Video Games inherently inferior to Film and Literature: Roger Ebert

[scooby_dooby]

My question is, do video games really have to be a 'game'? Or can they evolve beyond that, to be an interactive medium that is not necessarily focused on the traditional gameplay, but instead uses the power of user interaction to craft a compellign work of art.

Would that still be considered a 'video game'?

Maybe it's Ebert's definition of a video game that is too narrow...

 

[Confidence-Man]

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

Because the wiggling of the stick is what makes it a game and not a movie.

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.

The content is art, the game is not content, however. It is the interface for that content.

 

[scooby_dooby]

The content is art, the game is not content, however. It is the interface for that content.

If the content is art, and is contained within the game, than the game itself is a work of art.

"Because the wiggling of the stick is what makes it a game and not a movie. "

The ability for the user to interact with the content is what makes it a video game. The ability for an artist to have their audience interact with a piece of their work SURELY allows them to accomplish things they couldn't otherwise (in a movie) what those things may be...I couldn't tell you.

 

[mckmas8808]

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?

Well because it is being made by EA. If the Godfather game were to be one of the best game ever made(think GTAIII or Half-Life 2) with a heavy story that shows a different side to the already known story then it can be considered a masterpiece like the movie and book.

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

Games are close to that now. Give videogames another 10 to 15 years and they will probably be be able to do it better than some movies to due it's interactivity. Look at the Alfed M. (Doc Ock from Spiderman2) PS3 demo. Notice when they put in the music and speech that it was very movie like and could do everything that you listed above.

As a matter of fact just go to ---->http://media.ps3.ign.com/articles/615/615000/vids_1.html and click on this "Watch This" for the Doc Oc face Tech Demo.

 

[wco81]

The Godfather game will probably emphasize actions, like hits, beating up guys, extorting shopkeepers, etc.

The movie was way more than just the action sequences.

BTW, the book is considered a schlocky pulp read, not literature. Coppola was hired to do the movie which was planned to be a very commercial movie. He only did it because it would help finance his own movies that he had bigger artistic ambitions for. It was either "Apocalyse Now" or "One From the Heart."

He obviously did more with the Godfather script and films than with his own films.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Well because it is being made by EA. If the Godfather game were to be one of the best game ever made(think GTAIII or Half-Life 2) with a heavy story that shows a different side to the already known story then it can be considered a masterpiece like the movie and book.

No way. The best Video Games now are comparable to Hollywood B Movie trash. There's no way you can make an argument that video games as they exist today, are even close to works of art.

Right now they are simply trying to emulate the cinematic experience. One could argue though, that they actually contain MORE potential to invoke strong emotiong within people than movies do, and that someday they will not be trying to emulate movies, but actually be superior.

And by one day I mean like....oh..say...2100?

 

[Sis]

Well because it is being made by EA. If the Godfather game were to be one of the best game ever made(think GTAIII or Half-Life 2) with a heavy story that shows a different side to the already known story then it can be considered a masterpiece like the movie and book.

Games are close to that now. Give videogames another 10 to 15 years and they will probably be be able to do it better than some movies to due it's interactivity. Look at the Alfed M. (Doc Ock from Spiderman2) PS3 demo. Notice when they put in the music and speech that it was very movie like and could do everything that you listed above.

As a matter of fact just go to ---->http://media.ps3.ign.com/articles/615/615000/vids_1.html and click on this "Watch This" for the Doc Oc face Tech Demo.

It's a lazy argument to suggest that "It's EA", so I don't have a response to that.

But as to your Doc Oc reference: books can only display 0 polygons per second and have a terrrible FLOP rating. How is it possible--given that they can't compete with the Doc Oc demo--that they are still capable of delivering narratives worthy of indepth analysis and study?

And more to the point, why can't games? Is it because there's a technical limitation yet to be overcome? Or an immaturity in the industry?

.Sis

 

[Bobbler]

I only read books that are capable of 100gflops or more. If I pay 10 dollars for a book, I expect it to be powerful.

 

[scooby_dooby]

you made a funny

 

[mckmas8808]

No way. The best Video Games now are comparable to Hollywood B Movie trash. There's no way you can make an argument that video games as they exist today, are even close to works of art.

Right now they are simply trying to emulate the cinematic experience. One could argue though, that they actually contain MORE potential to invoke strong emotiong within people than movies do, and that someday they will not be trying to emulate movies, but actually be superior.

And by one day I mean like....oh..say...2100?

Scooby I said if the Godfather game was one of the best games in history it could be considered a masterpiece as the movie is. I never said it would be better than the movie. And 2100? Please that's extremely to far from now. Explain what's holding videogames back from being seen as artful as movies.

But as to your Doc Oc reference: books can only display 0 polygons per second and have a terrrible FLOP rating. How is it possible--given that they can't compete with the Doc Oc demo--that they are still capable of delivering narratives worthy of indepth analysis and study?

And more to the point, why can't games? Is it because there's a technical limitation yet to be overcome? Or an immaturity in the industry?

Your book to videogames comparision is horrible. I can tell you a story face-to-face and my delivery can be as great as a book. Does that make my story artistic?

And I think it's the industy's immaturity that is holding videogames back from doing what movies and books do for us everyday. As soon as the technology catches up the developers will want to tell stories more and more and they will begin to be deeper than they currently are.

Think about it fellas. Like him or not Steven Speilberg is even getting into the videogame business. Do you think his doing it to make games like Tetris? No, he's doing it to convey a story that he's always wanted to tell yet giving his audience some interactivity to change the story to their liking or view the story personally through the main character. Scooby I can promise by PS4 (next-next-gen) some videogames may cost over $100 million to make just like some big blockbuster movies cost today.

 

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

If the game industry is inerior then why over the last few years has the game industry become bigger than the movie industry?? In fact its got so big and grew so fast that EVERY major film company wants a slice of the pie... hence all the movie/game conversions.

 

[<nu>faust]

who cares about what an old film crtitc thinks?? who can truly define what is art? who really knows how far videogame medium will goin terms of artistic expression? I say ico was art,sotc was art,rez was art, panzer dragoon saga was art .i do truly respect gamers who'd disagree with me on this the issue and of but honestly i really don't care what 65 year old film critic (who most probably never played a game more than an couple of hours )thinks about videogames.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

You just have to look at the market. What is selling these games? Because if you want to look at the blockbusters on the games market, I'd doubt that a deep storyline and characters with whom you can sympathize make up a large chunk of it. I can conversely look at a movie like either of the Transporter films, and say -- well, it was certainly cool... but would you call it fine cinema? And that's sort of how you can look at a lot of the games out there that do well.

You can't just make the direct comparison because people aren't going to be looking a few facets of the title with games any less than they would with movies. You can make a game with a storyline and a cinematic experience to turn Spielberg green with envy... but what happens if it's not enjoyable as a game? I mean, we can apparently take Godfather and turn it into a game, and I have no clue how that will turn out... but can you do the same with a Gone With the Wind or Citizen Kane? How?

Now sure, there are all those people who get into big traditional style RPGs with massive stories and so on, but the success of those types of titles will always be overshadowed by the buyers of Halos and Gears of War and for that matter, Pokemon, and everything else will just disappear. Not that there's anything completely wrong with buying games like that. I mean, I love Soul Calibur or DOA as much as the next guy, but when games like those are your benchmark, of course the games industry is going to look shallow. If Robocop was my measure for film, I don't think I'd look highly on the movie industry either.

 

[mckmas8808]

great post shootmymonkey, but shouldn't smart minded people be able to tell the difference being a game with a heavy story line and one that doesn't?

 

[Jov]

Can you back up your assertian with some exemplars from the gaming industry that have the same type of importance as some of the classic movies and books?

It’s all about accessibility.

Is a good game/book/movie one that moves the viewer/player/reader? I mean there are games that would make some want to cry or any other emotions as the player traverse thru the story.

There are games, books, or movie which inspires you to research more on the subject or history.

I remember there were games which I've learnt phrases from as they were used to solve puzzles for example, but if stated in a book, I'd have forgotten it.

The issue gaming medium is that is not as accessible compared to the others. One can pick up a book and read it on the train. Take 2 hrs out in a week to watch a move. For games, it’s a lot longer and less convenient than that. Can you use this as an argument against the medium? Sure, to some degree, but not for the points covered in the link.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

Art is only art because it conveys something to the subject beyond the simple information that it holds. For this reason, Art inherently requires interaction on the subject's part. When you look at a painting you think of a story that it tells. When you read a book, you imagine the characters and the interactions that take place. Movies and plays probably require the least amount of interaction by the subject, yet the audience still needs to think about the movie and engross themselves in it for it to be effectively art.

Ultimately, art *is* the interaction of a person's thoughts and experiences with the information presented by the artist. Games for this reason have an incredible amount of potential as art.

Nite_Hawk

 

[scificube]

It’s all about accessibility.

Is a good game/book/movie one that moves the viewer/player/reader? I mean there are games that would make some want to cry or any other emotions as the player traverse thru the story.

There are games, books, or movie which inspires you to research more on the subject or history.

I remember there were games which I've learnt phrases from as they were used to solve puzzles for example, but if stated in a book, I'd have forgotten it.

The issue gaming medium is that is not as accessible compared to the others. One can pick up a book and read it on the train. Take 2 hrs out in a week to watch a move. For games, it’s a lot longer and less convenient than that. Can you use this as an argument against the medium? Sure, to some degree, but not for the points covered in the link.
__________________
Jov

Accessibility is irrelevant to something being art and no form or art is inferior to another. It is insulting to artists who create "whatever" if nothing else that their works are considered inherently inferior to something else, but the truth is IMO the value of art is always in the minds or those that interpret it and hearts of those who feel it.

The Sistine chapel isn't accessible from where I am right now but Michaelangelo's paintings, be they far away, are still art and by many accounts are considered to be masterpieces. Another example is a sculpture...I'm not to keen to carry many around with me but I am remiss to consider sculpture inferior to painting or authoring books because of just this. Being able to carry around a piece of art has nothing to do with the meaning of most art...and I only use most because I'm unaware of any art form or work of art where being able to carry it around with you was significant to what is meant to be conveyed or it's affect on people. Another example of how access is irrelevant is Opera or Plays...cause it costs to much for me to have access to these things but they're still art....fine art to some.

On this masterpiece issue. It seems an argument of critical success vs. the purer essence of the word. A masterpiece for one can be anything that moves one profoundly and thus any form of art can yield masterpieces as any one piece of art is capable of doing this for any one individual. However, if it's a matter of critical acclaim then the affect must be common to many people or at least tickle the fancy of the critically elite before something is considered a masterpiece.

In any case, the absence of masterpieces in a particular art form is no indication that the art form is inherently flawed nor is the materialization of masterpieces evidence of the innate superiority of one art form over another. Shall we count all the accepted masterpieces of the world and declare the art form with the most the superior then? Or should we then leave this to the whims of public/critical perception of which defines the current 'greatest masterpiece" who's residence will be the superior art form for us all? Seems utter folly to me....nonsensical even. For that matter, one could argue that some game had such a profound affect on them that games should therefore be declared the ultimate art form...of course such a proclamation would be enough to insight the masses to violence.

Games are art. All forms or art are good. IMO at least they're purpose and affects are good things.

 

[g35er]

Games range from being vastly different from movies (sports, racing, etc) to essentially being movies with interactive interludes (linear RPG's, MGS series, adventure games, etc.). For the later, user "control" is just an illusion, because everyone has the same experience in linear games.

Think about this. If you take what you consider to be the greatest movie ever made, keep every frame of content in tact and splice interactive elements between some of the scenes, you have a game. Yes, this changes the pacing and breaks the narrative of the pure movie version, but you essentially have the same movie in a game form.

It seems that what Ebert is saying is that adding user interaction into stories makes the experience inferior as an artform. Does he understand that the difference between games and movies can amount to as little as pushing a buttton between scenes?

 

[mckmas8808]

It seems that what Ebert is saying is that adding user interaction into stories makes the experience inferior as an artform. Does he understand that the difference between games and movies can amount to as little as pushing a buttton between scenes?

I also don't think he understands that just because you push a button that doesn't make it automatically non-art.

 

[Jov]

Accessibility is irrelevant to something being art and no form or art is inferior to another. It is insulting to artists who create "whatever" if nothing else that their works are considered inherently inferior to something else, but the truth is IMO the value of art is always in the minds or those that interpret it and hearts of those who feel it.

I stated accessibility as I believe its one of the factor led to Ebert's reasoning that the gaming medium is inferior to the other medium considered as art. I am only focusing on books and movies as the mediums mentioned.

Part of Ebert's reply..

Yours is the most civil of countless messages I have received after writing that I did indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature.

Your examples are irrelevant and far fetch from my view (C' on a statue in your pocket as a counter point, or Michael Angelo's paintings. You might not have been there view them, but you can still see replicates/images from books or the net - thus they are accessible).

How I interpreted Ebert's point a form of medium as art and not a waste of time, is something which will influence the viewer/reader to be more cultured, civilized and empathetic. In other words, influence in a positive way.

Part of Ebert's reply..

But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.

Thus, we can consider violence in video games is not one of the leading contenders to achieve the above.

My initial point of accessibility is that only a small fraction of the world's population are gamers or a accessible to playing games, in comparison to the wider demographic of filmgoers and readers. Video games are not as diverse or accessible as the other two medium, but then again it only been around a small fraction of time compared to the others.

With the limited demographic and diversity it is hard to see the gaming medium be more than simply entertainment, as something influential to a wider audience.

Part of Ebert's reply..

To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept.

Now what makes things great? Its _usually_ when the majority of the audience believe they were affected positively.