Video Games inherently inferior to Film and Literature: Roger Ebert

[g35er]

The problem with Ebert's statement is that he is not differentiating what exists and what potentially can exist. If we define video games as a virtual interaction, then games such as the Sims, or potentially its more sophisticated descendent such as a Star Trek holodeck can open up story telling in a way movies and books would never dream of doing.

Some games are not mean as storytelling devices so comparisions between those and movies shouldn't even be made. Of the ones that are story telling devices, RPG's and adventures, most developers unfortunately cannout break out in the fantasy, science fiction, or supernatural setting, but even then games such as The Longest Journey have a great story.

 

[dantruon]

Someone gives him MGS2 and FFVII, thos two games contained the best arts style that any film could dream off , oh and did i mention the latter game is 60 Hour long compared to a 2 hour movie.

 

[Sis]

Someone gives him MGS2 and FFVII, thos two games contained the best arts style that any film could dream off , oh and did i mention the latter game is 60 Hour long compared to a 2 hour movie.

Those are both decent games and do indeed tell a story. But MGS2 is the perfect counter-example: it really has an immature, cliched story, with superficial characters and silly dialog.

Someone said it best earlier: Uwe Boll can make a movie but that doesn't make it art. And designers can toss in cinematics and lots of dialog and "plot twists" but that doesn't make them inherently good or worthwhile. It may, however, make the game more fun and enjoyable, which was probably the goal.

.Sis

 

[3dilettante]

I'm not ruling out the possibility that a game can become something that a sizeable group of people could call art.

I'm wracking my brain to figure out how to do it without involving mimes or elephant dung.

Ebert's belief in authorial control might conflict with certain kinds of conceptual art, though few enough people consider concept art to be art either.

In his defense, I've never found an artistic game over screen. Even if it were, I doubt seeing it 50 times in a row after a particularly cheap jumping puzzle or mid-boss will maintain player immersion or impart a feeling of profoundity.

It's hard to lose at a painting or a movie, and both allow a user go come back to any particular part and savor the nuances.

If there's a good part of a game, you better hope you quicksaved (if that's allowed). Respawning or restarting totally kill any form of timing or buildup, which is often a strong suite of what people consider artistic.

Unless you can't lose at a game, or it is one long FMV (not a game then is it?), this drawback may be unavoidable. A game has an additional purpose and constraint beyond just being art, and that purpose may be an insurmountable barrrier in most cases.

 

[g35er]

3dilettante, you make good points about the difference between games and movies/books. But the thing that's missing is the difference between what is and what can and will be. Ebert may be correct to say that current games do not compare artistically to movies, but when he says "nature of the medium...", that's a big claim.

Again, looking at the future of interactive entertainment, I can see that a Star Trek holodeck type device has the potential to bring story telling beyond what can be done with movies and books, which by defentition are linear or fixed.

I'm not a Star Trek fan so I don't know all the details of how the holodeck works, but you can imagine a system that creates a story based on what you do. So if you die in the first five minutes of your virutal adventure, your adventure ends. If you replay the adventure differently, you'll get an entire different experience based on the choices you made. Yes, it requires a lot of good AI and processing power to have the "game world" actually react to your actions, but with technology moving forward, that's certainly a possiblity.

edit:typo

 

[Confidence-Man]

Ultimately, it's just one person's opinion. Given time, I think it's possible for video games to equal (possibly eclipse) literature and movies because games are interactive. This opens up a whole other plane of experience that neither literature nor movies have.

This is the very reason he says games can't be art. Games require the user's input and the user's decisions to experience, this is the interactive nature of games and the inherent problem, as it makes games into creative tools for the user where the result (i.e. the "art") is dependent on those decisions. I liken it to comparing a painting (art) to a paint-by-numbers set (games).

Games can have art in them; stories, music, visual art, cinematography, etc... but in order to say games themselves are art one would have to show that interactivity in itself, that thing which makes a game a game, can be an expressive medium (which I would say it is not, as above).

 

[NRP]

This is the very reason he says games can't be art. Games require the user's input and the user's decisions to experience, this is the interactive nature of games and the inherent problem, as it makes games into creative tools for the user where the result (i.e. the "art") is dependent on those decisions. I liken it to comparing a painting (art) to a paint-by-numbers set (games).

Games can have art in them; stories, music, visual art, cinematography, etc... but in order to say games themselves are art one would have to show that interactivity in itself, that thing which makes a game a game, can be an expressive medium (which I would say it is not, as above).

That's fine. However, I think it's both unnecessary and unwise to artificially constrain "art" by defining it as any type of medium so long as it isn't interactive. Why must an interactive canvas be a less capable expressive medium than a non-interactive one?

I guess, ultimately, the criterion for what makes great art, literature, movies, etc is what kind of emotional response each generates in the beholder. As you said, games have the same tools as other mediums (stories, music, visual art, cinematography, etc...), but I feel interactivity can also be very useful in generating an emotional response.

I just feel it's premature (not to mention short sighted) to label video games as "not art". It's still a young craft. Give it some time.

 

[fearsomepirate]

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.

 

[mckmas8808]

Great story telling game that can easily be movies tomorrow are

A. Max Payne

B. God of War

C. FFVII (Oh sorry it actually is a movie now)

D. GTA: Vice City and San Anderas

E. Metal Gear Solid 3

F. Silent Hill 3 (I think they are making a movie about this too)

G. Ico

H. Resident Evil 4 (Which already have 2 movies)

What more do I have to say?

 

[dubyateeeff]

Definition of art?

The closest thing to a definition of art in his statement is:

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

Which is important to understand what he is saying. Unless it is about authority vs interacitivty in which case I believe he will find North Korea to be art and Sweden to be more like video games. I think we can check both cultured, civilized and empathetic.

No, lets look up art on google (In Google We Trust (tm)) (I cut a few, edited etc):

Art, in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity or imagination, or both.

Check!

a form of human activity created primarily as an aesthetic expression, especially, but not limited to drawing, painting and sculpture.

Check! But we need to broaden our definition so that it says "drawings, painting, movies, games..."

human endeavor thought to be aesthetic and have meaning beyond simple description. Includes music, dance, sculpture, painting, drawing, stitchery, weaving, poetry, writing, woodworking, etc. A medium of expression where the individual and culture come together.

Tripple check!

The formal expression of a conceived image or imagined conception in terms of a given medium.

Yeah yeah, we won, woho!

 

[Fox5]

A game has an additional purpose and constraint beyond just being art, and that purpose may be an insurmountable barrrier in most cases.

If the intent is to sell the game; there are homebrew/independent games that are made to be art. I played one game that used AI to simulate a married couple that maybe could be considered art, though I don't remember the name.

However, a major problem with games is that they are largely based on technology. A good book isn't dependent on the quality of the paper, however the hardware and mathematical algorithms behind a game are extremely important.

 

[scificube]

A painting certainly is dependent upon the quality of the material used as for the props in a movie can make or break it. (Aliens, Terminator, Short Circuit, Jurassic Park, Titanic and so on)

A book relies on your imagination to fill in the gaps where as a movie or game presents the whole picture to you. In this sense one could say they are in fact the more authoritative.

 

[Fox5]

A painting certainly is dependent upon the quality of the material used as for the props in a movie can make or break it. (Aliens, Terminator, Short Circuit, Jurassic Park, Titanic and so on)

A book relies on your imagination to fill in the gaps where as a movie or game presents the whole picture to you. In this sense one could say they are in fact the more authoritative.

Minus CG graphics (which virtually any quality can be had with enough time), what major advances to technology has there been in the last decade or so that would make movies and paintings better? Movies especially have an inate advantage over games, they get to use the real world which has graphics and physics far beyond what any computer can handle in real time.

 

[scificube]

Better than what?

I'm arguing for equality here not better or worse.

I don't see how better special effects in movies..or real life physics...because they're real are counter to movies being considered art. I see no reason why games should not be given the same respect for their better visuals etc.

Why art impresses is unimportant or what art conveys is unimportant...art is art.

The authoritative rubric Ebert uses seems truer in some respects and not so true in others and it's importance is arguable as to whether something is art or not. Art's meaning is almost always something open to interpretation even when one is being led by the nose. Whether art is meant to convey some specific thing or nothing at all or whether this is in the hands of the artist or the audience's interpretation/imagination seems unimportant to me in declaring something artful in the first place.

I lean heavily towards the common definitions for art in that art is a form or medium of expression irregardless or what is actually expressed and how it is done. So in my mind games and making them are as artful and as much an artform as anything else human hands and/or minds can craft.

I most sincerely disagree with Mr. Ebert. Once something is art which I feel games are by definiton there is no room to say one form of art is inferior to some other form of art or artistic representation...beauty(or whatever else) as always in in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Foolish

Saw this at TXB forums,

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN


****

Roger Ebert is a Pulitzer Prizer winner Film Critic.

Roger Ebert has made foolish comments about medium he is not so familiar. Art is when feelings or thought is provoked and many games do this and for this to be sense of immersion must exist. How many did not feel when discovering truth about Colossus in Shadow of the Colossus? Knowing the truth, how many feel happy killing them?

 

[Sis]

Roger Ebert has made foolish comments about medium he is not so familiar. Art is when feelings or thought is provoked and many games do this and for this to be sense of immersion must exist. How many did not feel when discovering truth about Colossus in Shadow of the Colossus? Knowing the truth, how many feel happy killing them?

First, I'd say that calling his comments foolish--simply because you disagree with them--to be a tad immature.

But secondly, I think the point isn't so much that games aren't artistic, but whether they reach the same level as some masterpieces capable of other fields. As great as some of these past generation's have been, such as Ico, SotC, GoW, etc, I think what Ebert says is true today. Those games are only scratching the surface. This upcoming generation may come through with a true masterpiece, though I'm thinking we're still about 5-10 years out. That'd be about 40 years of gaming till our first masterpiece, which isn't too bad from a brand new medium.

I do disagree with his comment that the medium is inherently flawed.

.Sis

 

[scooby_dooby]

This is the very reason he says games can't be art. Games require the user's input and the user's decisions to experience, this is the interactive nature of games and the inherent problem, as it makes games into creative tools for the user where the result (i.e. the "art") is dependent on those decisions.

so if an artist made an interactive scuplture, that could be touched and reacted to the person viewing it, would it cease to be art?

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Masterpieces?

First, I'd say that calling his comments foolish--simply because you disagree with them--to be a tad immature.

But secondly, I think the point isn't so much that games aren't artistic, but whether they reach the same level as some masterpieces capable of other fields. As great as some of these past generation's have been, such as Ico, SotC, GoW, etc, I think what Ebert says is true today. Those games are only scratching the surface. This upcoming generation may come through with a true masterpiece, though I'm thinking we're still about 5-10 years out. That'd be about 40 years of gaming till our first masterpiece, which isn't too bad from a brand new medium.

I do disagree with his comment that the medium is inherently flawed.

.Sis

My friend I must disagree on this. Game offers more scope and scale for expression of creative genius and vision due to greater opportunity to excersice creative choice and express creative vision.

Also, player immersion is greater and length of interaction is greater. It is very hard to watch movie longer than 4 hours but it is not uncommon to play game for 12 hours. Because of this greater continuous interaction, there is more possibility for creating magical experience and to make player feel and experience something.

Like film, game is about integration of many art through single direction and vision, therefore not possible to directly compared to music composer or painter who do not direct many artists but produce directly from their inner mind. Maybe when Ebert thinks of games he thinks of PacMan, but that is why he is critic and not artist. Critics have no vision to see beyond what they experience but artists have vision of things that have not been seen.

 

[mckmas8808]

My friend I must disagree on this. Game offers more scope and scale for expression of creative genius and vision due to greater opportunity to excersice creative choice and express creative vision.

Also, player immersion is greater and length of interaction is greater. It is very hard to watch movie longer than 4 hours but it is not uncommon to play game for 12 hours. Because of this greater continuous interaction, there is more possibility for creating magical experience and to make player feel and experience something.

Like film, game is about integration of many art through single direction and vision, therefore not possible to directly compared to music composer or painter who do not direct many artists but produce directly from their inner mind. Maybe when Ebert thinks of games he thinks of PacMan, but that is why he is critic and not artist. Critics have no vision to see beyond what they experience but artists have vision of things that have not been seen.

You aight never lied.

 

[Confidence-Man]

so if an artist made an interactive scuplture, that could be touched and reacted to the person viewing it, would it cease to be art?

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.