Roger Ebert still maintains that video games can't be art.

[Giest118]

Games are merely interactive playthings - they do not exist on a higher level because they do not attempt to portray a message. Thus they do not create subjective opinion about a topic

Once again, I can respond by saying that you haven't played the right games, and even when you have, you rejected it on the grounds that you personally didn't like it. There's that "subjective" thing again.

If I have a problem, it's that you're rejecting the notion that there can ever be any kind of circumstance where a video game can be art, which is a thoroughly narrow-minded position to take.

The fact that YOU haven't experienced it does not mean it doesn't exist.

 

[D_987]

*snip*

Because it doesn't exist - the number of games that have had more meaning to them and offered a subjective opinion on that message have been so few that the medium is yet to prove it is capable of being classed as an art-form.

I never rejected the idea that it couldn't happen - you seem to have made that up yourself - I just reject the idea that at present games are art...

 

[NoNameMcgee]

Art is subjective.

I don't think most games are art, but there are definitely some I have played that I would consider art.

 

[Giest118]

Because it doesn't exist

You realize that, in making this statement, you are implicitly claiming to have played every game ever made? Because that's the only way you could know "it doesn't exist."

 

[Eloyas]

What I don't get is that drawing, music and writing are considered art, but suddenly, when you put them together with a little dose of interactivity, they're not art anymore. The concept arts, musics and scenarios can be considered art in their own right so why don't we treat video games as little interactive museums? Why all the hate?

 

[SCAFC Chimp]

Why does anyone care? Most art is pretentious crap anyway (see the room with blinking lights in as example) that people think is stupid. Besides, if games were art, that means there would be a lot of bad art...

 

[D_987]

Because it doesn't exist

You realize that, in making this statement, you are implicitly claiming to have played every game ever made? Because that's the only way you could know "it doesn't exist."

By making this statement I am proclaiming that a mainstream video-game that could be classed as art doesn't exist. If it does I'd like an example instead of just you're wrong because you're wrong...

 

[lukemdizzle]

as long as you create it yes and this is why there is bad art. if some stupid meaning is just tacked on than there is no purpose to the art. artistic skill also comes into play but there are many different factors. you can state that video game environments are bad art but not that they are not art at all. If games aren't your preferred medium thats perfectly ok. also I don't consider your example as art because nothing is being created.

So what is the meaning in video-game environments? I've already explained why areas such as Liberty city aren't art - they exist merely to force the player to follow the storyline - there is no alternative purpose.

but thats where your wrong. an area like liberty city sets the theme and mood of the entire game. I thought I said that already.

 

[Giest118]

By making this statement I am proclaiming that a mainstream video-game that could be classed as art doesn't exist.

Did you say mainstream? My bad, I must have missed it.

A lot of mainstream stuff is pretty shit, this I can get behind. And not just from an artistic viewpoint.

 

[D_987]

By making this statement I am proclaiming that a mainstream video-game that could be classed as art doesn't exist.

Did you say mainstream? My bad, I must have missed it.

A lot of mainstream stuff is pretty shit, this I can get behind. And not just from an artistic viewpoint.

I didn't say mainstream no, but that was the viewpoint I'm arguing from - I thought you might have been mis-understanding my view-point.

 

[D_987]

as long as you create it yes and this is why there is bad art. if some stupid meaning is just tacked on than there is no purpose to the art. artistic skill also comes into play but there are many different factors. you can state that video game environments are bad art but not that they are not art at all. If games aren't your preferred medium thats perfectly ok. also I don't consider your example as art because nothing is being created.

So what is the meaning in video-game environments? I've already explained why areas such as Liberty city aren't art - they exist merely to force the player to follow the storyline - there is no alternative purpose.

but thats where your wrong. an area like liberty city sets the theme and mood of the entire game. I thought I said that already.

Ok - so Liberty city sets the mood - so what? What kind of artistic statement about something does Liberty city make? If you claim it's bad art - then everything is art. If you claim it's good art - how so?

Or - does it exist purely as something to distract the player with / channel them through the story?

The thing I've been saying for a while now...

 

[Cody211282]

Bioshock, Mass Effect 1 and 2, Fallout(all of them),KOTOR 1 and 2, Portal, Half Life(all of them, StarCraft, WarCraft 2 and 3, Dragon Age, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy (4,6, and 7 mostly), Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, Psychonauts, and these are only the ones off the top of my head. Maybe you should play games that have better stories?

Yeah, because the concept of a "good" storyline isn't completely subjective or anything...

Bioshock - Poor storyline overall - just a lot of fetch quests with some well written characters and a bullshit "reveal"/

Mass Effect 1 and 2 - varies entirely on your play style - I thought ME1 had a good storyline, but ME2 was abysmal

Fallout(all of them) - Fallout 3 had a good storyline?

KOTOR 1 and 2 - See Mass Effect

Portal - Had no true storyline and one decent character

Half Life(all of them) - I dislike the storyline for a number of reasons I ca't be bothered to explain at this time.

StarCraft, WarCraft 2 and 3 - I haven't played these.

Dragon Age - Great characters, cliche, typical Bioware storlyine...

Chrono Trigger - I agree, but it's nothing films haven't done a million times before

Final Fantasy (4,6, and 7 mostly) - See Chrono Trigger

Shadow of the Colossus, Ico - Two games based entirly on the atmosphere rather than the storyline of which there was little.

Psychonauts - I disagree.

So you're telling me that of these few games there's not a single movie with a better storyline than them...?

Ok since I don't want to go over each one(because I am feeling lazy) ill just go over a few.

Atmosphere is important part of telling a story even books detail the atmosphere of different areas, hell a lot of movies rely heavily on this to tell the story.

Just because it has been done before or is cliche doesn't mean it's not good, because lets face it everything that Hollywood comes out with has been done before or is cliche, because lets face it when you have that many things come out a year it's going to get repetitive fast.

I agree that as much as I love Mass Effect 2 the story wasn't as good as the first one, but then again it suffers from being the middle child, also I think the characters made up for a lot of that.

And lastly Fallout 3, the main quest was iffy but the side quests and atmosphere was really well done and sucked you in much more then the main quest ever did.

I would like you to make a list of movies you think are better then what I listed, and I guarantee you unless it's Kellys Heroes then there is some flaw I can point out in it to.

 

[D_987]

I would like you to make a list of movies you think are better then what I listed, and I guarantee you unless it's Kellys Heroes then there is some flaw I can point out in it to.

You really missed the point of that post didn't you?

The point was that opinions are subjective - and that as a result your idea of a good storyline is different to mine; as is your idea of atmosphere - therefore your stupid, childish comment that "you haven't played games with good story-lines" is inaccurate...

 

[CmdrGoob]

Roger Ebert is still a pretentious douchebag.

He's a troll. His arguments are laughable special pleading. He doesn't even play games. He has literally no idea, but it doesn't stop his ignorant pontifications. If art is flexible enough that painting, writing, dance, music, architecture, sculpture and performing are all art, then it's completely stupid to suggest gaming can't be art. In fact, I'm pretty sure he only rejects gaming because gaming sounds unserious, when gaming would often be better described as interactive storytelling.

Throughout history, we've seen the invention of all sorts of new mediums for artistic expression, and we've seen inevitably there are staid snobs who reject the idea that it's art. These people are irrelevent. Ebert is an irrelevant, ignorant snob on the topic of gaming.

Grim Fandango is art.

 

[KennyNOL]

Ebert is noteworthy in what way again? He's a guy who likes to watch movies and get paid for his opinion about them? He maybe wrote one screenplay no one ever knew about, basically failed to make it in the industry itself, then decided to waste the rest of his life criticizing other people's films? And now all of a sudden he's suppose to be well-versed in other entertainment mediums as well?

That really sums my opinion of him right there. Videogames are art because they are intentional creations by other human beings used to express and showcase the world to other human beings. Whatever is created with intentions to do so is automatically art. In the article the person arguing for VG as art but mentions sports are not art is also wrong. They are also arts as well. Rules are created, people are expressing their abilities in the sport they are competing in, and the whole thing was created with intentions: the intention to exercise, enjoy the act in playing, and showing the world their skills and craftmanship. I think the real distinction between that and a regular job is enjoying it and not being solely motivated by money. You do it cause YOU want to express, YOU desire it to do so, YOU want to show to the world what you can do. Besides, the article is clearly biased. Ebert claims VGs are not art cause "he can sense it" as well as he can through movies. If that doesn't reek pretentiousness, I don't know what does.

He also claimed at one point they are not art cause the author of a videogame is really the player, not the artist who creates the game. That's cause whatever we do in a videogame environment is manipulated by we the players since "real" art is suppose to be seen through the perspective of the author like in movies, books, ect. Which is a great point of view...if you completely ignore the fact that the basic core of a videogame has a beginning and ending already structured out, just the means of achieving alters from time to time. Even LESS so for games like Metal Gear Solid and Shadow of the Colossus which, no matter WHAT you do, already lays out the beginning, middle, and end for you nice and clear. It also throws out the logic of interpretation for films and other works. So that statement basically means "So unless the author gives me their clear point of view and i'm left to interpret the outcome...its not art". How many movies, novels, records, and the like have we all experienced that left us open to interpretation? Some that are probably your favorites? Would you not consider them art if you had your own views about the ending? Or the journey through the experience? How many artists have said "its up to the audience to give their own meaning to my work?"

In conclusion, Ebert has no idea what he's talking about. He probably has nothing better to do in his spare time and decides to trash something he already admits to disliking.

 

[mjhhiv]

Working with the assumption that movies are art... what are movies?
I say they are a culmination of previous forms of expression, each of which is itself considered art: Writing, theatre, photography, and music. We have that a combination of previous forms of art makes another form of art.

Video games are a combination of writing, drawing, music, and movies.

To say that video games are not art is to hold the very concept of art to a double standard.

Eh, not so much, in Ebert's view of art. cuddly_tomato pretty much explained why that isn't the case. It's about the basic fact that video games have interactivity. The author doesn't have total control over the experience. The example I gave was that in BioShock, there's a story, but you could walk into a wall repeatedly and miss all of it. You can disagree with that, with no questions asked.

You can pick up a Shakespearian sonnet and burn it and miss all of its content.
Shakespeare has no control over that!

Hey man, not my words. Like I said, I'm unsure what to think here.

Also like I said, I'm not sure why so many of us care. It's worth repeating, I think.

 

[ThisNewGuy]

Roger Ebert is expressing his opinion as is his right. I don't feel that games are really art, most paintings or films have a plot more intricate than 'save the princess' or 'blow shit up on a poorly defined revenge trip' and those that don't aren't really art either. Art is about expression and most films and games are about entertainment.

Almost any game is incredibly, ridiculously shallow when compared to a book, purely because it seems you can either have a broadness of experience or a depth. Since games need to factor in choice they seem to end up hollow. So sorry but no, games could be art, games can try to be art but are most games worthy of being called art? Of course not.

Actually, entertainment is a form of expression. Art isn't defined and restricted to plot. Maybe the range of experience and depth is art. A haiku has only a brief experience, but the art is in its brevity. Similarly, games without depth displays the art of the superficial. Games without any experience displays the art of inexperience. kurt vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five is art, but it is satirically without depth, intelligence, coherence, and experience, and in that way they are filled with depth and experience.

The hollowness is an art itself.

I definitely feel that games are art, but like any art medium, some games are bad works of art, and some are great works of art.

 

[Cody211282]

I would like you to make a list of movies you think are better then what I listed, and I guarantee you unless it's Kellys Heroes then there is some flaw I can point out in it to.

You really missed the point of that post didn't you?

The point was that opinions are subjective - and that as a result your idea of a good storyline is different to mine; as is your idea of atmosphere - therefore your stupid, childish comment that "you haven't played games with good story-lines" is inaccurate...

Actually I was going to highlight that 99% of movies are crap, even the best ones have easy to guess story's and are mostly recycled, and I believe that was most of your problem with games. Also my biggest problem is you saying that no game has a better storyline then a movie, then again I find most movies boring and in no way an art form, unless you count blood, tits and explosions art, because that about 90% of what movies are anymore. I'm not saying they are not entertaining but they don't make you think about anything.

 

[UberNoodle]

You can look at his blog post [a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html"]here.[/a]

So, what do you think about what he says in that post? Personally, I think that games are most certainly art; they have artistic visuals, orchestral soundtracks, and moving/deep stories (Persona 3's story is so deep that it could probably be republished as a work of literature as it is).

It seems to me that Ebert just refuses to accept the fact that a medium which once consisted of solely a bunch of little pixels running around for no purpose has evolved into a form of expression. He also basically says that because he doesn't like video games as much as books, music, movies, and paintings, they can't be art.

Your thoughts?

That's his opinion and feelings on the issue, as much as those quoted are yours. He comes from an entirely different generation to us, so I can fully understand his reluctance in calling games 'art'. In the end, if everybody agreed, we would, paradoxically, have no such concept as 'art' in the first place. From your point of view, games are 'art' only because there are those that consider it not to be.