Roger Ebert: Games are an inferior medium

[Slowtrain]

Regardless of whether the argument actually holds any water or not, does Ebert-dawg even know the first thing about games?

 

 

Wait, are you suggesting that Roger Ebert does not KNOW Dak'kon?

 

How then can he KNOW himself?

 

Well, I am sure he has at least a working knowledge of the Red Wizards of Thay,

[Krookie]

Regardless of whether the argument actually holds any water or not, does Ebert-dawg even know the first thing about games?

 

He probably knows games that get a lot of media attention. And I don't mean the type of media gamers tune in to. I mean games like GTA and Manhunt. Sure, I could understand if he said something like "Manhunt isn't art! It's just brutal violence!" (which can still be art, mind you). But I bet if I took a screenshot of the first time you see Rapture, as the whale swims buy, and emailed it to him, he'd poop his pants, cause it's one of the most imaginative things I've seen in a long time.

[Blarghagh]

Ebert may say "autorial control", but a movie's success is still the way the audience chooses (whether consciously or subconsciously) to interpret it. It's still all about choice.

 

But how are game designers not in control of their game?

[kirottu]

But how are game designers not in control of their game?

 

I was wondering that too. Everything that happens in a game happens within rules and regulations of game engine.

[Blarghagh]

Except for glitches, which are roughly equatable to, for example, seeing the boom mic in the screen.

[Walsingham]

Aaaagh! It's too intelligent! I'm melting!

[Tale]

Tale: Roger Ebert is a large inferior.

[Meshugger]

War is art.

Sex is art.

Chaos is art.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Video-games are NOT art.

 

Simple thinking rules.

Edited August 20, 2007 by Meshugger

[Tigranes]

That's some thought going on right there.

[Zero]

I think that pretty much says it. If Black Square is considered art, why the heck isn't a black square with some white squares considered arts?

 

Unless I'm wrong I'm pretty sure the main reason The Black Square was considered art was because Malevich placed in room (I forget the specifics) in the top right corner, where typically the cross was placed (in Russia at the time, I believe). And his statement was that it(the Black Square) was of much worth worshipping as the Cross was.

 

Which I think is part of where games fail; they ultimately don't have much to say. I don't believe many developers really try. Look at Gears of War and Mass Effect( from the impression I get) or any major game; most of them are trying to be the BEST or coolest.. but are the creators really emotionally involved with the message of game?

 

Imo, ICO is probably the closest in terms of being art... and mainly in sorta surrealist fashion(not quite the right description, though). Shadow of Colossus expanding on the plot and adding to the combat took away from the surrealism that allows ICO to be argued for.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Zero

[Tigranes]

Which I think is part of where games fail; they ultimately don't have much to say. I don't believe many developers really try.

 

But the point is, they *can* have a lot to say if and when the developers try and the consumers receive it that way. It is fundamentally flawed to claim that video games are inherently and forever incapable of 'having much to say'.

 

Besides, look at all the 'postmodern' or 'performance' art that is out there: a lot of it I would consider either ineffective, pointless, vain or just not worthy of attention (for me). I would argue that the vanity and pretence has taken a lot away from art in the last couple of centuries, to the point that I consider its apparent 'multiple layers of meaning' pointless and ridiculous. If someone makes some art using, I don't know, twenty litres of cow blood (I'm sure someone did something like this a few years ago, I just forget), then it's some poitn about animals or life or humans or existentialism or whatever.... I don't really think that has a lot to say, and I don't really think it deserves any sort of attention.

 

I suppose you could just say some art is just 'bad'. But that just means there aren't many 'good' video games in terms of 'art' out yet. Still to come.

[Tale]

What was the message of the Mona Lisa? Or is that not art, Zero?

 

If you've played a game that intended to be more than SHOOTAN GAME, then you've probably experienced a game with a message. If you want to look only at games like Gears of War, Grand Theft Auto, and Dead Rising, of course you're going to end up having a difficult time finding anything in there that's more than about action. You're playing a bleeding action game, good luck finding a deeper message in Die Hard.

 

And heck, the black square itself isn't a message about the cross. It was the event of placing it that had the message. If I throw up a quarter onto the steeple of a roof and ask people to worship it, the art of what I'm doing isn't kept in the quarter when I bring it back down.

 

I don't know what's worse, shallow gamers or pretentious artists.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Tale

[Zero]

What was the message of the Mona Lisa? Or is that not art, Zero?

 

I didn't care for it when I saw it in person, a lot of people don't. The aristocracy determined a great deal of what is art, and their legacy lasted because they had power.

 

If you've played a game that intended to be more than SHOOTAN GAME, then you've probably experienced a game with a message. If you want to look only at games like Gears of War, Grand Theft Auto, and Dead Rising, of course you're going to end up having a difficult time finding anything in there that's more than about action. You're playing a bleeding action game, good luck finding a deeper message in Die Hard.

 

Convenient you forget that I mention ICO. Is Mass Effect a pure shooter? No.. But games are dominated by violence. Thats the whole point. Movies and other mediums allow for other messages to seep in. Games mostly require a certain technology that costs money, that motivates them to cater only towards a certain standard. With some deviation on occasion. Usually seen aesthetically.

 

There are tons of bad movies out there motivated equally by greed; entertaining ones too. But the technology itself doesn't make it impossible for more "experimental" works to be produced. Games its much harder to do. That is if you want the immersion big budgets allow. Low-Budget movie, you wont get special effects, but you get the world around you and actors( you don't need modellers and artists to do that).

 

And heck, the black square itself isn't a message about the cross. It was the event of placing it that had the message.

Did I say that? No. I said it was because Malevich placed it where the cross was placed. Did I ever say it wasn't about the event? I seemed to be pointing it out.

 

I don't know what's worse, shallow gamers or pretentious artists.

wtf did I say that warranted insulting?

Edited August 21, 2007 by Zero

[thepixiesrock]

It was either your shallowness, or your pretentiousness. Or both!

[Tigranes]

I didn't care for it when I saw it in person, a lot of people don't. The aristocracy determined a great deal of what is art, and their legacy lasted because they had power.

 

Precisely. And because of this social context, many people then and afterwards began to approach the Mona Lisa *presuming* that it was art, *presuming* it had a deeper meaning and those who did not see it were simply shallow or stupid. What if some 'aristocracy' or whatever determined the same context about video games? Then wouldn't people talk pretentiously (or more than now) about the artistic merits and deeper meaning behind Torment? How the seeming simpleness of platform games represents deeper psychological truths about humanity?

 

But games are dominated by violence.

 

1. How does this derive games of meaning? Is violence inherently not artistic?

2. Films are dominated by romantic subplots, by stereotypical characters, by 'climax' scenes that either feature gratuitous violence or sex or both, and are obsessed with numerous other conventions that could hardly be called 'artistic' by someone like Ebert.

 

Anyway, the Malevich point that Tale made is entirely compatible with your rebuttal, Zero. The whole point is that art is only art in the context that we have prepared for art; and if the same kind of context was made for video games - which is entirely possible - then you will see people who are unaware of this mechanism, such as Ebert, happily warp on about the artistic merits of games.

[Tale]

Convenient you forget that I mention ICO.

Why should I mention Ico? You actually were using Ico against your own argument.

 

Is Mass Effect a pure shooter? No..

You know barely anything about Mass Effect to judget its artistic merits.

 

But games are dominated by violence. Thats the whole point.

It's a whole moot point.

 

Movies and other mediums allow for other messages to seep in.

Which has nothing to do with movies or other mediums. Games allow for other messages to seep in too.

 

Games mostly require a certain technology that costs money, that motivates them to cater only towards a certain standard. With some deviation on occasion. Usually seen aesthetically.

So, the requirement of technology somehow takes away from a message in narrative or presentation? I guess any movie with sound not shot on black and white is only catering "towards a certain standard." My counter is just as nonsensical as this supposed point.

 

There are tons of bad movies out there motivated equally by greed; entertaining ones too. But the technology itself doesn't make it impossible for more "experimental" works to be produced. Games its much harder to do. That is if you want the immersion big budgets allow. Low-Budget movie, you wont get special effects, but you get the world around you and actors( you don't need modellers and artists to do that).

Movies cost around the same as as games to produce. And big-budget films are even more derivative than big-budget games.

 

Did I say that? No. I said it was because Malevich placed it where the cross was placed. Did I ever say it wasn't about the event? I seemed to be pointing it out.

You were using it as an argument for why it is art in a way of excluding games. Because games don't have a "message." It's a pretentious argument.

 

wtf did I say that warranted insulting?

I wasn't specifically talking about you. However, your entire argument consists of shallow games lack artistry because of an inane consideration of technology. It seems like it's little more than to justify keeping fine arts on a pedestal. An argument seen in this thread a few times before yours, only differing in the content, but not the lack of genuine support. Same references to shallow games and supposed messages of "deeper" art.

[Zero]

Thank you thepixiesrock, I really appreciate your support

 

Quick question for you Tigranes, do you really want my opinion on the matter? I have one going through my head but not yet fully articulated. I'm not an expert in this area, but I do have some answers.... But if you don't really want an answer or response, and were just making a point. I won't because I don't want to be semi-attacked again for something I didn't mean any harm in posting in the first place.

[thepixiesrock]

Hey guys, he appreciates my support.

[Zero]

Convenient you forget that I mention ICO.

Why should I mention Ico? You actually were using Ico against your own argument.

 

Not quite... Ico didn't have anything clear to say.

 

You know barely anything about Mass Effect to judget its artistic merits.

 

I know that you play as John Shepard the first human spectre. There is a race called the asari, blue women, who reproduce asexually. Greg and Casey have used 24's Jack Bauer as a model for their protagonist. The main plot revolves around spectre agent gone rogue called Saren. He is a ruthless turian who has been transformed in the prequel by a ship, which now allows him to control a robot race created known as the geth created by the Quarians- humanoids who have wider hips ,longer necks, and only 3 fingers. You can play as one of 6 classes, and potentially upgrade to one of 6 other classes if ,according to Chris Priestly, you are able to find them.

 

Saren also despises the human race, because his brother was killed in the Turian-Human war that occured prior to the game. There is a very in-depth facial construction system as recently displayed in a 1up video. If you want more information feel free to ask.

 

I haven't seen the end product, but I wouldn't say I know nothing. I've been following it and look forward to playing it.

 

Movies cost around the same as as games to produce. And big-budget films are even more derivative than big-budget games.

 

I would argue most movies aren't art, first. Second I think you're right, but can't movie studios stand to take more risks and invest a few million in more off-beat productions, whereas game companies don't have that huge bank account to fall back on? By game companies I mean the ones actually making the games (not nintendo, sony, or microsoft; as the behemoths they are)

 

This is an honest question. I might be wrong on this.

 

You were using it as an argument for why it is art in a way of excluding games. Because games don't have a "message." It's a pretentious argument.

*sigh* It sounded that way. This is the problem with message boards , you don't get a good feel for intention.

 

I was trying to clarify why it was considered art by the institutions. Because that guy who posted the pong picture seemed like he didn't know why.

 

I wasn't specifically talking about you. However, your entire argument consists of shallow games lack artistry because of an inane consideration of technology. It seems like it's little more than to justify keeping fine arts on a pedestal. An argument seen in this thread a few times before yours, only differing in the content, but not the lack of genuine support. Same references to shallow games and supposed messages of "deeper" art.

 

My argument is more complex than that. And I don't think games are incapable of being art. When I used the term games, I meant games that have been made thus far. For the record I don't put fine arts on a pedestal.

 

In my opinion, I'd actually argue being a game developer is a higher pursuit. If there is no god or meaning in this world. Than I would say aspiring to bring enjoyment or fun to players is a much higher pursuit than expressing a message that ultimately means nothing and will fade with time.

 

When I explained that painting, I wasn't attempting to give a value judgement. I was just trying to help inform why the instituitions think its art. That was all.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Zero

[Tigranes]

Quick question for you Tigranes, do you really want my opinion on the matter? I have one going through my head but not yet fully articulated. I'm not an expert in this area, but I do have some answers.... But if you don't really want an answer or response, and were just making a point. I won't because I don't want to be semi-attacked again for something I didn't mean any harm in posting in the first place.

 

Of course my aim is to make a point: and I think I have articulated it reasonably by now: so feel free to reply to it directly. Tale isnt' really attacking you either, though you seem to be taking it that way. I am always interested in well-articulated, reasonable opinions. I don't really think you're being pretentious, either: my use of the word wasn't directed at anyone, you may notice, except perhaps Ebert.

 

I know that you play as John Shepard the first human spectre. There is a race called the asari, blue women, who reproduce asexually. Greg and Casey have used 24's Jack Bauer as a model for their protagonist. The main plot revolves around spectre agent gone rogue called Saren. He is a ruthless turian who has been transformed in the prequel by a ship, which now allows him to control a robot race created known as the geth created by the Quarians- humanoids who have wider hips ,longer necks, and only 3 fingers. You can play as one of 6 classes, and potentially upgrade to one of 6 other classes if ,according to Chris Priestly, you are able to find them.

 

Saren also despises the human race, because his brother was killed in the Turian-Human war that occured prior to the game. There is a very in-depth facial construction system as recently displayed in a 1up video. If you want more information feel free to ask.

 

I haven't seen the end product, but I wouldn't say I know nothing. I've been following it and look forward to playing it.

 

Of course, but what I think Tale means is that we don't really know much about what kind of 'message' it could have, if it could have 'artistic' merits in terms of what we popularly think. I mean, all that information you have just listed? Right now they can be the ingredients of a very 'artistic' product that an Ebert might approve of, or just a cheap sci-fi hack that to someone like him possesses no artistic value whatsoever. We don't know yet from that kind of information. Remember, I could just as easily reduce Mona Lisa to "some lady with a weird face" and Romeo & Juliet to "two youths whose marriages are not approved of". I'm not saying you are being reductive: I am saying that what Tale probably means is, that kind of information isn't conducive to judging, say, ME's artistic values.

 

whereas game companies don't have that huge bank account to fall back on?

 

Just so you know, the main case isn't whether games are art now, but whether games as a medium is *capable* of producing art in the future, provided the right social and economic contexts (and whether those contexts could ever be generated). Ebert is saying no, never, as the medium itself is flawed; I'm saying that's a load of crap and we could and probably will see 'artistic' games emerge more and more within the next 2 or 3 decades. Which is why...

 

My argument is more complex than that. And I don't think games are incapable of being art.

 

...you probably agree with me on the main point. If I get you rightly, you are saying that right now, video games as a medium aren't really art because A) the economic forces are too geared to profit by entertainment, B) the devs and the consumers don't take it as art?

[Zero]

Tale isnt' really attacking you either, though you seem to be taking it that way.

 

I believe he is. The comment about the Mona Lisa, the bit about having a pretentious arguement. Taking the time to pick apart everything I say. I'd say yeah he is.

 

I am saying that what Tale probably means is, that kind of information isn't conducive to judging, say, ME's artistic values.

 

He meant I was a intellectual poser who knew nothing of the subject matter. Maybe thats true. But thats what he meant. Elsewise he would have said "You shouldn't judge it before it comes out." .

 

Imo, ME has shot itself in the foot if it wants to be considered art in this modern society. Its not undermining its subject matter (ala Commodity critics). It has a writer who does Star Wars pulp books. There is a lot there for people to dismiss it.

I haven't played Bioshock. But I can say it has a lot going for it. They didn't try to brand their character as if he were special (as Bioware has) which would open him up to criticism/scrutiny. And they are addressing an intellectual movement considered relevant to the outside world. Also they factor in the fact its a game and use emergent gameplay as part of the overall package (little sisters and how the player deals with them). As opposed to ,seemingly, evoking another mediums cinematic quality- which the Bioware guys seem to focus a lot on in their interviews.

 

 

...you probably agree with me on the main point. If I get you rightly, you are saying that right now, video games as a medium aren't really art because A) the economic forces are too geared to profit by entertainment, B) the devs and the consumers don't take it as art?

 

I'd agree with A. But B , I'm not really sure about. The Bioware guys stated they think Mass Effect will solve the arguement whether games are art or not once and for all. Maybe I have a little grudge because that comment struck me as pompous. Especially when you go to their boards and you see how their marketing strategy is alienating female gamers and a lot of people who don't want to play as their character. Perhaps its clouded my vision...

 

and maybe I don't even know what I'm talking about in that regard and maybe the Bioshock guys said the same thing.. I don't know for sure.. I accept I might be a complete intellectual inferior who just isn't a good judge of reality. I have theories on the questions you asked about violence and about cultural vantage points; but I don't think there of much value.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Zero

[Tigranes]

I believe he is. The comment about the Mona Lisa, the bit about having a pretentious arguement. Taking the time to pick apart everything I say. I'd say yeah he is.

 

He's picking apart everything you say IMO because he's discussing the subject. I mean, I'm doing the same aren't I? Besides which, if he thinks your argument is pretentious, then he thinks it is pretentious. But if you take it as personal insult, then don't bother replying to him, better than a flame war.

 

Imo, ME has shot itself in the foot if it wants to be considered art in this modern society. Its not undermining its subject matter (ala Commodity critics). It has a writer who does Star Wars pulp books. There is a lot there for people to dismiss it.

I haven't played Bioshock. But I can say it has a lot going for it. They didn't try to brand their character as if he were special (as Bioware has) which would open him up to criticism/scrutiny. And they are addressing an intellectual movement considered relevant to the outside world. Also they factor in the fact its a game and use emergent gameplay as part of the overall package (little sisters and how the player deals with them). As opposed to ,seemingly, evoking another mediums cinematic quality- which the Bioware guys seem to focus a lot on in their interviews.

 

Isn't that your personal opinion, though? I would presonally suggest that Bioshock is being way too pretentious for the kind of game it is and it doesn't really strike me. It's like someone who isn't very good at painting suggesting his faces have a million different complex meanings behind them. I think both will achieve a similar effect - a pretty good game that some might consider has 'art-imitation' or 'pseudo-intellectual' qualities.

 

The Bioware guys stated they think Mass Effect will solve the arguement whether games are art or not once and for all. Maybe I have a little grudge because that comment struck me as pompous.

 

Oh, they did? Well, 50% of that is probably PR, but I wouldn't agree with their assessment either. If I can expand on B), basically the context we are within is that games are not generally considered art or even art-istic by most people, and there is an impetus within certain sectors of fans and devs who *want* to push for an art-istic recognition of games. The problem with Bioware's approach for me is that its technical methodology (i.e. cinematic style) I feel is mistaken and cheapening, and the focus away from traditional styles of video game writing to a movie-style one is frankly depressing, whether in terms of dialogue writing, scene writing or story writing.

[Zero]

Just so you know, the main case isn't whether games are art now, but whether games as a medium is *capable* of producing art in the future, provided the right social and economic contexts (and whether those contexts could ever be generated). Ebert is saying no, never, as the medium itself is flawed; I'm saying that's a load of crap and we could and probably will see 'artistic' games emerge more and more within the next 2 or 3 decades. Which is why...

 

Ok well that clears things up a bit. If games progress to the point of Virtual Reality; than it could transcend any current medium. The designers would have authoritorial control over how the game reacts to each individual; and if the AI is smart enough it will tailor itself to the player. Scary and exciting.

 

As for games as we currently know them. We might get some games that fit Ebert's definition; the main reason being that games are more and more mainstream. The more mainstream something is the more people get interested; develop careers. We will get more specialists in the gaming field- those who grew up with games and have their own idea on how to exploit the medium.

 

I was surprised when I saw LittleBigPlanet ; it was one of the few games that I saw that actually excited me in quite a while. But it doesn't fit Eberts doctrine of art. It might fit mine.

 

1. How does this derive games of meaning? Is violence inherently not artistic?

Not inherently. Problem I see are mainly in that designers often use it as the primary mode of play, and we don't feel the full force of the deaths we have inflicted. Whereas the supposedly great novels and movies; we either get a sense from the protagonist of how it has changed him or we see how the death has changed the world.

 

 

2. Films are dominated by romantic subplots, by stereotypical characters, by 'climax' scenes that either feature gratuitous violence or sex or both, and are obsessed with numerous other conventions that could hardly be called 'artistic' by someone like Ebert.

 

 

A lot of movies are bad... by my standards a least. Some entertaining, very very few leave an impression on me. You've seen avant garde stuff, so I'm guessing you've seen everything. But what climaxes have both gratuitous violence and sex at the same? OldBoy is the closest I can think of and maybe.... Strange Days.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Zero

[Tigranes]

Will reply in detail later, but:

 

But what climaxes have both gratuitous violence and sex at the same?

 

The Classic Hollywood Narrative involves a resolution of the romantic subplot either just before or after the main climax; the resolution often involves either sex or some sort of alluring scene; the main climax also involves violence. In some subsets sex comes early and causes the rift, while for example the 'vehicle chase' has become a staple feature in many action films. Doesn't really need to have both at the same time, but the point is that such things have become nearly 'necessary' for many films. I love historical epics for example; but I hate seeing violent encounters in them because they are done so poorly and their conventions encourage a transplantation of action movie / Western hero messages onto the historical situation. Equally do I hate romantic subplots in historical epics (*shudder* Alexander).

[Zero]

I would presonally suggest that Bioshock is being way too pretentious for the kind of game it is and it doesn't really strike me. It's like someone who isn't very good at painting suggesting his faces have a million different complex meanings behind them. I think both will achieve a similar effect - a pretty good game that some might consider has 'art-imitation' or 'pseudo-intellectual' qualities.

 

Having played through it, I kinda agree with you now. Though pretentious seems like too strong of a word.

 

I'm partly replying to bump this thread, because I wasn't sure if you had more to say on the subject and couldn't double post(if thats the case with this forum or not).

Edited August 25, 2007 by Zero