Support NeoGAF

[dark10x]

Agreed. I always knew that Ebert looked down on video games, but this is something else entirely. It seems his impression of games was formed during the NES era and has not advanced since.

Not uncommon...

Many people still believe that a "video game soundtrack" is composed of "bleeps and bloops" while most games consist of nothing more than "a little man jumping up and down"...

Slowly, this impression is changing, but for those folks who have nobody around which may expose them to these games...they may never actually realize. Most of the game movies released to date have made things even worse, as people such as Ebert seem to assume that they represent the progress of games (ie - is THIS the best story you can come up WITH?!?).

Hopefully Silent Hill and Halo (movies) actually turn out to be great films. Peter Jackson actually does seem to have a certain respect and interest in video games, so it almost makes me wonder if he chose to work on a Halo movie in order to "right some wrongs".

 

[Starfire]

Trying to classify an entire medium as art or non-art as a whole is a flawed practice to begin with, what did xXx communicate to us, that Vin-Diesel can't act? It isn't often nowadays that games truly do posess artistic value, but every now and then there is a game like Deus Ex or System Shock where the story is told not just in static cutscenes, but in the thematic elements that make up the game world. J.C.s selection of bio-implants tell us just as much about the world around him and the role technology plays in his and everyone else's lives as does any plot point in the narrative. Games naturally have a long way to go, but this is, in part due to the age of the industry and technologies involved, as well as the preceived maturity level of the people who play games. I personally beleive games have lots of un-exploited potential in terms of unique gameplay concepts that persuade the player to act in a certain manner based on perceptual patterns in the world around them (such as putting the player in a moral dillema where the answer is not black and white, and the outcome has lasting effects on how the game plays out the rest of the way through, not just in terms of story, but in terms of a world that really reacts to your decision.)

Also, not all art is expressed solely in terms of subjective communication, non-verbal, abstract communication is every bit as important a qualifier (and in some artists minds more important) as a subjective message, while some art leaves the interperetation entirely up to the viewer, sometimes to the point where the viewer fails to see the message at all and will subsequentially render the work meaningless. I'm not trying to say that every video game has some sort of deep-seated meaning that any one who criticizes them fails to see, just simply that some critics don't even look.

In summation, no, not every game is art, but then again, neither is every movie, book, painting, or peice of music. They don''t have to be either, but to me it is the mind behind the medium that is ultimately more important than the delivery, and I beleive interactive entertainment is a strong enough media to portray the same messages as it's older cousins, but like any other media, the delivery methods don't translate point to point (movies don't tell stories in the same way muisic does, but their messages are equally engauging when done right.)

 

[Dilbert]

I don't want to get into a debate about Pollock, personally I am not a fan of his work - but there was a definate design to his madness. You are Pollock's Ebert! :lol

Oh, I'm no expert on Pollock -- visual art is interesting, but not my field of expertise. It's more of a snide comment about the "emperor's new clothes" phenomenon often associated with artistic "greats."

I'm a poet, so unfortunately all of the examples which come to mind to illustrate this point are poets...and therefore not going to mean a damn thing to anyone reading this thread. There is a certain branch of poetry called language poetry which is probably the equivalent to abstract art. There are pages and pages of critical analysis written about What It All Means, and none of it says the obvious -- it doesn't mean jack shit, and is barely art. Likewise, Pollock's work may or may not be "art," but let's not overvalue his technique -- he put paint violently on large canvases, and somewhere along the line that mattered to someone.

There isn't a Boolean judgment you can make about something being "art" since there are many criteria, and not all pieces exhibit all of the artistic traits. I certainly don't have the canonical list, but among them I would think would be things like beauty, technique, and theme. The most important thing, though, is that art is intrinsically about HUMAN BEINGS. Art is a peculiar form of communication which bypasses our conscious mind and provides a type of insight into what it means to be human which isn't available through other means. (To paraphrase T.S. Eliot, great art communicates before it is understood.)

That last reason is probably why many games fail to be art -- ultimately, they don't put us any more in touch with our archetypical selves. There are some exceptions, but for the most part, games are diversions -- not an destination in themselves.

 

[sprsk]

I was discussing this issue with a fellow game designer a few weeks ago on a plane ride out to Utah and to test a theory, I ran a scenario by him. I said:

What if you had a FPS where you could carry up to 8 weapons at a time BUT beyond 2 weapons, your motion thru the game world got a bit slower AND it became- by nature of having so many weapon slots you have to cycle thru (console game, not PC with 1-9 keyboard shortcuts) that it became a burden to have so many weapons. But you COULD carry 10 weapons if you wanted to...

He was like: eh, it's ok strategically but I dunno if I would like it very much.

And then I said: well it's a metaphor for man's greed expressed via play mechanics. It's about us taking too much and not only taking what we need. And maybe the setting of the game is some war torn African country where you play a UN PEACEKEEPER and are under attack be rebels who don't want the locals to get any food...that way, we can TALK about the metaphor as it applies to food (so there is some context to the thing) and you experience it via your play mechanics as well...

And he kinda lit up and was like: oh hey, that's cool. I like it more now that you've explained it.

But the thing is, I had to explain it. Now this raises- to me- a few questions about the issue of games as art:

a- is art only art when someone who you deem worthy/smart/intelligent TELLS you it is and points out that the message of the art exists?

b- would these sorts of metaphors be lost on 99% of the players? I mean, I can go see a movie and be moved by it and NOT need the details explained to me by a critic...I just GET it, you know? At a conference I went to, Will Wright talked about how the SIMS was designed to be read as a metaphor for greed and how as you got more and more and more stuff, it became more of a hassle to take care of it all and eventually things began to break down. Now this is a cool ass reading on the game, but I can tell you that I never felt it during my play time with THE SIMS. So I think games can- by USING THE INTERACTIVE MEDIUM (not using film technique) SAY something via play/interactive mechanics...the question is, do people get it and if not, HOW can we make them get it?

c- How can abstract art move us (and it can...I have been moved to tears by a few abstract paintings in my time) but games can not? Maybe this medium has simply not fallen into the proper hands yet. I do not think I am an artist. I think I have been lucky enough to have been given a stage to fuck around on and play at being an artist, but end of the day, I am not. And I can tell you from first hand experience that I have had a hell of a time getting great screenwriters working on games and taking it seriously because they would rather do film...so there is the challenge of convincing those with unique viewpoints on the world (i.e. artists) why this medium should be their medium of choice. I do think that if games can create emotion, when the right person comes along and does it and does it well, many artists will be dying to get into games because they will see the potential. But as of now, not so much....

Do you think it says something that for years this debate has been raging without much movement on either side (those who think games can be art/are art vs. those who don't)?

I mean, did movies and books struggle so much to be taken seriously? How about television?

Someone did mention the movies and how it took 40 years until Lang made what many consider to be the first artistic flix. However, wasn't Battleship Potempkin(sp?) earlier than that?

Either way, as a guy who makes games, I can tell you that I have no freaking clue. There are moments where I WISH what we did was taken in a more serious light (both for ego reasons as well as getting more people into games)...and there are things I think I might have to say that might be relevant to others...I dunno...

Okay a few things, bear with me im really sleepy and i'm having a hard time putting complete sentences together.

A- No. Someone who is smart and intelligent and knowledable about art can tell you if the ideas in the work are substantial. But thanks to the dadaists one could argue anything as being a piece of art.

B- Most of the populace dont understand the deeper meaning or motivations behind any work of art. There is popular art widely recognized by most of the populace, take renaissance works for instance. People love the renaissance because of the striking details and blah blah blah. Most people don't know and probably haven't read about the theories behind the paintings. Most people dont need to know that much. In my opinion that is what makes the art so incredible, but thats just me, im in the extreme minority. To me and most art historians will probably agree, the art doesnt end when you hit the frame. A piece of art is like a 100 page essay, it takes research and prior knowledge to get the most out of it. The problem with video games right now is this battle I think the creators are having with the role of video games. Alot of video game designers say "I am not an artist" Sometimes i think, maybe its because they dont really know a lot about art and maybe I'm right i dunno, but I do know that they are wrong. A game designer will say "my game is just about a greek dude slicing people up how is that art?" and in a way a game about a roman guy out for revenge isnt high art, but it is art. Video games have the ability to engage the viewer much like sculpture can. In my mind Painting:Sculpture::Film:Games.

okay im just rambling, its late. let me try to rephrase here

Art

Video game designers are artists. Are they good artists? Mostly no. When i say mostly i mean a good 90% of them. Most people don't get art and you shouldn't expect them to. Truely great art has multiple layers. Your example about the sims makes me think one thing, viewers just arent thinking about games. They think about ways to play games, but thats about it. It takes games like SOTC to put a big sign over it saying "hey hey! look at me! This isnt just about time attacks and solving puzzles!" for people to notice.

god im doing it again, okay im gonna stop


c- Yeah, but more recently we have been seeing games fall into the hands of the right people. The gaming industry just needs time to mature and we NEED TO GET RID OF PUBLISHERSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSrarjenorinaeofinaeofin


okay im done for serious this time. although id like to talk more I have a class in the morning.

 

[VALIS]

Do you reject the notion that architecture can be art? What does Fallingwater say about the human experience? You can argue that it argues that humans should live in aesthetic harmony with the world around them, I suppose, but it seems a stretch to me. You can argue that it's pure craft, not art, but I'd disagree.

What does Sarah Winchester's house say about human existence? Well, you can pull any of a dozen interpretations of the "thing" in its historical context, depending on what "facts" about her life that you believe, but the house itself is a thing separate from her life. If you strip away the "mystery" of her life, it's just a house that does non-functional things. As such, I think it is art -- accidental art, not something that was controlled all the way, but art nonetheless.

Back to games: Dave Theurer, a designer from when game design was something programmers did while coding, created games that came out of his nightmares. Tempest, though taken to be a sort of standard "shoot the space invaders" game, is "about" trying to repel a horde of alien-but-native creatures from within the earth, creatures that will grab you and pull you into the darkness. If that's not a fundamental meme of human art, I don't what is.

Missile Command was inspired by his nightmares of nuclear blasts annihilating his home and himself. Surely the scenario, that you can't win, that you can't counterattack, that you can do nothing except temporarily stave off extinction, and that you know there are humans on the other side of the attack, says something about the human condition? It's as conceptually deep as, say, "Miracle Mile," at least. (You can say that arcade games of the time seldom had an "end", but Theurer's interviews state that he rejected the suggestion by management that it have an ending because nobody could really win a nuclear war.) By your criteria, is this art?

I think you're getting hung up on the narrative issue, given that this conversation is coming from film and literature. But who says art needs any narrative? Is there a need for a narrative in order to appreciate Church's "Cotopaxi", or Bosch's "Ship of Fools"? There are contexts to them that inform a viewing, certainly, but don't they stand on their own?

Admittedly, most narratives in games suck very badly. I can't play most JRPGs anymore for that reason, and I've never been able to get into any western fantasy-influenced games because of the ludicrous stupidity of it all. But narrative isn't everything. It isn't even the main focus of a game. It's one aspect of a complete package that also includes music, visual design, control of character(s) in a miniature universe created by humans, etc. Much as film integrated script, visual design, and music, games integrate those and more.

I expect that the concept of games as art will have a longer gestation than film. After all, film could piggyback from stage, already an accepted artform. Video games have as their antecedents: movies and their ancestors; formal logic puzzles, ala Lewis Carroll; formal abstract games, like Go, Chess, and card games; and "human" games, such as hide'n'seek, sports, and debate. These are not like forms, and a form that integrates them is going to have major growing pains. However, whether or not you believe that anything has yet done so successfully, it is foolish to deny that a form that amalgamates these unlike forms has the potential to be art.

That's a fantastic response. I agree with a lot of what you say, including the part about a video game's experience being comprised of more than just the narrative. But that's why I also say video games are kind of in their own world on the scale of artisitic intentions and merit. Even though I find something like Robotron 2084 complelling and powerful as a work of art (besides being a great game, of course), I'm also not going to take near as much away from it as I would a great movie. My ideas and opinions on the human condition will barely be moved at all from even the greatest video game, while great movies will do this all the time. That's why I think it's folly to hold up great games to great works of cinema in terms of artistic merit. The games will lose 10 times out of 10 becuase they're not really going for the same thing. The greatest video games of them all strived to entertain first and foremost, while the majority of the greatest works of cinema strived to illuminate first and foremost. Video games don't try to illuminate (which I think is fine, but that's another matter), which to me puts them lower on the chain of artistic merit if people insist on comparing the two.

 

[davidjaffe]

It's amazing and exciting to read the interpretations of TEMPEST and MISSILE COMMAND!

But in many ways, it kind of proves the point....which is, when you EXPLAIN that to me, I am like: cool, what a neat thing! And it makes me want to go back and play those games with those ideas in mind!

But I can watch movies where I don't have to GET the theme or metaphor but there is STILL something that resonates within me. What is that then? And can games get there? Because I think if you have to GET the message of a game to be moved by it, then we are in a bit of trouble with the issue of games as art. At least being art for most people (which- for me- is important; that we connect with many folks...not just a few ultra intellectuals)...so why is that I can watch AMERICAN BEAUTY or hell, even THE BREAKFAST CLUB and miss- I'm sure- at least a FEW of the key messages the film maker had in mind BUT still walk away feeling SOMETHING? Is it that films tend to have more ideas/metaphors per capita (so you are bound to take something away) or does it have more to do with the WAY these messages are coming across where you may not get the whole enchillada but you are gonna get at least a nibble or two and walk away feeling a little more full than when you started eating...?

 

[blackadde]

I think a lot of it is sheer expectation. Walk into a gallery and expect to see art, walk into a theatre and (maybe) expect intelligent cinema. Turn on your PS2 and you expect mechanical tasks that reward you like a trained dog. For the most part with games, you're not really looking, ya know?

I was going to say something about PUSH/PULL media but I totally lost that train of thought.

 

[sprsk]

It's amazing and exciting to read the interpretations of TEMPEST and MISSILE COMMAND!

But in many ways, it kind of proves the point....which is, when you EXPLAIN that to me, I am like: cool, what a neat thing! And it makes me want to go back and play those games with those ideas in mind!

But I can watch movies where I don't have to GET the theme or metaphor but there is STILL something that resonates within me. What is that then? And can games get there? Because I think if you have to GET the message of a game to be moved by it, then we are in a bit of trouble with the issue of games as art. At least being art for most people (which- for me- is important; that we connect with many folks...not just a few ultra intellectuals)...so why is that I can watch AMERICAN BEAUTY or hell, even THE BREAKFAST CLUB and miss- I'm sure- at least a FEW of the key messages the film maker had in mind BUT still walk away feeling SOMETHING? Is it that films tend to have more ideas/metaphors per capita (so you are bound to take something away) or does it have more to do with the WAY these messages are coming across where you may not get the whole enchillada but you are gonna get at least a nibble or two and walk away feeling a little more full than when you started eating...?

Perhaps its the concentration on the human experience?

Alot of games are broken up into story\gameplay. The story is all about a man getting revenge for his daughter being taken by the nazis and the game is you running around shooting at posessed nazis. Of course thats not going to move you at all, no matter how well written the story is. The only feeling you get from shooting demon nazis is OH DAMN~!!! A game like SOTC puts a magnifying glass on the whole thing, every element highlights the desperation of the main character, to me anyway. Some people think its just boring gameplay. But to me sotc is successful in the respect that i could understand this and i was affected by this without having it explained to me. The game oozed it from the animations of the main character climbing up a wall to the lonely desolate land and even the colossi themselves. Most games set a story as a backdrop, to me SOTC's story created the gameplay. And thats why i think it was so successul

Theres this disconnect in games that is causing the user to become apithetic to the themes and meanings behind the game.


okay ineedtogotoibrhiosgv

 

[davidjaffe]

Well I can tell you that GOD OF WAR had meanting for me:

ARES= Sony, and work in general.
KRATOS= Me and anyone who has ambitions that take him away from his spirit and soul
FAMILY OF KRATOS= My family and anyone's family that is neglected for the sake of work

If you have not played GOD OF WAR and care about SPOILERS, stop reading:

So, Kratos kills his family because he is wrapped up in the tasks of Ares (i.e. WORK).

The whole game to me is about work taking over your soul and taking you away from the true pleasures of the soul and spirit (i.e. family).

Sounds pretty arty to me...but I'll be damned if anyone got it but me and the class at USC I explained it to a few months ago

David

 

[J2 Cool]

I disagree, especially with videogames being a waste of our lives. Wasting your life is watching movie upon movie, without ever creating an expression of your own. I know, I watch a lot of movies. It gets to a point where you find greatness again and again if you look hard enough, and then you're left realising you're wasting your life being controlled. There is no choices there. Not until you create your own. All the while, you switch between mediums, searching for their greatest expressions as not to collapse your efforts for that growth to continue. So you go into animated, and you find the best expressions of the medium, it's greatest achievements. Then to anime, films and longer lasting series. What emotions could they draw, the extent of them. To comic books, how well paper and art can shock you. Is it art or nonsense, and can you find the sense in it's medium? And to paintings and literature and yes, videogames. Certainly no less an expression than a painting. They move you, literally at times, to act. And it's a largely flexible medium that hasn't even been explored.

Is videogame's greatest achievement, one that stands above film or literature, or beside them yet? No. Not yet. Though some come close. Ico, Shenmue, and Metal Gear Solid 3 I'd recommend, if you dare to explore. Are there things these game's offered, that couldn't have been expressed as well elsewhere though? Certainly. Certain mpact and emotion.. A literal connection that you feel you took part in and cared for, at it's greatest. Some games can even blend the lines of literature's detail, movie's plot, animation's life, and painting's art. So as a kid, say you choose a means of expression. You have these great films, these great paintings, these great books.. Why not see where this unexplored medium can take you? To what heights? All pioneers of art had a bit of rebellious attitude to them. Videogames, comic books, animated features.. Videogames can definitely have that. They're still growing. As for development of empathy and hours wasted achieving none of that.. that can be easily achieved by constricting yourself to one medium, to never expressing yourself, or simply wasting hours on what is not challenging. All mediums have those projects that waste our lives, without ever enriching them. So Ebert's point can be as simple as "Videogames are still developing", but he seemed to instead talk too much on an unknowledgable subject, and thus go wrongly about a lot of his points.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I just watched Crash tonight (very good film about racism). While I am leaning more twards the games are art side of the debate, it strikes me that there has never really been a game about racism. There have been a ton of games about war, love, and greed, but to my knowledge racism seems to be off limits.

I would think to be considered an art (at least to some) that games would have to tackle some of the more serious issues. But looking at how the industry is under fire right now because of violence this is NOT a good idea at all.

Then again maybe there are and I am just missing them or not playing them?

edit:

which makes me wonder: Do we even WANT games to be a social commentary? I would say 90% of games today are an escapist reality, or an outlet for agression. How could you make a game about racism fun?

(90% is probably too much, there are alot of games about puzzles)

 

[vitaflo]

But I can watch movies where I don't have to GET the theme or metaphor but there is STILL something that resonates within me. What is that then? And can games get there? Because I think if you have to GET the message of a game to be moved by it, then we are in a bit of trouble with the issue of games as art. At least being art for most people (which- for me- is important; that we connect with many folks...not just a few ultra intellectuals)...so why is that I can watch AMERICAN BEAUTY or hell, even THE BREAKFAST CLUB and miss- I'm sure- at least a FEW of the key messages the film maker had in mind BUT still walk away feeling SOMETHING? Is it that films tend to have more ideas/metaphors per capita (so you are bound to take something away) or does it have more to do with the WAY these messages are coming across where you may not get the whole enchillada but you are gonna get at least a nibble or two and walk away feeling a little more full than when you started eating...?

Games basically need to challenge players in more than just reflexes and pretty pictures. So much of today's games are based on what you're allowed to do (12 unique weapons! 13 intense levels!) or are able to see (bump-map-shading-blah blah). The entire way we talk about games needs to change first of all. It's been said before but you don't hear film makers talking about their movies like this. Yet for some reason this is how the gaming world still talks.

Like I said, more games need to make you think. Not about how to get up the cliff to retrieve the red key, but perhaps about the moral or social implications of what is going on. I think the reason we don't see more of this is because gaming by their nature is action oriented, whereas a movie like American Beauty certainly isn't. Usually the most powerful part of movies are not action scenes but the drama. You can add drama to a video game, but the main point of video games is still usually action oriented in some way, which is why I think the experience usually falls flat (or why people complain about games like FF just being movies with bits of fighting thrown in between).

I think the best games that do these sorts of things are the horror games, because fear is an emotion that translates well to games, and horror movies have quite a bit of action in them. Dramas are much much harder, but I personally would start with having people solve emotional or moral problems over the rather simple "push the level to extend the bridge" type problems in most games. People are able to care about virtual things, it's the reason why Tomogachi or Nintendogs is popular. I think when you're able to get a player to have that kind of connection to a character that it matters to them what happens to that character, you can use that in a much more effective way to get the message of your game accross.

Films really are based on characters and character development. In the best ones we really care about the characters and what happens to them. There just needs to be more of that in gaming, and we need to talk about and trump up those aspects more than we do the technical aspects and featurs of said games.

 

[etiolate]

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

Weak Troll, I rate it 2/10.

 

[Red Blaster]

I just watched Crash tonight (very good film about racism). While I am leaning more twards the games are art side of the debate, it strikes me that there has never really been a game about racism. There have been a ton of games about war, love, and greed, but to my knowledge racism seems to be off limits.

I would think to be considered an art (at least to some) that games would have to tackle some of the more serious issues. But looking at how the industry is under fire right now because of violence this is NOT a good idea at all.

Then again maybe there are and I am just missing them or not playing them?

edit:

which makes me wonder: Do we even WANT games to be a social commentary? I would say 90% of games today are an escapist reality, or an outlet for agression. How could you make a game about racism fun?

(90% is probably too much, there are alot of games about puzzles)

A lot of Japanese RPGs have taken shots at implementing racism into the story (though they usually fall flat).

 

[White Man]

I don't even consider movies works of art.

What's The Sound and the Fury of videogames? Once there's a game or film that captures the emotional resonance of that novel, we'll talk.

 

[CarlosX360]

Why would Ebert bother commending gaming? There is nothing in it for him. His whole business is movies.

Cross transition: From games to movies.

Resident Evil, Mortal Kombat, and as the article states: Doom.

I disagree with the article as much as you do, and the rest does...but just pointing that out.

I agree that those movies based on the games....are unimaginative, because everything related to the game gets ON the screen, rather than using the writer's/director's imagination...Everything is copied FROM the movies themselves, instead of creating new storyline, new characters, new monsters, etc. Nothing new to the movies, just old substance.

That's another thing: No Substance to the movies.

Aren't these reasons why there is an outcry from people about the movies sucking?

 

[Attack You]

To me, "art" is all about composition. That removes the requirement of social/political/personal commentary and responsibility, because I don't even begin to fucking care about 99% of the shit that the rest of this world concerns itself with. Inconsistency bothers me a hell of a lot more than irrelevancy, and I'd rather see all of the parts of a work mended together in harmony than just one aspect of it stick out and have the rest of the package suffer from neglect. And with that philosophy, one can see art in anything.

I'm disappointed in how few games are mentioned when we're trying to qualify them as art, but I think that's just because no one else shares my "art is composition" argument.

Oh, and good luck trying to make people admit they are artists. I know I would feel conceited calling myself one, but I'm the humble type.

Well I can tell you that GOD OF WAR had meanting for me:

ARES= Sony, and work in general.
KRATOS= Me and anyone who has ambitions that take him away from his spirit and soul
FAMILY OF KRATOS= My family and anyone's family that is neglected for the sake of work

If you have not played GOD OF WAR and care about SPOILERS, stop reading:

Spoiler

So, Kratos kills his family because he is wrapped up in the tasks of Ares (i.e. WORK).

The whole game to me is about work taking over your soul and taking you away from the true pleasures of the soul and spirit (i.e. family).

Sounds pretty arty to me...but I'll be damned if anyone got it but me and the class at USC I explained it to a few months ago

I "got" that message playing through the game, but I wonder if that was because I've dabbled with a character design similar to Kratos before -- that I again have to take back to the drawing board because someone (understandably) beat me to to the punch. (shakes fist at Jaffe) And, of course, I have a character like that because I have those same underlying tendencies...

 

[jaundicejuice]

Dismissing games now, when the medium is still arguably in its infancy, would be like dimissing films back in the days of the Keystone Cops saying there's no way these silly moving pictures can capture the the beauty and emotive power of a classic painting, like say the Raft of the Medusa.

 

[miyuru]

I remember Miyamoto being asked if games should be considered art.

In short, he didn't think so.

 

[Ghengis Cohen]

What's The Sound and the Fury of videogames? Once there's a game or film that captures the emotional resonance of that novel, we'll talk.

Kiewlowski's Red, White and Blue trilogy is right up there to mention one example. As for games, not quite yet. But remember that The Sound and the Fury came some 300 years after the "birth" of the western novel, while movies are only approximately a century old. By those standards games are still inchoate.

 

[HokieJoe]

The problem is the industry keeps trying to shoehorn "cinema-style" narrative to videogames. It rarely works, because gamers want to play, rather than watch, games. I admit there are a few exceptions, but for the most part narrative and gameplay seem to have a tug of war with most modern games.

The artistic value in games don't necessarily come from the traditional linear narrative. They may come from a sense of freedom of expression and non-linearity the game gives you: rewarding creativity and curiosity. Mario 64 is most certainly art in this respect.

But who says that the game play can't be the narrative? IOW, how the game plays, how the game evolves, tells the story.

 

[Flo_Evans]

and if Miyamoto says it - it must be true?

I have no doubt that he sees games as toys for children. If someone is trying to make a toy for a child he will make a toy for a child. If an artist tries to make art, he will make art. But what if an artist makes a toy for a child? is that art?

 

[etiolate]

OK, serious response.

1. Ebert makes the mistake of trying to define art. You shouldn't do that. Sure, there's an textbook defitinion out there, but most artists don't even try to define art and normally art is left up to each individuals idea of what it is. In my view, art is the expression of imagination and feeling.

2. I don't really think Ebert means what he's saying. If he does, then he's either completely inept at observing his own media of expertise or absolutely ignorant of videogames to the Nth degree.

Why?

Because videogames have been influencing other forms of media for years. Music? The whistles and bleeps of modern music come straight from videogames. Beck remixed his songs to gameboy sounds, hip-hop borrows from games often, even Ben Folds I think snuck a snippet of Metroid music into one of his songs. If you listen to a band like Muse, you can hear what sounds like game music turned into rock. It's just ridiculous to think a generation that grew up on gaming would not be influenced by it and that's what art does. Art influences other forms of media. One movement spreads from one media to another, adapting and changing till there is a new movement. Videogames have done this.

You want a film example? The Matrix should be obvious. Do you think a film like The Matrix would exist without the world and culture of videogames? The stop motion phases, the flashy superhero fighting, the technology-look and feel. When people saw bullet time, what came to their head? What came to your head? Yeah, "that was like a videogame!" Now bullet time and super-move-fights and actions are common place and I think that's why Ebert says the things he does. He resents what they've done to film, and the shitty incarnations of games transfered into movies gives him a soap box to shout on. Ebert knows games have influenced modern media, he'd have to be an idiot to not notice it, but he doesn't like it. So he says they aren't art. He makes elitist statements that are old man rubbish, just to piss on games. He has to know that in years, videogame influence will take hold of more media and will eventually be acknowledged, but he'll be dead or retired by then, so why worry? Right now game influence is popularized and I admit not all of it is good. That's the fault of the industry for not being responsible for its own image. But it doesn't make videogames not an artistic expression. Of course, not all of them are, but not all books or movies are either.

edit: I am laughing at my own typo of rubbish as rubbush.

 

[Any1]

Well to be honest, whenever any other artform is required by more than one person to produce, craftmanship is involved because the exact true nature of the art is being interpreted and then reexpressed by the additional party involved.

So just as no video game can express the exact vision of the games author because of the players involvement, no film can either. Because the actor has to take the directors true vision and reinterpret it, ie. acting, into an approximation of the the directors original vision.

 

[blackadde]

and if Miyamoto says it - it must be true?

I have no doubt that he sees games as toys for children. If someone is trying to make a toy for a child he will make a toy for a child. If an artist tries to make art, he will make art. But what if an artist makes a toy for a child? is that art?

You tell me.

 

[CarlosX360]

Because videogames have been influencing other forms and media for years. Music? The whistles and bleeps of modern music come straight from videogames. Beck remixed his songs to gameboy sounds, hip-hop borrows from games often, even Ben Folds I think snuck a snippet of Metroid music into one of his songs. If you listen to a band like Muse, you can hear what sounds like game music turned into rock. It's just ridiculous to think a generation that grew up on gaming would not be influenced by it and that's what art does. Art influences other forms of media. One movement spreads from one media to another, adapting and changing till there is a new movement. Videogames have done this.

You want a film example? The Matrix should be obvious. Do you think a film like The Matrix would exist without the world and culture of videogames? The stop motion phases, the flashy superhero fighting, the technology-look and feel. When people saw bullet time, what came to their head? What came to your head? Yeah, "that was like a videogame!" Now bullet time and super-move-fights and actions are common place and I think that's why Ebert says the things he does. He resents what they've done to film, and the shitty incarnations of games transfered into movies gives him a soap box to shout on. Ebert knows games have influenced modern media, he'd have to be an idiot to not notice it, but he doesn't like it. So he says they aren't art. He makes elitist statements that are old man rubbush, just to piss on games. He has to know that in years, videogame influence will take hold of more media and will eventually be acknowledged, but he'll be dead or retired by then, so why worry? Right now game influence is popularized and I admit not all of it is good. That's the fault of the industry for not being responsible for it's own image. But it doesn't make videogames not an artistic expression. Of course, not all of them are, but not all books or movies are either.

Wow. Good post. Very good.

 

[Late Stage Marxist]

A game has never made me want to cry. At least not intentionally so. :lol

On one hand the guy has a point, on the other hand, just stick to what you know, Ebert!

I respect him as a film critic, but I think he's out of his element here.

 

[Flo_Evans]

You tell me.

That would depend on the person playing with the toy. I would say they are well designed blocks but to be considered art they would have to be arranged in a meaningfull way.

 

[White Man]

Kiewlowski's Red, White and Blue trilogy is right up there to mention one example. As for games, not quite yet. But remember that The Sound and the Fury came some 300 years after the "birth" of the western novel, while movies are only approximately a century old. By those standards games are still inchoate.

I'm willing to admit that certain movies can be considered art, but film is a profit-driven form that allows little room for independent, abstract, and/or artistic thinkers. What happened to Welles? Godard? Truffaut? Successful in critical circles but limited in what they could deliver due to the inability to capture a mass market. Gaming is even more profit driven. If you think you're going to see more original, "artistic" games in an era where each costs at least 20 million to develop, you're on crack. Say hello to God of War 3, Tony Hawk American Umpteen, and Halo Imoveunits.

Gaming isn't a field where an enthusiast creator could make a splash, like writing, painting, music, or to a more limited extent, film.

If you say the modern novel is only 300 years old, I give you Robinson Crusoe. 400, I point to Don Quixote. 500, More's Utopia. 600, the Canterbury Tales. Wherever you want to arbitrarilly say the novel started, there's a classic. And whatever arbitrary date you pick, there will always be classic poems and fragments that were made previously.

 

[blackadde]

That would depend on the person playing with the toy. I would say they are well designed blocks but to be considered art they would have to be arranged in a meaningfull way.

There are all kinds of conceptual artists whose work primarily resides in the realm of random interaction. The chance composition movement or John Cage, for example. Maybe you meant something along the lines of intent?

 

[Flo_Evans]

Michelangelo was paid to paint the Sistine Chapel is that not art?

 

[Ghengis Cohen]

If you say the modern novel is only 300 years old, I give you Robinson Crusoe. 400, I point to Don Quixote. 500, More's Utopia. 600, the Canterbury Tales. Wherever you want to arbitrarilly say the novel started, there's a classic. And whatever arbitrary date you pick, there will always be classic poems and fragments that were made previously.

I was talking about from Don Quixote to The Sound and the Fury, and I sad "birth" in quotes for a reason.

 

[White Man]

I was talking about from Don Quixote to The Sound and the Fury, and I sad "birth" in quotes for a reason.

I was kind of picking the Sound and the Fury randomly. It's my favorite 20th century novel that most people wouldn't argue about being a classic, next to that HIDEOS Gatsby, which I refuse to acknowledge.

 

[Mr_Furious]

Its art to the one who created it.

Or simply a paycheck

 

[Jonnyboy117]

Most games aren't high art, and most of us could probably agree on that. I think a few games are high art, though my ideas for which games achieve that status are probably different than quasi-interactive cinema like FF7 and MGS. I personally admire the art in game design itself, which has little to do with telling a story and everything to do with the psychology of gaming and how to manipulate that psychology to make a game immensely satisfying. See: Tetris. A film equivalent might be Kill Bill, which a friend of mine once described as "a drop-kick to the hypothallamus".

Games are a young medium and are making progress at a steady pace. What I fear is that proponents of games as art will continue to focus too much on production values and not on the interactive aspects that set games apart from media such as literature and film.

 

[Dan]

I'm willing to admit that certain movies can be considered art, but film is a profit-driven form that allows little room for independent, abstract, and/or artistic thinkers. What happened to Welles? Godard? Truffaut? Successful in critical circles but limited in what they could deliver due to the inability to capture a mass market. Gaming is even more profit driven. If you think you're going to see more original, "artistic" games in an era where each costs at least 20 million to develop, you're on crack. Say hello to God of War 3, Tony Hawk American Umpteen, and Halo Imoveunits.

Hollywood is profit driven, yes. If you think all of film is shallow and/or created only for monetary compensation, well, you're just not looking. There are whole fucking genres out there that you've never even heard of and will never make a dime. That's not even to mention non-narrative films, which you don't seem to consider. Just the fact that you seem to point to Welles, Godard and Truffaut as some kind of pinnacle of cinematic artistry... that's a pretty shallow and narrow-minded view of the medium.

If you're going to only consider mainstream products, well, it'll be no surprise when you find a lack of intellectual depth there, no matter what medium you're looking at.

 

[White Man]

What I fear is that proponents of games as art will continue to focus too much on production values and not on the interactive aspects that set games apart from media such as literature and film.

Interactivity makes videogames either a sport or a, well, game. Not a piece of art. How many board games would you call art? Is Dungeons and Dragons art? Flames of War?

 

[blackadde]

Tetris is an interesting example really ... it's sort of this completely abstract experience with no analog equivalent in the natural world. It lies completely within the realm of interactive media and is unimaginable in any other format, but it still provokes all these emotional responses from the observer/player.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Tetris is an interesting example really ... it's sort of this completely abstract experience with no analog equivalent in the natural world. It lies completely within the realm of interactive media and is unimaginable in any other format, but it still provokes all these emotional responses from the observer/player.

not really http://absolutist.com/tetris/tetris.html

 

[etiolate]

Interactivity makes videogames either a sport or a, well, game. Not a piece of art. How many board games would you call art? Is Dungeons and Dragons art? Flames of War?

But the interactivity could further story telling if done right, instead of done intrusively. Just as well a game's design could be a metaphor, if done right. They could express human experience and emotions through the game design.

Say you have a game in which your character starts out black and white, but the events in the game gradually add color to him. It would be a visual representation of a dynamic character, with colors representing actual meanings or events. Say your black and white character has a hat, when he kills a giant cat his hat turns blue. Then your character meets a girl, her name is Kat, perhaps she just loves cat and your character turns completely blue in a visual representation of guilt for what he's done, because the girl reminds him of the cat. Then these colors affect your character in actual gameplay mechanics, the blue makes you move slower. You deal with guilt through actual playing and have to overcome it to move normally again.

 

[White Man]

Say you have a game in which your character starts out black and white, but the events in the game gradually add color to him. It would be a visual representation of a dynamic character, with colors representing actual meanings or events. Say your black and white character has a hat, when he kills a giant cat his hat turns blue. Then your character meets a girl, her name is Kat, perhaps she just loves cat and your character turns completely blue in a visual representation of guilt for what he's done, because the girl reminds him of the cat. Then these colors affect your character in actual gameplay mechanics, the blue makes you move slower. You deal with guilt through actual playing and have to overcome it to move normally again.

But it's still interactive? Then it's still just a game.

 

[etiolate]

But it's still interactive? Then it's still just a game.

But that's not an expression of art?

 

[White Man]

But that's not an expression of art?

By similar logic, the flashing of your character after taking a hit in the NES Rygar signifies his struggle betweeh being and nothingness.

 

[Alcibiades]

Although Ebert may be old and not exposed to a wide range of modern videogames, it's hardly a case of complete ineptness.

I'm pretty sure he knows what games consists of and how players interact with them, and how beautiful they look and sound, but because of their nature of needing constant interaction sees them as fundamentally different from other mediums that CAN be viewed as art.

IIRC, he was praising the heck out of the PS2 back when it came out...

 

[Jonnyboy117]

Tetris is an interesting example really ... it's sort of this completely abstract experience with no analog equivalent in the natural world. It lies completely within the realm of interactive media and is unimaginable in any other format, but it still provokes all these emotional responses from the observer/player.

Bingo. The Absolutist link doesn't refute anything; much of what makes Tetris so special lies in the refinements and balancing that Pazhitnov incorporated.

Video games and board games and sports share much in common, and yes, I think the artistic interactivity that is possible and occasionally achieved in video games is possible in board games and sports as well. But due to the lack of physical restrictions in video games, the interactive possiblities are far greater. Furthermore, the demand for variety and sheer volume of unique video games leads to far more opportunities for game designers to create art within this field as opposed to the others.

 

[etiolate]

By similar logic, the flashing of your character after taking a hit in the NES Rygar signifies his struggle betweeh being and nothingness.

If it's intended, then it is, eh?

 

[Danthrax]

Someone needs to send Roger a GameCube and a copy of Metal Gear Solid, stat. Then we'll see what he thinks about interactive art.

 

[blackadde]

not really http://absolutist.com/tetris/tetris.html

I didn't say electronic media.

 

[Shompola]

Games have been an entertainment for me, they have never affected me in a philosophical way...

 

[Red Blaster]

Someone needs to send Roger a GameCube and a copy of Metal Gear Solid, stat. Then we'll see what he thinks about interactive art.

Errr...more like a PS2 and Silent Hill 2. Twin Snakes is for doo-doo heads anyway.