Ebert Re-Emphasizes That Games Will Never Be Art

[tkioz]

Critics as a rule, can lick my hairy bum cheeks.

Note I'm not talking about reviewers like the ones on the Escapist, I'm talking about critics, in my mind there is a vital distinction between the two, a reviewer gives his opinion, presents information, and makes recommendations.

A Critic is suppose to do that as well, but you know what? Most of them don't present an opinion, they pass that opinion off as fact. Most critics are so buried in their prejudices that they can't even envision that they might be wrong, how many of us have watched a Sci-Fi or Fantasy or other "genre" film and enjoyed the hell out of it, only to later see a "main stream" critic utterly pan it, while heaping accolades on films that are about as enjoyable to watch as watching paint dry.

These critics then claim that anyone who enjoyed a movie like that must have "bad taste" and that they should enjoy some art house flick about some dude who likes to watch grasshoppers mate.

To me a review should be about the audience, will the audience enjoy the product being reviewed, not what the critic thinks about the latest camera trick.

While I'm the subject I'm so completely and utterly sick of TV and Movies about actors, directors, and other film industry people, it's pathetic public masturbation at it's worse.

Oh and Yahtzee is the only critic that I exempt for my above rant for two reasons, a) I'm afraid of him and his fanboys, and more importantly b) he's actually funny

 

[samsonguy920]

Anything I say will be said again by everyone. One man's opinion is not the world, and To Be Honest, Braid is art, and I find Portal to be Art as well. Thats just how good they are.

Calumon: Who is this silly man and why should care?

Roger Ebert's opinions never meant a whiff to me, the only thing that caused me to watch something with him was because Siskel was there. Ebert is the standing gold example of why movie critics are a joke, and their job is completely without merit or use to the world. If they all disappeared, the only thing people would notice is the silence.
I find many games to be art, and chess is a very good example. It is no wonder that Ebert picked Bobby Fischer as an example, since Bobby Fischer is himself a self-involved nitwit that many people forgot.
But in the end, Calumon, the answer really is: no one, and no reason. Bert stands by you in your indifference.

Ebert is no lightweight, dismissing him outright will get you nowhere. He is probably the best and most influential film critic of recent American history and his opinions have weight, just dismissing him with "You're wrong Braid/Bioshock/Pong is art" is, well, an insufficient tact to take.

So, I've read this article and I might blow your mind because, while I don't necessarily agree with him I can see where he is coming from. Really, I can see why he said what he said about Braid, it's easy to say "of course it's art, look at all that creative prose and those impressionistic backgrounds and beautiful soundtrack", but that doesn't make it a game that is art, that makes it a game that has art in it. For the game to be art, the actual act of playing it has to be artistic...as in if you stripped out all the beautiful art and great soundtrack and "great" prose and played it with stick figures on a black background would that be an artistic communication...to that end I wouldn't necessarily disagree that Braid doesn't really communicate the idea of "time, decision, and the human condition"
IMO, what Ebert is really saying is that the game part of this, the interaction with the work, is not reaching a point of art. If you see art as a communication of a point to an audience, well, I don't think gaming has necessarily learned how to do that yet...games like Braid and Silent Hill 2 are on the right rack, but are still more accurately described as gameplay connecting pieces of art.

That said...I think he's being overly strict. Sure, you could say that movies aren't art because you have to be able to communicate with just the camera angles and screenwriting and acting are separate mediums that just happen to be featured. Still, I can see where his point was coming from, and if there's something I really disagree with it is his connection that we're nowhere near reaching that point.

I grant your passion on this has credit, since you just did a rather well worded post in 2 minutes, but I stand with what I said. No movie critic has ever affected my decision to watch a movie, and anytime I catch myself reading an article in the newspaper I find myself only asking myself what the person was smoking when they were watching the movie. If they did at all. Everyone is allowed their opinion, but in this case Ebert is trying to use his expertise on movies(if you can call it that) to try to put a judgement on a completely different medium that he doesn't even comprehend. True he used an example like chess, but I have to wonder with how he tried to support his argument on that if he even played a complete game of chess.
People dedicate their lives, and put real effort into many videogames. Games such as Portal, Braid, Unreal, and Bioshock. Who is to say that the effort put into those can't be counted equal to the effort put into Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, or the Star Spangled Banner, or DaVinci's David, or Casablanca, or Ben Hur, or Gone with the Wind? In my position, nobody, really, except those who created them. And many of them would probably say: 'They either do or don't have my blessing, not that they care.'

 

[BaronJuJu]

Roger Ebert states games cannot be art because "It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome." ...yet don't movies have the exact same thing? Movies have point and use objectives during the time you watch it to arrive at its final outcome. Unlike video games there is no potential for a different outcome.

Later he states "Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care."

The same could be said of movies. Why is he so adamant to try and prove games are not art? Why is film anymore art than a video game? Why isn't he content to just sit back and watch a movie, enjoy himself and not try to justify it as art?

It's unfortunate that we have folks like him, closed minded and unwilling to change. then again, I'm sure their were similar obstacles in the early years of film making from folks and critics of other art forms that didn't see cinema as art either.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I think we have relevancy, if not artistry.

 

[Always_Remain]

People still listen to critics? I tend to form my own opinions. Not saying others opinions don't matter, I just don't get why just because a movie critic says something is bad doesn't mean it actually is. For instance, the local newspaper ripped on Hot Fuzz when it first was in theaters sating it was "shallow and moronic. not the least bit entertaining." or something along those lines. I dunno what film he was watching it Fuzz was damn entertaining. It all boils down to opinions and there is no reason to argue over them.

 

[Fearzone]

It is possible for art to be in a game, just like you can play football on a field painted to look like the Mona Lisa.

But Ebert is right. The goal of a good game SHOULDN'T be art.

 

[Tel_Windzan]

A lot of what Ebert was talking about seems similar to what one of my programming books have said. Movies and Comic books were not consider art until the public because "literate" in their understanding of the material. My book was making the reference to programming as a form of art but this same situation can apply to video games as well.

Also, it does seem strange that he only mentioned more well known arty games, such as Braid and Flower, when I have played games that I can call arty that were free and not very well known; maybe for those who do not visit Yo-yo Games too much at any rate. We have so many video games now that it seems hard that he could not find more games fitting his definition of an arty game.

Also, also, we gamers might not be around to see some games that become art to the general public, but we sure as heck would know when we see a game that will one day be consider art.

 

[Sonofadiddly]

I'd like to re-emphasize my fist in Ebert's face.

Really, though, "art" is such an abstract and loaded word. I consider video games to be a valid story-telling medium, which makes them equal to film and literature. And I am referring to those video games that have an actual story, not Mahjong. Whether you want to call any of these three story-telling mediums "art" is up to you.

I personally, would consider Ebert to be someone who should shut up and die. But that's just me.

 

[Antari]

Ebert your from a different time, your parents likely didn't think anything you were involved in could ever be considered art either. But it still happened. And yes I don't care, about your movie reviews, or your view on games.

 

[Pumpkin_Eater]

He's using a rather narrow definition of what constitutes a videogame, I would argue that his definition of art is even more overly narrow. Art is self expression. It's an attempt to capture one's thoughts, ideas, or emotions and put them into a more tangible form that can be shared with others. Ebert is just being pompous. It's a critic's job to describe things, not to categorize them. "I don't like them" would have been the concise way to phrase his opinion here, and also the more intellectually honest way.

 

[FightThePower]

A video game is not just a game. It's an experience as well, like a film.

I don't play games just to complete it.

 

[T-Bone24]

Oh God, this is just one guy with one viewpoint, why does it matter so much that he doesn't agree with us? We think that games are art, he doesn't, big whoop.

 

[drkchmst]

Mmm Ebert has a false view of what games are. Sure some games like Arcade Fighters, you win, but you can still come out changed by it. After all art is something that captures an audience and offers something to them. Video games are just the step after million dollar artworks are tattoos (futurama fans).

With that I say Roger Ebert, you are ignorant of the genre.

 

[Ancientgamer]

Santiago might cite an immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them."

And there's the rub, people use "videogame" as a catch-all term for interactive entertainment, but we've moved well beyond that now.

 

[Desworks]

Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art?

I've made my peace with this whole argument, but I think that Erbert asked the wrong question here. What he should have asked, and what is a damn good question, is "Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that Roger Ebert defines games as art?".

As far as I'm concerned, Erbert is a damn good film critic, who happens to dislike games. I am ok with this. If he thinks games aren't art, that's fine. I may disagree, but I'm not going to bother arguing this with him. It'd go nowhere really. Games are art to me, and that's good enough for me. I don't need to spend my nights trying to convince someone else of that. I'd prefer to spend that time playing some games.

In fact, I'll go do that now.

 

[squid5580]

3 pages and not one person answered the question.

 

[chstens]

I kinda agree with the "don't worry, be happy" message there. I really don't give a flying fawkes wether or not games are considered art.

 

[Sjakie]

I agree, games cant be art as a whole. But aspects of games certainly can!
But i do remember certain frantic FPS playstyles and moves in Quake 3, that made me think the players were artists themselves.
Mmmm, what to think of players that use leveldesigners and make up their own stuff? It might not be a Rembrand, but i certainly have seen and played that 'Art'.

 

[MasterSplinter]

Not counting games that focus on story telling or very graphical/musical artsy titles, I think that the ability to stimulate peoples mind in new ways of understanding and interacting with new abstract gameplay mechanics is a work of art, because it tantalizes the people who really get much in the same way a painting could produce a gasp of emotion from a person that could understand what it meant to the creator or if their brains suddenly and inexplicably clicked when they saw it.

To me the people that memorizes and knows everything about a classical music piece is not very different than the person who masters hardcore levels of tetris, and the person that could go on for hours talking about the clockwork orange is no stranger to the person who could go on for hours talking about how ground breaking portal was.

Maybe not every game is art to every gamer, maybe a game to us becomes art when we keep coming back to the title for years and years to come or that game we never forget because it meant something at some point of our lives, the line maybe harder to distinguish when we do it as a competitive sport we just have gotten really dam good at with practice and natural talent. But mainly I think it is when we do it for our own satisfaction or when we just cannot explain why we do spend hundreds of hours throwout decades of our lives re-playing the same old gameplay mechanic.

 

[freakonaleash]

What the hell is shadow of the colossus if not art?