Video Games inherently inferior to Film and Literature: Roger Ebert

[scificube]

Accessibility is irrelevant to something being art period and is certainly a ridiculous standard to judge the value of art or an artistic piece.

Is Opera only fine art because I can't see it? I think not. Is Porn fine art because I can find it all over the internet? Again I think not.

Accessibility has nothing to do with the quality of the content there in and furthermore how that content affects someone.

I can take games around me wherever I want if I have a handheld...like countless millions do...I'm certain there are more copies of some games bought out there than many great works of literature or film so does that give games the edge on the afore mentioned? No. That's silly.

I don't quite follow ,"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." but I'm going to hazard a guess and assume you mean Ebert is saying that the medium by which art itself is conveyed is actually art...which makes no sense to me. A book with blank pages is not a work of art. A book with great content on those pages is a work of art so then the medium itself is irrelevant but the content there in that is actually important. If I assume your meaning incorrectly then I apologize.

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

Surely you jest. One...this is a bias in so much as defining what type of content can and cannot be included as artistic content. In truth, the depiction of violence in art is not some taboo or an uncommon thing in film, literature or otherwise. As far as violence inherently moving us away from making," ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic" this is not true. Violence is a part of many cultures in many forms, has secured civilizations, and has been wrought out of empathy for others. Violence is not inherently good or bad but instead the reasons why you would participate in it is.

"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."

So art is a measure of popularity? Are plays art? I mean there are woefully less people that see them than read books, watch films or even play games...so are they merely entertainment devoid of any artistic value because of this?

So is art a measure of it's influence in terms of numbers alone? So if a single piece of art from the most unpopular form of art moves an individual profoundly...and that individual goes on to change the world, is said art form now the ultimate art form...what if it wasn't considered art all in the first place?

I hold that art or art forms are not defined by or their value linked to their popularity, their form alone, or achievements or lack there of. Art is expression. How good that expression is can denote just how good the art is but this is not inhibited nor aided by the medium.

 

[mckmas8808]

scificube that's the best post in this thread. Like you said would graffti be considered art? If I spray paint something on a side of a building (that I own) and only 10,000 people see it would it be art? Or would it be art only if 5 million people saw it?

To me graffti is considered art even though only thousands of people may see it. And I also think videogames can be considered art. I just think that the medium has to mature first. And it has to mature a lot before it gets that label, which I understand. I think that next-gen will be able to give developers a better tool to approch videogames as art better than want they had in the past.

Question can this videogame be considered art?

Here's a 3 minute video clip to see it in action.
Click here

 

[3dilettante]

The medium by which video games express ideas might be a possible strike against them ever being considered "art for the ages".

A statue or canvas can last for centuries if properly preserved. A game console, PC architecture, or software language may only last ten to fifty years. The file format or binary layout of data files may be obsolete in decades.

Some experts fear that a future threat to data archives will be the possible loss of the knowledge needed to access information.

If a game for Windows 2010 is art, or the Microsoft Playstation 54 is hailed as an achievement, what happens to it when the next generation comes out? Art is often something we don't like to throw away, but the current game industry paradigm is structured on the idea that things must be thrown out or redone.

Perhaps when we settle on games we don't want changed, we might have some kind of game art.

If video games can be art, I think a more comprehensive effort at preserving a game beyond the original platform's lifespan is needed. At the very least, this is one drawback to digital technology people can compensate for.

Granted, not all art needs to last a long time. The sand paintings depicting Buddhist comsology, for example, are wiped away shortly after they are made.

 

[mckmas8808]

The medium by which video games express ideas might be a possible strike against them ever being considered "art for the ages".

A statue or canvas can last for centuries if properly preserved. A game console, PC architecture, or software language may only last ten to fifty years. The file format or binary layout of data files may be obsolete in decades.

Some experts fear that a future threat to data archives will be the possible loss of the knowledge needed to access information.

If a game for Windows 2010 is art, or the Microsoft Playstation 54 is hailed as an achievement, what happens to it when the next generation comes out? Art is often something we don't like to throw away, but the current game industry paradigm is structured on the idea that things must be thrown out or redone.

Perhaps when we settle on games we don't want changed, we might have some kind of game art.

If video games can be art, I think a more comprehensive effort at preserving a game beyond the original platform's lifespan is needed. At the very least, this is one drawback to digital technology people can compensate for.

Granted, not all art needs to last a long time. The sand paintings depicting Buddhist comsology, for example, are wiped away shortly after they are made.

Well Sony has BC in the PS3, meaning that they can play games dated back to 1994... Not sure if that helps.

But if what you said is true then how is music art? We keep updating the equipment to play music too.

 

[Squeak]

We should really generally stop using the word art and all it's cousins in different languages, although that is unlikely to happen, as there will always be people who will want to make themselves look clever by using cheap words.
The word "art" is really just useable as quality descriptor, like bright/dark, good/bad or hot/cold, all of which are of course completely relative.
The definition of "art" will always be changing in different times and different cultures.

 

[mckmas8808]

The definition of "art" will always be changing in different times and different cultures.

This post should end this thread. Meaning videogames can be art.

Okay end thread.

 

[3dilettante]

Well Sony has BC in the PS3, meaning that they can play games dated back to 1994... Not sure if that helps.

But if what you said is true then how is music art? We keep updating the equipment to play music too.

We update equipment, but the major notation systems used to write music haven't been revamped in a long time.

The game industry's way of business seems to encourage gamers to play and then go buy the sequel. It may be part economics, but this is a real detracting factor for long-lasting appeal. Few people who collect old games do so for artistic merit, they do it for nostalgia. Something a bit more than nostalgia is needed. Classical symphonies are still considered art despite the centuries they have existed. An old game is considered laughable by most.

A small-budget Hollywood film might be shot for the same amount of money that a high-end game has. The movie will still have better graphics (assuming it's not a CG fest) and most likely will have better acting and emotive impact.

"Do you love me, even though I am hideous?"
Pick: a) Yes
b) No

b) No

GAME OVER

Is not deeply touching.

To get high quality effort in a game to rival a movie, a disproportionate amount of money has to be spent on what will probably be an overlooked element of gameplay in a game that won't be remembered more than a few years.

It strikes me that if games can be art, neither the market's or the industry's mindset is conducive to them being art.

 

[mckmas8808]

We update equipment, but the major notation systems used to write music haven't been revamped in a long time.

The game industry's way of business seems to encourage gamers to play and then go buy the sequel. It may be part economics, but this is a real detracting factor for long-lasting appeal. Few people who collect old games do so for artistic merit, they do it for nostalgia. Something a bit more than nostalgia is needed. Classical symphonies are still considered art despite the centuries they have existed. An old game is considered laughable by most.

A small-budget Hollywood film might be shot for the same amount of money that a high-end game has. The movie will still have better graphics (assuming it's not a CG fest) and most likely will have better acting and emotive impact.

"Do you love me, even though I am hideous?"
Pick: a) Yes
b) No

b) No

GAME OVER

Is not deeply touching.

To get high quality effort in a game to rival a movie, a disproportionate amount of money has to be spent on what will probably be an overlooked element of gameplay in a game that won't be remembered more than a few years.

It strikes me that if games can be art, neither the market's or the industry's mindset is conducive to them being art.

One game shoots down 90% of your post. Katamari Damacy!!!

 

[MfA]

Meh, the audience for silent movies isn't exactly overwhelming either ... and they are mostly seen for reasons other than entertainment too. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I have become far more engrossed in games and books than Ive ever become in movies ... so if I had to pick out one to toss out as a "serious art form" on that basis it would be movies.

 

[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?

Sure... But "should be"s don't solve anything if it doesn't actually happen. And I think Ebert is drawing examples from the top-selling games or games that got high reviews... The interactivity aspect doesn't inherently make something less conducive to being art. It's just that when you take that away as you would with a movie or book or painting, the images and stories and ideas that are meant to be conveyed are more or less unfiltered. We can appreciate or not appreciate the story and direction and production value of a movie because that's all there is to it. There's no other stimuli than what we see and hear while a game has that extra aspect to it.

If that extra aspect breaks things up too much, it becomes harder to appreciate the story and art even if that interactive part of the game is exactly what makes it a good game.

Of course, part of art is just the appreciation aspect. I mean, I can see programming as an art form because of the fact that I can appreciate things about it that people not in the field couldn't. Can you explain to a non-gamer what makes Ninja Gaiden a good game? Or Final Fantasy? MGS? Katamari?

 

[mckmas8808]

Can you explain to a non-gamer what makes Ninja Gaiden a good game? Or Final Fantasy? MGS? Katamari?

Yes I can. And to flip that back on you, (I'm not trying to spit in the face of artist) can anybody explain why this is considered art?

What does it do for me? How does it help society learn? These are the questions that some of you guys throw at videogames and why they are not art.

 

[Danalys]

okay this is intresting. i've been thinking about what the key elements of art are to me. i think they are composition and structure and timing.

in a game it's hard to dictate timing and composition. the timing is dictated by the player. now books can have a similar problem at times, but it is far less so, and they excel at composition and structure to make up for that. still the right set of words can influence the reader to read faster or slower. we have learnt to read artistically. paintings and such have no timing problems because timing is not an element of them. movies and music excel at timing in the best of them.

so games in effect become more like a tool. something like a guitar. that you can be artistic with if you want. they can contain art in all the elements that aren't in the players control. for the whole experience to be art the player must be artistic or influenced into being artistic.

 

[mckmas8808]

okay this is intresting. i've been thinking about what the key elements of art are to me. i think they are composition and structure and timing.

in a game it's hard to dictate timing and composition. the timing is dictated by the player. now books can have a similar problem at times, but it is far less so, and they excel at composition and structure to make up for that. still the right set of words can influence the reader to read faster or slower. we have learnt to read artistically. paintings and such have no timing problems because timing is not an element of them. movies and music excel at timing in the best of them.

so games in effect become more like a tool. something like a guitar. that you can be artistic with if you want. they can contain art in all the elements that aren't in the players control. for the whole experience to be art the player must be artistic or influenced into being artistic.

Okay great post, BUT doesn't the person have to be artistic or influenced into being artistic to think that this -->

is art. I have no damn idea what that is. It means nothing to me. I learn nothing from it. It's just there looking purple, green, yellow, and orange.

 

[Danalys]

well it definetely has structure and composition. the lines flow, the framing is correct. art like beauty is in the eye of the beholder really. but people being similar in many regards will find many similar things artistic or beautiful. i don't think art and meaning have to nessersarily be inclusive. art can be meaningful or not. it's when it tries to filter reality to illuminate an aspect of reality that it has meaning.

 

[g35er]

1. Ebert gives "player's choice" as the only reason games are inferior to movies. Again, player choice is an illusion in linear games and the game creator has every "authorial control" of a movie director in these types of games except timing.

2. Just because the current games do not meet the level of quality of the best movies does not prove Ebert's statements correct. When he says "inherently", he is saying that every game past, present, and future will be inferior to movies, which is hard to prove. Especially the future part.

BTW, Ebert's main point is about film and literature vs. games, so he is specifically comparing story based games such as RPG's and adventure games to movies and books. He's not talking about games vs. fine art. He's a movie expert, not a fine arts expert.

 

[scificube]

okay this is intresting. i've been thinking about what the key elements of art are to me. i think they are composition and structure and timing.

in a game it's hard to dictate timing and composition. the timing is dictated by the player. now books can have a similar problem at times, but it is far less so, and they excel at composition and structure to make up for that. still the right set of words can influence the reader to read faster or slower. we have learnt to read artistically. paintings and such have no timing problems because timing is not an element of them. movies and music excel at timing in the best of them.

so games in effect become more like a tool. something like a guitar. that you can be artistic with if you want. they can contain art in all the elements that aren't in the players control. for the whole experience to be art the player must be artistic or influenced into being artistic.

Composition, structure, timing...why does it matter? Why are these things important for something to be art?

As you note paintings have no timing element at all...so therefore either such is irrelevant to being art or paintings are not art...or if paintings are art they are an inherently inferior form of it which I would disagree with.

I believe you are correct in that art is what you make of it or allow it to be. In that sense anything can be artful and as impactful as anything else. One can find beauty in anything if only they take the time to look for it or the ability to percieve/accept it should they happen upon it by chance.

 

[mckmas8808]

1
BTW, Ebert's main point is about film and literature vs. games, so he is specifically comparing story based games such as RPG's and adventure games to movies and books. He's not talking about games vs. fine art. He's a movie expert, not a fine arts expert.

Good point. He really is comparing movies to videogames. So I question why is it possible that the movie Silent Hill can be view as art, yet the videogame can't be. If the movie closely follows the themes of the game, then why can't games ever be on the same level as movies.

Hell if you ask me the fact that games are interactive seems like it could mean more to the audience than movies in the future.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Choice

1. Ebert gives "player's choice" as the only reason games are inferior to movies. Again, player choice is an illusion in linear games and the game creator has every "authorial control" of a movie director in these types of games except timing.

2. Just because the current games do not meet the level of quality of the best movies does not prove Ebert's statements correct. When he says "inherently", he is saying that every game past, present, and future will be inferior to movies, which is hard to prove. Especially the future part.

BTW, Ebert's main point is about film and literature vs. games, so he is specifically comparing story based games such as RPG's and adventure games to movies and books. He's not talking about games vs. fine art. He's a movie expert, not a fine arts expert.

Ebert is not a artist, he is a crtic. Artist's purpose is to create, critic's purpose is to fill pages of newspapers, magazines and slots of TV broadcast yet critics always try to decide what is art.

 

[MoeStooge]

I don't agree that games are inherently inferior to film and literature, but I do however agree with this statement Ebert made:

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

There are no games that are as culturally significant as the great works of art that man has created. There are no gamemakers that are as significant as the great artists. Video games (right now) really are just a way to waste time. I don't think there is anything wrong with that either. Wasting my time on video games keeps my stress levels down and brain activity up.

I think the video game medium has too many inherent obstacles that restrict the possibilities of creating true art. To leave the realm of video game designer and enter the world of interactive artist, someone is going to have to find a way to smash through these obstacles or find a way to approach the problem from a perspective that nobody else has ever thought of. A video game designer/artist has all the problems a moviemaker/artist has, plus a whole lot more. You could create a game with the intent of sharing some personal vision of the world, impart it with subtlety and complexity, and then ruin it because nobody likes the control system you went with or the load times or the frame rate. Video games have a long way to go. Video gamers have a long way to go before there are enough of us that would accept different ideas or approaches to the medium. And society has a long way to go still until the medium is recognized as something that really can be culturally important.

 

[mckmas8808]

I think the video game medium has too many inherent obstacles that restrict the possibilities of creating true art. To leave the realm of video game designer and enter the world of interactive artist, someone is going to have to find a way to smash through these obstacles or find a way to approach the problem from a perspective that nobody else has ever thought of. A video game designer/artist has all the problems a moviemaker/artist has, plus a whole lot more. You could create a game with the intent of sharing some personal vision of the world, impart it with subtlety and complexity, and then ruin it because nobody likes the control system you went with or the load times or the frame rate. Video games have a long way to go. Video gamers have a long way to go before there are enough of us that would accept different ideas or approaches to the medium. And society has a long way to go still until the medium is recognized as something that really can be culturally important.

Is it really that long from now? Seriously I think PS4/Xbox3 will be when your statement above comes completly true were video games will be able to bring the immersioness like movies.