked down upon by self-proclaimed artistic

elitists. It feels condescending to me, anyway.

That's precisely why I feel the need to defend this, you know?

Because it is not a criticism of such and such creation, it is a jab at the essential validity of the entire medium,

spanning all decades that passed by and all that will come to pass.

And also because there are not that much people out there who would put upt a stand about this. Remembering the case

of the Fallujah game that never was, a lot of people, even inside the industry, turned tail and ran. And that

sounded like an amazing exploration of what war might actually be like. Not an power fantasy fulfillment, but

an horror in depeht exploration of each moment of the experience.

Or that's what they said anyway, we might never know. Because many people did not find it a worthy medium to express

this, even though most news outlets ignored the fact that the very soldiers who survived that battle asked for that

game.

He's just an attention whore and want to say things that alot of

people reacts to so that he can make more money and get more famous.

But maybe he is right. Would one call a board game art? No, because you are mean't to win the game not admire it,

you know what I'm sayin'? :]

And yet, there is Anti-Monopoly:

"In the original 1973 version the board is "monopolized" at the beginning of the game, and players compete to return

the state of the board to a free market system"

A direct answer to the philosophy behind the rules of Monopoly, and a socio-economical commentary all rolled up into

one.

I think there is something to admire in it all right.

The sport isn't. The game isn't.

The throwing of the ball to the team members is not art. The shooting of the corpser in GoW 2 is not art.

The stadium can be art. The music, the packaging, the cgi movies, can be art.

But the sport isn't, nor is the game.

Accidental Fallacy.

I think there is more than one fallacy in your argument right here, but this is the one that sticks out to me.

There is nothing beautiful or appealing to me about a blank

canvas. I'm sure the artist had a "vision", but since when did that become an excuse to turn whatever shit they

created into an art form? It is also, not "of more than ordinary significance." It's a blank fucking canvas.

I actually seen a black canvas with a green vertical stripe painted across it. Big difference, huh? =]

At a cost of 5000 bucks, I'd say you'd benefit from buygin the material and do the painting yourself.

In this day and age we like to think that we've abandoned the idea of "high art" but we haven't have we?

Ebert sure hasn't.

High or low, there's truth and honesty to be found if the author(s) placed them there in the first place.

 

[Anthony DeRose]

I really don't think video games are art at all. As they are nothing more than tools for publishers to make money. They don't express opinions, ideals, or plot (besides violence) Ultima 8 was the closest to art any video game has ever come. U8 was a true medival paradise a tale of sibling rivalry, a sadistic monarch, the succession of ruler shrouded in mystery, a plot to keep it a secret, all mixed in with magic, sorcery, necromancy and other magics. This game was art, it had monsters, mystery, and friends along the way. a true master piece. It's play style heralded in the world first successful MMORPG.

Games today however are just publishers cashing in on brand name familiarity. Just look at fallout 3. Fallout 1,2 could be labeled as art, expressing the way the authors felt the world would be after a nuclear world war. fallout 3 though just copied the idea to make money, not to express any kind of ideal or thought about anything. Fallout 1,2 showed how diviersity makes the world strong, with friendly and hostile mutants. Fallout 3 burned all that was fallout 1,2 to the ground. They made "collectors" editions with extra junk that the original fallout fans would love.

You would think that with all the technology and money available to make games today, that they would be really spectacular. I mean movie-esque, but they aren't. The God of War series would have made a great movie. Although I think that the script in the 3rd one could have been better written. Half ofthese games are just remakes of other games. Killing people gets old! Thats all games are today. PvP is a synonymn for players killing players. Player Versus Player was only true in Ultima Online before the patches that brought in "item insurance" and that prevented the free looting of corpses. PvP to me includes any game of skill or luck against another person, not just killing them over the internet. At one time in Ultima Online players could actually steal from eachother. I thought that was really fun. Much more fun than killing some one.

Video games today are nothing more than positive re-inforcement for killing people. Thats it.

 

[lukemdizzle]

Bioshock, Mass Effect 1 and 2, Fallout(all of them),KOTOR 1 and 2, Portal, Half Life(all of them, StarCraft, WarCraft 2 and 3, Dragon Age, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy (4,6, and 7 mostly), Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, Psychonauts, and these are only the ones off the top of my head. Maybe you should play games that have better stories?

Yeah, because the concept of a "good" storyline isn't completely subjective or anything...

Bioshock - Poor storyline overall - just a lot of fetch quests with some well written characters and a bullshit "reveal"/

Mass Effect 1 and 2 - varies entirely on your play style - I thought ME1 had a good storyline, but ME2 was abysmal

Fallout(all of them) - Fallout 3 had a good storyline?

KOTOR 1 and 2 - See Mass Effect

Portal - Had no true storyline and one decent character

Half Life(all of them) - I dislike the storyline for a number of reasons I ca't be bothered to explain at this time.

StarCraft, WarCraft 2 and 3 - I haven't played these.

Dragon Age - Great characters, cliche, typical Bioware storlyine...

Chrono Trigger - I agree, but it's nothing films haven't done a million times before

Final Fantasy (4,6, and 7 mostly) - See Chrono Trigger

Shadow of the Colossus, Ico - Two games based entirly on the atmosphere rather than the storyline of which there was little.

Psychonauts - I disagree.

So you're telling me that of these few games there's not a single movie with a better storyline than them...?

So why are books considered art then?

Because they create an experience without the need for pictures and are much more subjective than a game could ever be.

off topic but the game environment is often part of the story so they must be connected. imo good games have meaningful connections between the two.

Part of the story yes, and that's exactly why they aren't art as I explained earlier...

You have succeeded only in demonstrating that you only play games without good stories.

"Good" is subjective...

I just don't understand how being part of the story excludes it from being art, if anything that only adds more depth to the environments. but I guess we just see it differently, under a technical definition though video game environments are art.

 

[cobra_ky]

Roger Ebert has never understood games as medium, and I doubt he ever will. I don't know why people are so insistent on trying to change his mind.

There's some illustrative quotes here though. About Braid he says: "You can go back in time and correct your mistakes. In chess, this is known as taking back a move, and negates the whole discipline of the game." Apparently, Mr. Ebert is incapable of recontextualizing this mechanic outside of chess. It's a ridiculous statement, along the lines of saying something like "In basketball, you can hold the ball in your hands. In soccer this is known as a handball, and negates the whole discipline of the game." Is that any reason to dismiss basketball as a sport? of course not.