Roger Ebert: Games are an inferior medium

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Games are a superior medium.

[Xard]

lol no

[Pidesco]

Games are a superior medium.

 

Superior to what?

[Hurlshort]

Heh, games won't be a superior medium until they stop relying on violence all the time. Seriously, the market is saturated with games that are all about you going around and blowing stuff up. Gameplay needs to be expanded past this stage if games ever want to break out of the young male demographic. I'm not saying it's bad to have these games, but it shouldn't be 90% of releases.

 

I'd say the Wii has the best chance of releasing a truly artistic game over the next couple years. It has the ability to create a unique gameplay experience.

[Tale]

Heh, games won't be a superior medium until they stop relying on violence all the time. Seriously, the market is saturated with games that are all about you going around and blowing stuff up. Gameplay needs to be expanded past this stage if games ever want to break out of the young male demographic. I'm not saying it's bad to have these games, but it shouldn't be 90% of releases.

 

I'd say the Wii has the best chance of releasing a truly artistic game over the next couple years. It has the ability to create a unique gameplay experience.

So, what you're saying is that games are already a superior medium to film?

 

There's a ton of games that don't rely on violence all the time. Just because they're not the hyped up big sellers out of the big US studios doesn't mean they don't exist. Just the same as the same can't be said of movies.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Tale

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

lol no

 

As a medium, yes.

[Xard]

Uhh, no

[Tale]

You're an inferior medium, Xard.

[Xard]

I guess

[Hurlshort]

Heh, games won't be a superior medium until they stop relying on violence all the time. Seriously, the market is saturated with games that are all about you going around and blowing stuff up. Gameplay needs to be expanded past this stage if games ever want to break out of the young male demographic. I'm not saying it's bad to have these games, but it shouldn't be 90% of releases.

 

I'd say the Wii has the best chance of releasing a truly artistic game over the next couple years. It has the ability to create a unique gameplay experience.

So, what you're saying is that games are already a superior medium to film?

 

There's a ton of games that don't rely on violence all the time. Just because they're not the hyped up big sellers out of the big US studios doesn't mean they don't exist. Just the same as the same can't be said of movies.

 

Wow, it doesn't seem like you really read my post. I know there are non violent games out there, but I doubt they account for much more than 10% of the market. Movies have developed their non-violent genres to a much greater degree. Yes, popcorn movies are huge and sell well, but they are are rarely considered artful. I'd say maybe 25% of movies rely on violence to push the plot forward. Keep in mind, 85% of statistics are made up. And it's not just about violence, it's the use of violence. Bioshock is an artful game, but I've still spent a lot of time killing very similiar creatures over and over again. That puts it a lot closer to a standard horror flick then it does Apocalypse Now.

 

I'm not saying games aren't art, I'm just saying they have a long way to go before they fit that "fine art" definition. They definitely aren't a superior medium, although they have the potential to be. But games need to break out of their demographic on a more consistent basis. As it is now, the appeal of games is too limited to teenage boys.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Heh, games won't be a superior medium until they stop relying on violence all the time. Seriously, the market is saturated with games that are all about you going around and blowing stuff up. Gameplay needs to be expanded past this stage if games ever want to break out of the young male demographic. I'm not saying it's bad to have these games, but it shouldn't be 90% of releases.

 

I'd say the Wii has the best chance of releasing a truly artistic game over the next couple years. It has the ability to create a unique gameplay experience.

So, what you're saying is that games are already a superior medium to film?

 

There's a ton of games that don't rely on violence all the time. Just because they're not the hyped up big sellers out of the big US studios doesn't mean they don't exist. Just the same as the same can't be said of movies.

 

Wow, it doesn't seem like you really read my post. I know there are non violent games out there, but I doubt they account for much more than 10% of the market. Movies have developed their non-violent genres to a much greater degree. Yes, popcorn movies are huge and sell well, but they are are rarely considered artful. I'd say maybe 25% of movies rely on violence to push the plot forward. Keep in mind, 85% of statistics are made up. And it's not just about violence, it's the use of violence. Bioshock is an artful game, but I've still spent a lot of time killing very similiar creatures over and over again. That puts it a lot closer to a standard horror flick then it does Apocalypse Now.

 

I'm not saying games aren't art, I'm just saying they have a long way to go before they fit that "fine art" definition. They definitely aren't a superior medium, although they have the potential to be. But games need to break out of their demographic on a more consistent basis. As it is now, the appeal of games is too limited to teenage boys.

 

Farenheit.

 

Another World.

[Tale]

Heh, games won't be a superior medium until they stop relying on violence all the time. Seriously, the market is saturated with games that are all about you going around and blowing stuff up. Gameplay needs to be expanded past this stage if games ever want to break out of the young male demographic. I'm not saying it's bad to have these games, but it shouldn't be 90% of releases.

 

I'd say the Wii has the best chance of releasing a truly artistic game over the next couple years. It has the ability to create a unique gameplay experience.

So, what you're saying is that games are already a superior medium to film?

 

There's a ton of games that don't rely on violence all the time. Just because they're not the hyped up big sellers out of the big US studios doesn't mean they don't exist. Just the same as the same can't be said of movies.

 

Wow, it doesn't seem like you really read my post. I know there are non violent games out there, but I doubt they account for much more than 10% of the market. Movies have developed their non-violent genres to a much greater degree. Yes, popcorn movies are huge and sell well, but they are are rarely considered artful. I'd say maybe 25% of movies rely on violence to push the plot forward. Keep in mind, 85% of statistics are made up. And it's not just about violence, it's the use of violence. Bioshock is an artful game, but I've still spent a lot of time killing very similiar creatures over and over again. That puts it a lot closer to a standard horror flick then it does Apocalypse Now.

 

I'm not saying games aren't art, I'm just saying they have a long way to go before they fit that "fine art" definition. They definitely aren't a superior medium, although they have the potential to be. But games need to break out of their demographic on a more consistent basis. As it is now, the appeal of games is too limited to teenage boys.

 

And it doesn't seem like you think about your post. Made up statistics don't make points. Nor does the selective reasoning that killing similar creatures over and over again between and during narrative points of an 18 hour game compared to a 2-3 hour movie somehow denies the classification of art and fine art. There is nothing about the definition of "fine art" that excludes things that attract through the use of action.

 

Fine art is actually a very open consideration if you ignore the definitions that are exclusive to the medium and focus on the ones that say it's specifically about being intentionally appealing to the sense. If you can honestly say the existence of action in Bioshock somehow denies the existence of beautiful scenery and sound within it, then, and only then, you can say it does not fit the definition of fine art.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Tale

[Pidesco]

Fahrenheit was definitely an attempt to create gaming art, but it kind of fell on its ass. The action sequences felt completely detached from the rest of the game, the necrophilia came out of nowhere, seemingly just to make the game seem mature, and the story imploded halfway through.

[Tale]

I thought Fahrenheit was a pretentious attempt at creating an interactive movie from the wrong direction.

 

Crappy art, but still art.

[Pidesco]

Exactly.

 

Edit: moved.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Pidesco

[Tale]

I find it odd people speak of Fahrenheit as art as if that's to convince anyone that games can be art. Not speaking specifically of Nightshade's mention of it, as this is not the first time I've seen someone do it. But, considering some people feel that art has to have a genguine message, I found Fahrenheit to be one of the shallowest games I've played in quite some time. Mayans and an AI trying to take over the world using the secret of the meaning of life does not strike me as having even the slightest bit of a real philosophy driving it. What message am I supposed to take from that? The only message I caught from that game was at the very end. **** happens.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Tale

[Pidesco]

What annoys me about it, though, is that it was considered by game reviewers a great step forward for the genre. I mean, how is gaming going to move forward as a medium if just the smallest of steps forward is automatically hailed a some sort of revolution

 

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/fahrenheit

[Tale]

I can only suspect many of those reviewers didn't get to the end of the game where it just turns into the Matrix for paranoid schizophrenics. It starts off with lots of little things you can do to change things, but they all turn out superficial.

 

The concept art for the purple clan is badass, though.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Tale

[Zero]

I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. 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.

 

Some oddities regarding Ebert's comment though is that he doesn't talk about the great painters or sculptors , but he does mention the dramatists (etc.). And then he says "That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience".

 

So does he mean art in his personal opinion? Or art in some kind of narrative sense? That the narration part of games are akin to craftsmanship. But that the visual part can achieve the same level as "art" found in museums. Which leaves him either with contradictory statements ( that it lacks the ability to move beyond craftsmanship but he accepts it can aspire to artistic importance visually), or he is referring to his personal definition in which he leaves out Piccasso, DeKooning, Monet, Michelangelo, etc.

 

edit: I realize the conversation has veered in another direction, but I'm curious about this none-the-less.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Zero

[Tale]

I think that's largely because as time goes by we become more elitist about what we consider art. Look at all the great artists of time. How many are alive today? Bringing up anyone contemporary is often met with scorn.

 

Perhaps it's more that the gameplay overshadows it in games. As with Hurlshot speaking constantly of violence as something hindering games' status, it's possible a many people ignore the culture, civilization, and empathy for the more immediate results of having control.

 

Of course, I've also heard very few filmmakers compared to poets. Few composers compared to novelists. Does the difference in the mediums prevent the comparison? I think it's a reasonable consideration.

 

Personally, I've been more than willing, as have others, to make comparisons between much of Metal Gear Solid and modern cinema. Silent Hill 4's opening sequence was incredible from a cinematography point of view. But games are more than these cinematic scenes. Is this perhaps part of the consideration Ebert has? That the narratives present in games and scenes within them are "art" if not for the periods of gameplay in between?

 

Or is it simply the elitism that is bred by comparison with the classics that keeps it from achieving the distinction in his mind?

Edited August 27, 2007 by Tale

[Pidesco]

It seems to me that the gaming industry is suffering from escalating production costs exacerbated by lightning fast technological progress. This stifles the more creative and artistic approaches to gaming because the smaller, independent game developers can't compete in any way with the big development houses. I guess the situation will only improve when technological advancement slows down to a crawl, and the development of games gets cheaper because of it. Right now, there's just to much of a difference in terms of production quality between a well funded mainstream project, and a small independent game.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Fahrenheit wasnt more art than your average hollywood film, I doubt the designer had any ambition but to make an entertaining game that stood out a bit from the rest.

[Slowtrain]

I think Hurlshot does have a valid point though.

 

I remember showing some game I was playing that I thought was pretty cool to one of my friends. She watched me play for a while, marveled at some of the sight and sounds and dialogues for a bit (she knows nothing about computer ganmes at all), then fell silent. After a while she said, "Isn't there something else to do besides kill things?" And I was like, well no, its a computer game. She walked away at that point, bored. lol.

 

I don't think art can't be violent; much of life is very violent, but the violence has to have some resonance, some meaning, which computer games tend to lack. The violence is pretty sanitary and ultimately pointless.

[Pidesco]

Fahrenheit wasnt more art than your average hollywood film, I doubt the designer had any ambition but to make an entertaining game that stood out a bit from the rest.

 

I can't remember if it was in the full game or in the demo, but before the game starts, Fahrenheit's creator gives a little speech. I don't recall the exact words, but it made it seem like the developers were really trying to push the envelope.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Fahrenheit wasnt more art than your average hollywood film, I doubt the designer had any ambition but to make an entertaining game that stood out a bit from the rest.

 

It's an attempt atleast from my perspective, the result isn't anything more than your average hollywood movie.

 

May I add that both games I mentioned are french...