Video Games inherently inferior to Film and Literature: Roger Ebert

[Scott_Arm]

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.

I agree with a lot of what you've said, and I'd like to add a few more points to that.

I think video games will have a tough time achieving an artistic masterpiece on the same scale as film or literature. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think it will be highly unlikely considering the way the business and industry works, and the expectations people have. People are expecting to buy a game, not a work of art. That implies certain things, like a number of hours of gameplay. To achieve this, games have and probably always will rely on repetitive action. Film and literature are extremely efficient in achieving their purpose. Every single line of a novel, or every single second of a film can be used with the utmost efficiency. In a good film, not a second of time is wasted in achieving the filmmakers goal. Every look and every motion and every line means something, in terms of setting a mood or making a point. In a game, there is always time wasted because it is meant to be a game. The game designer has to sit back, and put his/her self aside, and give the gamer some time. When you look at a good painting or photograph, the impact is immediate. All of that said, I don't think anything is inherintly better. There are tons bad movies, and bad novels around.

Edit: While games and interactive media may some day catch up to film, I would say games have achieved very very little when it comes to achieving some kind of substantial artistic contribution to society.

 

[scificube]

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.

If you enjoy what you're doing then it's not a waste fo time.

The same obstacles for a game are there for films just that are different things...lighting, sound, the right actors/actresses, type of film, filming angles...etc.

How would Citizen Kane have turned out if it was an animated movie...what if the creators of South Park handled it? What if Scarface was played by an anemic red headed boy whose voice still crackled due to puberty?

What you describe to me sound like proper presentation...not obstacles. Obstacles are things which must be overcome...presentation is a thing that must handled correctly. Both games and movies can take a good thing and present it badly.

Could you define culturally significant? This is different from critically acclaimed or well respected...but I don't want to assume what you mean.

I'll give you that no game has been acclaimed by the critically elite or at least those who would call themselves art critics but that doesn't mean no game yet is a work of art. I would also caution agianst equating cultural significance with critical appraisals.

 

[mckmas8808]

Could you define culturally significant? This is different from critically acclaimed or well respected...but I don't want to assume what you mean.

I'll give you that no game has been acclaimed by the critically elite or at least those who would call themselves art critics but that doesn't mean no game yet is a work of art. I would also caution agianst equating cultural significance with critical appraisals.

Exactly. 2pac's and Nas' lyrics to are what I would call art, yet plenty of the elite would call them thugs. So scificube I agree with you cultural significance shouldn't be used in this thread.

 

[scificube]

Exactly. 2pac's and Nas' lyrics to are what I would call art, yet plenty of the elite would call them thugs. So scificube I agree with you cultural significance shouldn't be used in this thread.

You think 2pac and Nas are artists...shhh! People will hear you! Hate for you "dissappear" all of the sudden.

Anyway, if we start talking about cultural significance I think allot of what people would refer to as "garbage" would seem to be having a much bigger affect than what most would call or accept as art.

It's very simple to me. You can't put art in a box. It is much too free a thing to be confined to a way of thinking or form. Once start doing that you limit yourself to only seeing a segment of the wonders of world and only exlude yourself from experiencing all life has to offer. Something I would myself view as a bad thing...call me crazy.

 

[Scott_Arm]

You think 2pac and Nas are artists...shhh! People will hear you! Hate for you "dissappear" all of the sudden.

Anyway, if we start talking about cultural significance I think allot of what people would refer to as "garbage" would seem to be having a much bigger affect than what most would call or accept as art.

It's very simple to me. You can't put art in a box. It is much too free a thing to be confined to a way of thinking or form. Once start doing that you limit yourself to only seeing a segment of the wonders of world and only exlude yourself from experiencing all life has to offer. Something I would myself view as a bad thing...call me crazy.

I definitely wouldn't want to pigeon-hole what art is, because it's completely subjective in what people like or appreciate. And there's the whole, "Art for art's sake" thing. But you can say that all art is expressive. Are video games expressive? Yes, they can be. At the same time, even the best of games have a lot of content that is not expressive, like repetition. I think the form that games are taking nowadays is not really about art, though it has some qualities that when looked at individually are very artistic. The whole package is more about entertainment and gameplay than it is about art. Some day this may change.

 

[mckmas8808]

You think 2pac and Nas are artists...shhh! People will hear you! Hate for you "dissappear" all of the sudden.

Are you serious or are you just joking with me? I'm sorry but I can't really tell. Just in case you are serious I will say 2pac and Nas are/were some of the best poets in the last 10 years.

 

[scificube]

Are you serious or are you just joking with me? I'm sorry but I can't really tell. Just in case you are serious I will say 2pac and Nas are/were some of the best poets in the last 10 years.

I was joking of course. I'm defending all art forms here...take a guess where I stand

 

[Danalys]

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.

it's not that structure composition and timing are artistic in of themselves. they are the elements of the medium through which to be artistic. and if one of those elements of the medium is aparent and you fail to be artistic with it, it makes a huge difference.

now i think the way structure composition and timing can be artistic is in apealing to an innate quality of human psychology. much like the golden rectangle apeals visually and certain length notes work in combination while others don't. the art that often gets the highest regard breaks from your expections that all previous art has aclimatised you to, while staying with in these rules of structure and timing and compostion that have been refined through out human civilisation. an example is having a bar of music come in slightly before or after the listener would normally expect it to.

so basically i think art plays with your expectations while remaining in your comfort zone.

in game design this would require critical events to unfold at the right time where ever the player happened to be. the sheer amount of planning required to pull that off would be huge. i think a game that achived it's artistic potential would require far more man hours to achieve than any other medium would. because the medium has so many more factors to contend with.