Video Games inherently inferior to Film and Literature: Roger Ebert

[wco81]

I have a ton of respect for the people doing ICO and SotC (which I haven't played yet), but I would argue that ICO is probably the best the video game has to offer in this regards, and yet it still pales in comparison to other mediums.

Video games are probably similar to the silent films in terms of maturity. One or two more things have to happen before we see full blown artistic growth.

.Sis

Yeah I agree. The ending of ICO was poignant and so was Flashback when the hero seemed fated to sleep away into oblivion after saving the world.

But I've been far more moved by books, films, music and painting than any game I've ever played.

Forget about artistic merit or authorial control vs. interactive branching which changes the plot or the outcome. Has there been any game which has left your head buzzing afterwards or which has moved you as profoundly as any other work of art?

But unlike Ebert, I don't think games are inherently unable to create those kinds of experiences and reactions. Just that it doesn't seem to have happened yet.

Games have delighted and intellectually stimulated people as much as other works of art. But when it comes to plotting and character development, or revealing truths about our lives (i.e. human nature), it just hasn't happened.

Part of it is that game scripts are derivative of films and other media. Doesn't mean they have to come up with completely original stories in order to attain artistic heights. After all Shakespeare took other people's stories and then made great masterpieces out of them. So execution is a big part of it.

Perhaps if there is an obstacle, it's that games are a collaborative medium, maybe even more so than professional movie production these days, as much as they're scrutinized by studio execs. and test marketed before they do the final edit.

How much singular authorial control does Miyamoto or the MGS guy exert over their games these days? Have games production become so big that it's impossible for any individual vision to survive the development process?

 

[wco81]

I think as a storytelling medium, games are kind of dead-end as far as comparing them to movies or literature. The more time you spend getting the story, the less time you spend playing the game. The more time you spend moving a targeting reticle over baddie noggins or selecting spells from a list, the less time you spend in the story.

I think they can be artistic, but they've got to push it in a different direction. The thing about art is that the medium defines to great extent what the art can be. Poetry, theater/film, and books have different capabilities in terms of artistic expression. Books flat-out are the king of storytelling, with theater a distant second. If you want your game to be "art," you've got to make the gameplay itself be the medium of expression, not just the cutscenes. Storytelling and gameplay have to weave together to be something unique instead of trying to straight-out replace/replicate the experience you get from film or literature. SotC does this very well. I think it's not too hard to think of a number of games that give an indication of what this can be like. Ocarina of Time, Deus Ex, Sands of Time, Max Payne (the first one; I feel the second one failed), and Beyond Good and Evil spring immediately to mind as movements in the right direction.

To be more specific, games try for a similar aesthetic as action movies. Let's be honest, nobody is going to put up Lethal Weapon against Citizen Kane as a work of art. It's harder to do character development through the kind of stunt movie action that video games depict. Games can try to depict the kind of balletic action of John Woo movies, and they have, but then it's just imitative, not coming up with original expression.

BTW, there are interactive works of art installed at a lot of modern and contemporary art museums. But they haven't won wide recognition as works of art yet.

I can see a video game becoming an exhibit at MoMA. Maybe those batarang PS3 controllers. Or they could have a TV screen playing a Zelda game in attract mode.

 

[scooby_dooby]

As a sculpture it would still be what it is without needing to be interactive, so it could still be appreciated as art (i.e. it doesn't cease to be a sculpture if you remove the interactive element).

Whether or not it's "interactivity" was art is another matter, and I'd be inclined to say it isn't.

I don't agree, you can't put such limits on things. The entire sculpture would be art, even if it requires you to interact before seeing the full sculpture, it's still art.

Personally I don't really think of Movies as true art, but if we are going to accept them as such, than video games are equally qualified to be called art as well.

Look at a game like Fahreinheit(indigo prophecy), it's basically an interactive movie, the character can not alter the overall storyline, they can not change any of the basic fundamentals, all the story elements that the developer put into the game will be viewed, what's the difference really between this and a movie?

 

[mckmas8808]

Personally I don't really think of Movies as true art, but if we are going to accept them as such, than video games are equally qualified to be called art as well.

Look at a game like Fahreinheit(indigo prophecy), it's basically an interactive movie, the character can not alter the overall storyline, they can not change any of the basic fundamentals, all the story elements that the developer put into the game will be viewed, what's the difference really between this and a movie?

Scooby you are on fire man. This is exactly how I feel. Can somebody on the other side explain this.

 

[Confidence-Man]

I don't agree, you can't put such limits on things. The entire sculpture would be art, even if it requires you to interact before seeing the full sculpture, it's still art.

Explain to me what exactly you have in mind here, because I can't picture what you're talking about.

Personally I don't really think of Movies as true art, but if we are going to accept them as such, than video games are equally qualified to be called art as well.

Look at a game like Fahreinheit(indigo prophecy), it's basically an interactive movie, the character can not alter the overall storyline, they can not change any of the basic fundamentals, all the story elements that the developer put into the game will be viewed, what's the difference really between this and a movie?

Movies aren't art because of their stories, and neither are games. The difference is that a movie is, in essence, an expressive medium. Take story out of a movie, dialogue, actors, music, etc... and you're left with something that is still expressive in itself - the moving picture. Take these things out of games (including movies) and you're left with something that isn't.

 

[Sis]

Has there been any game which has left your head buzzing afterwards or which has moved you as profoundly as any other work of art?

Thanks--this summarizes what I've been thinking. I remember the plot twist in KOTOR actually making me feel this way momentarily, but we're talking a handful of minutes of emotional engagement over a 40+ hour investment...

But unlike Ebert, I don't think games are inherently unable to create those kinds of experiences and reactions. Just that it doesn't seem to have happened yet.

Agreed, it's unfortunate that he makes such a polarizing statement that completely diminishes a much more important point about the quality and maturity of the video game narrative.

I would also commend you for your "action movie" analogy, as it seems very accurate. We love action movies, and there will always be room for them. But you also need your Citizen Kane and your works of Shakespeare.

.Sis

 

[Nite_Hawk]

When describing Video Games as art, I think there are several factors one must consider. The first is the story that the game is trying to tell. Does it captivate the audience? Does it encourage an individual to feel the story rather than just know the story? The other, is the appeal to the senses, ie sight, and sound (as currently touch, smell, and taste are not implemented well enough to count imho). Does the game, taken as a whole, convey a mood or feeling to the player?

Having said this, there are a couple of games that I would like to mention.

1) Betrayal At Krondor

This game is set in the same world as the Raymond E. Fiest Riftware saga, and was co-authored by him. The story provided by the game is imho, nearly on par with the quality of his literary works (perhaps not as good as the first two books in the series describing Pug's life). Though not a masterpiece, it seems ill-conceived to call hit literature art, but not award the game the same recognition.

2) The Wing Commander series

The Wing Commander Series, especially Wing Commander II, told a provocative story at least on par with that of most modern movies of the same genre. In fact, the movie based on this series is quite inferior to the games in many respects. How can the movie be considered art where the game it is based off of would not be?

3) Planescape Torment

This game is a masterpeice. There are few literary works and movies that I feel surpass the story it tells. Certainly the majority of trash that is produced by hollywood is far inferior, and many literary works are as well.

Ultimately, it seems that Mr. Ebert dislikes videogames because they can lack flow when requiring user input. This is misplaced though. Art does not require flow, it is just one means toward drawing the user into the experience. Video games have other mechanisms to accomplish this end.

Nite_Hawk

 

[scooby_dooby]

Explain to me what exactly you have in mind here, because I can't picture what you're talking about.

Well I'm all math & logic in this brain, no artsy farsty stuff here, but I'll give it a shot.

There's a cube, that when touched in certain areas opens up, to display something, perhaps each part of the cube is labelled with a different emotion or idea, once touched the cube opens up and reveals an inner sculpture/object/whatever...

This is interactive, responds to the users commands, is not directly controlled by the artis, but is still by any definition a work of art.

Video games are just as much an expressive medium as motion pictures, if they wanted to they could portray the same moving images but with an added layer of interaction.

I guess what I'm getting at is, I don't see how a video game is (in theory) anything more than an interactive motion picture. And if motion pictures are art, then VG's are art as well, because I don't buy the argument that interactivity alone disqualifies something from being considered art.

Oh, and for the record - I don't consider either of these mediums to be true art forms, but it's not a subject I've given an hard look at, and I know I'm in no position to judge on what is or isn't art, so maybe someone could change my mind.

 

[Sis]

Personally I don't really think of Movies as true art, but if we are going to accept them as such, than video games are equally qualified to be called art as well.

I would suggest that your definition of art is a bit narrow. In fact, it's really not debatable whether movies are art, artistic, or capable of being masterpieces. All of these are true. Video games have only shown that they can be artistic.

The debate is about whether video games will ever achieve the level of masterpieces that other mediums, such as film and literature, have achieved. Suggesting Ico is at the same level as Citizen Kane, the Godfather, or Schindlers List, is woefully optimistic.

Suggesting that MGS2 is an example of a masterpiece worthy of comparison with the works of Shakespear or Kubrick is delusional.

.Sis

 

[scooby_dooby]

And 'Maid in Manhatten' would be what?

I'm only arguing the theory here, in THEORY they are equivalent. In reality, video games don't come anywhere close, but the potential is there, that's all I'm saying.

Maybe my definition is narrow I just don't personally see Movies on the same level as paintings, sculptures, or music, I see those as more 'true' artforms.

 

[Sis]

And 'Maid in Manhatten' would be what?

Just a movie. 'Maid in Manhatten' is basically all we get in video games today. I believe the video game medium is capable of producing better, the reality is that we are not seeing better.

.Sis

 

[scooby_dooby]

Just a movie. 'Maid in Manhatten' is basically all we get in video games today. I believe the video game medium is capable of producing better, the reality is that we are not seeing better.

.Sis

Exactly. It's extremely immature. Look forward another 50 years and this will probably look like the stone-age of video games.

 

[mckmas8808]

Suggesting that MGS2 is an example of a masterpiece worthy of comparison with the works of Shakespear or Kubrick is delusional.

.Sis

But Sis why do you have to compare MGS2 to one of the best writer that the world has EVER seen? This is just not fair. I think MGS games tell just as good of a story that a normal every day movie like FlightPlan can do.

Again explain to me why Halo the Movie can be considered art, while the game that might be based on the movie can't (not saying that you totally believe this, but this seems to be Ebert's stance).

And I have been emotionally attached to certain videogames. Have you ever played FF VII? Many grown men and teenage boys shed a tear when Aeris died.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Ebert's just biased it's as simple as that, his entire life has revolved around viewing and reviewing movies, of course his point of view is going to be skewed.

Just like novelists in the 50's probably stuck up their noses at films.

 

[mckmas8808]

Ebert's just biased it's as simple as that, his entire life has revolved around viewing and reviewing movies, of course his point of view is going to be skewed.

Just like novelists in the 50's probably stuck up their noses at films.

Thoughtful. And this is more than likely what's really going on here. Because the way Vice City played out, I would easily put it over plenty of movie that I've seen that were similar.

Just because something is a movie makes it more (I can't think of the word) than videogames.

 

[drpepper]

Silent Hill 2 was more of a masterpiece than MGS2. Just thought I'd throw that out.

 

[Confidence-Man]

Well I'm all math & logic in this brain, no artsy farsty stuff here, but I'll give it a shot.

There's a cube, that when touched in certain areas opens up, to display something, perhaps each part of the cube is labelled with a different emotion or idea, once touched the cube opens up and reveals an inner sculpture/object/whatever...

This is interactive, responds to the users commands, is not directly controlled by the artis, but is still by any definition a work of art.

Video games are just as much an expressive medium as motion pictures, if they wanted to they could portray the same moving images but with an added layer of interaction.

I guess what I'm getting at is, I don't see how a video game is (in theory) anything more than an interactive motion picture. And if motion pictures are art, then VG's are art as well, because I don't buy the argument that interactivity alone disqualifies something from being considered art.

But why don't you buy it? Can you tell me, how is bare electronic interactivity capable of being an expressive medium?

Setting aside things like story, cinematography, and whatever else, is, for example, the activity of pushing a button or wiggling a stick and watching the response on a screen in itself something that an author can use to convey emotion, ideas, or what have you? If you can argue that this is the case, then you would have a good argument for games as art.

I have yet to hear a good argument in support of that, nor have I ever experienced such from a game. Games have art in them, certainly, but I don't think that makes games themselves art anymore than the score or storyline of a film makes that art. One has to at least be able to argue that the interaction of giving commands with a controller and watching responses on a screen has the capacity for expressiveness, otherwise games are just interface rather than art.

 

[mckmas8808]

Silent Hill 2 was more of a masterpiece than MGS2. Just thought I'd throw that out.

I will agree with that. I wish I could convince Confidence-Man though. I just don't know how to explain it.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Why does the wiggling of the stick 'in itself' have to be art?

If we say that "moving pictures" is essentially an expressive medium, therefore it can in some instances be considered 'art', then the logical extension is that video games which can also display "moving pictures" should also be considered art (in some cases, where the content warrants it).

For example, convievably you could have a video game that is nothing more than a series of 'scenes', by wiggling the joystick, or entering some sort of button press they could move from one scene to another. We've already established that these scenes in themselves can be art(they are displayed on an expressive medium, therefore have the potential to display/create art), so how does adding a level of interaction take that potential away?

In other words, just because you can interact with content, doesn't mean that content can not be considered art. That content(a truly artistic game in whatever form) does not currently exist today, but that doesn't mean that it won't in the future.

 

[Sis]

But Sis why do you have to compare MGS2 to one of the best writer that the world has EVER seen? This is just not fair.

Because that's the point

Again explain to me why Halo the Movie can be considered art, while the game that might be based on the movie can't (not saying that you totally believe this, but this seems to be Ebert's stance).

Take the video game "the Godfather" as a better example, since I doubt anyone will actually think Halo the movie will be a masterpiece--but most probably hope it'll be a "rollercoaster thrill ride of the summer!"

The Godfather the movie is a masterpiece. The book it's based on may be considered a masterpiece. The video game will not be remotely close--not even in the same league. Why is that?

And I have been emotionally attached to certain videogames. Have you ever played FF VII? Many grown men and teenage boys shed a tear when Aeris died.

Ugh. Seriously, this is just another hamhanded, cliched attempt at forcing emotional engagement. However, it worked! And they will soon actually get good at it, so the next time you shed a tear, it won't be because some main character dies.

But making people cry is easy--as your example noted. Making them think? Making them question their life's actions in comparison to what they just witnessed? Fill them with with joy that they are alive? Or making them question the evilness of humanity, the strength of human character?

.Sis