Roger Ebert Was Addicted to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

[Souplex]

TMNT becomes much more entertaining when you realize Uncle Phil is the Shredder.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

With ideats like this,do we really want to be associated with art?

 

[Therumancer]

In comparison when I look at games praised as artwork they seem to ultimatly be pretentious works of angst that seem like the artistic equivilennt of something a stoned 16 year old Emo would jot down in his notebook. Life sucks, loss of innocence sucks, even surrounded by people we can (and usually will) find ourselves effectively in isolation, nobody really understands each other, nothing we do ever matters, someone else is always better than you etc ... Games like "The Path" and others are just pretentious arthouse poseurs that have very little new to say, and have been hanging on the coattails of what others have been done.

First and foremost, again your concept of "art", from this post appears extremely simple-minded in my opinion. You ultimately claim Mass Effect is "art" because "many of those aliens are based on real world cultures" and thus if we look at Mass Effect in another light it could be implied that we could see those we support art those we fear in reality - or something like that that, the paragraph was to long for the point I feel it was ultimately trying to make [regarding Mass Effect], or another point was lost inside said wall of text...which, again, doesn't really offer any interpretation or allow the player to determine the meaning for themselves - it's there - clear as day - and we shouldn't be claiming that kind of message to be "good art" [as you insist on calling it].

You then proceed to insult games like "The Path", as derivative, whilst simultaneously praising Shadow of the Colossus for using the same theme, just earlier. Yet Shadow of the Colossus uses themes Shakespeare discussed in his plays; does that mean it has no artistic value, as it's derivative? No, that's a foolish way to look at any form of media, we shouldn't be judging games on the message they're trying to deliver [to determine if they are art or not] but the way they deliver that message. So far all you've said to try and claim The Path is not "art" is that it holds a theme you don't like...that's a very childish manner with which to look at a media and determine what is art, and what isn't...

You might want to read what I said again. Really. I'm not a great writer but a lot of times I get responses like this and wonder if people are even reading what I wrote in the first place. I don't mind criticism, but at least try and base it on what was said.

If you bothered to read what I wrote, I never said any of these things were not art. I did however say they were BAD art.

What's more I never said the aliens in Mass Effect were based on real world cultures. I said that science fiction authors did things like use aliens and the like to address issues in a detached way that couldn't otherwise be done with people talking about other people. I mentioned Mass Effect made some societal criticisms that meant that it was artistic as anything, and that what's more it was an example of good art, compared to the recycled emo drivel that most games being called artistic actually are.

The point being that a lot of those games are aping suprior works, and doing it badly. I believe my analogy was to a 16 year old emo poet. Yes he's an artist, just a terrible one, and he does no credit to his medium of choice what so ever.

At any rate, this should hopefully clarify the point I was actually making.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

MGS4 not art? ... it was the first title that will come to mind whenever i think of Art+Games in the future.

This comment makes me immediately think you've not played any games of any real artistic relevance...[or at least, what I would consider such].

I have been playing the series for about 12 years, played each game a ridiculous amount of times over ... I felt like I grew with the characters

Considering you'd just claimed you'd been playing the series for 12 years you probably did. That says more to do with your own situation than the game itself.

in every game there have been fantastic messages about War, Politics and the human race in general.

So? There're moral dilemmas and concepts such as these in Mass Effect, however little. The difference between Mass Effect and MGS4 to something like The Void or The Path is that these games require the player to question the gaming experience itself, to unravel the message and interpret it how they choose. This isn't the case in MGS4, or in Mass Effect - it's written out, clear as day, what said message is - and that does not add artistic value, it takes it away; of course what "art" is in subjective in of itself, but of your concept of "art" is just "it has a message'...well you must consider a lot of pieces of media art.

MGS4 in my opinion has absolutely peaked in the series with amazing writing

Funny, because that's one thing I've not heard about MGS4 [and no I'm not talking about Zero Punctuation].

keeping you on the edge of your seat while it draws you in, emotionally engaged as well as gameplay-wise

The whole "12 years" element comes to mind again, of course, if you've been playing the series for so long, you'll be emotionally engaged, but as a stand-alone product the game won't hold that level of emotion. Again, the game is a shooter, how does that progress the games overall message on "war and politics" exactly? It doesn't, because it's made entirely for entertainment purposes, not for artistic means. It makes a good game [if you\re into that sort of thing] but not a good artistic statement.

with so many small moments that would go unnoticed until multiple playthroughs.

What does this have to do with the "games are art" argument again?

There was a ridiculous amount of subtlety in the game in every element, but it isn't art? (Fair enough, a lot of people wouldn't have the attachments but I feel even a non-fan would have to appreciate it).

I like the way you defeat your own argument in this quote. Regardless, I disagree there's a lot of "subtlety" in each element, you'll have to prove it to me if that's true rather than just stating it as fact...

Just like every other game I've always considered art, one would have to be stupid to not consider them such.

"You're stupid if you disagree with me" - as stated earlier, art is subjective. However, I do beleive you have a very "simple-minded" concept of artistic value based on this post, you haven't really described why MGS is "art" to you at all - beyond claiming it's "subtle" about its concepts, which I highly disagree with - and you're yet to prove.

It gives the player an emotional experience and it's why I consider games the ultimate form of art (I'm also a lifelong film maker, with games always inspiring me).

You know what game gave me an emotional experience? Lost Odyssey. Do I think the game is art? No. The short stories within the game are another matter, but the game itself isn't art, just because it can provide me with emotion doesn't mean it holds strong artistic merit, much like MGS it shows little subtlety with its core themes and message, with no interpretation or hidden concepts to be found.

There is more to art than simply looking stunning everybody ... more than just escapism.

You summed up exactly why MGS isn't art...

Or you could both sshh? Art is subjective, What you think is art and what he thinks is art are two different things, and neither of them are wrong, there is no definition for what "Art" is

 

[whycantibelinus]

Yeah, he might as well have bought Battletoads. No one could like video games if those were the first games they played.

 

[D_987]

You might want to read what I said again.

I did so to the best of your explanations, if you're not concise with your comments don't expect people to understand the point you're trying to make, your comment implies this has happened before, so you might want to think about why...

If you bothered to read what I wrote, I never said any of these things were not art. I did however say they were BAD art.

I understand that, and I don't beleive I stated you said they weren't art, but that your comments on artistic merits were simple-minded and poorly thought-out.

What's more I never said the aliens in Mass Effect were based on real world cultures.

Yes you did, I used a direct quote.

I said that science fiction authors did things like use aliens and the like to address issues in a detached way that couldn't otherwise be done with people talking about other people. I mentioned Mass Effect made some societal criticisms that meant that it was artistic as anything, and that what's more it was an example of good art, compared to the recycled emo drivel that most games being called artistic actually are.

See, you make your point here, and the post is far more concise for it. The issue being the point raised is extremely poorly thought out. What artistic merit is there in social criticisms with no lack of depth or interpretation, as is the case with Mass Effect. Again, this is something I stated earlier, but artistic merit , to me, is based around interpretation and relaying a concept, not a direct message - in order for a game to hold artistic merit it should relay a message, preferably through gameplay, that is open to interpretation. Mass Effect doesn't do that - ergo it has little artistic merit in the same way The Path or The Void do. [which unlike Mass Effect use the actual gameplay part of the game to help deliver their message, same goes for Shadow of the Colossus, my other example in this thread - a pretty important point when looking at video-games as art].

The point being that a lot of those games are aping suprior works, and doing it badly. I believe my analogy was to a 16 year old emo poet. Yes he's an artist, just a terrible one, and he does no credit to his medium of choice what so ever.

I fail to see your point in this, it would be best if you explain why you beleive The Path to be of poor artistic merit [beyond the poor derivative excuse], because I'm not seeing it - at all.

 

[D_987]

Or you could both sshh? Art is subjective, What you think is art and what he thinks is art are two different things, and neither of them are wrong, there is no definition for what "Art" is

Art is something that should be discussed, especially something like this, why else are you on this forum if you don't want to debate points? There's nothing wrong with this discussion [especially when the follow up to the quoted post explained the other poster agreed with some points raised]. I implore you to stop acting in a pretentious manner, and to stop attempting to preach your own ideas on what should be discussed, especially when you bring nothing to the discussion.

 

[Judgement101]

...who is Roger Ebert? All I know is that as a gamer I'm supposed to hate him or something.

 

[Therumancer]

[See, you make your point here, and the post is far more concise for it. The issue being the point raised is extremely poorly thought out. What artistic merit is there in social criticisms with no lack of depth or interpretation, as is the case with Mass Effect. Again, this is something I stated earlier, but artistic merit , to me, is based around interpretation and relaying a concept, not a direct message - in order for a game to hold artistic merit it should relay a message, preferably through gameplay, that is open to interpretation. Mass Effect doesn't do that - ergo it has little artistic merit in the same way The Path or The Void do. [which unlike Mass Effect use the actual gameplay part of the game to help deliver their message, same goes for Shadow of the Colossus, my other example in this thread - a pretty important point when looking at video-games as art].

The point being that a lot of those games are aping suprior works, and doing it badly. I believe my analogy was to a 16 year old emo poet. Yes he's an artist, just a terrible one, and he does no credit to his medium of choice what so ever.

I fail to see your point in this, it would be best if you explain why you beleive The Path to be of poor artistic merit [beyond the poor derivative excuse], because I'm not seeing it - at all.

You have things backwards here. Even if it's not direct, good artwork has a very solid, clearly defined point to it that can be easily understood once you know how to look at it. Debatable "OMG that could mean anything" works are for the most part trash, as you can literally do anything and then claim it's meant to provoke thought and 'the meaning is up to the viewer' or some such pretentious thing. ENN even did a joke about this with arthouse game designers, and pretty much hit the nail right on the head.

To put things into perspective I can pretty much ask you what is so good about "The Path"? Truthfully there is very little in the way of clear messages within that game that have not been made better by other games even within the video game medium. Pretty much any message you could infer about girlhood and growing up, and possible horrible fates, in "The Path" was covered better in "Rule Of Rose" and as a work what it was trying to say was quite clear by the end, as opposed to something you mull over and go "well I think it meant this".

That is the differance between doing it well, and not.

"The Path" is very similar to the guy on ENN releasing a "game" that is nothing but a glowing dot in a blank screen, that you interact with by staring at it. "Oh wait it blinked, that must be a glitch... or was it?". Granted it's not that bad (as ENN was involved in an outright satire of arthouse indie developers, no game is that bad) but it's in that catagory.

Also, while art inspires other art, you also see trends, and a lot of this Emo Mcangst stuff is pretty much people playing follow the leader, trying to be profound. Most of it pretty much goes to the same places, with the same messages, and very few of the works playing follow the leader are really all that good. Truthfully, I don't think most of the people doing these dary, arty, games could do anything else because they're largely copying what other developers have done before and trying to follow what seems to be a successful trend given all the "hip" gothy pseudo-nilhists out there. I very much doubt most of these developers could say make a game dealing with the joy of human existance, and the positive aspects of humanity for example, largely because there aren't many things to copy off of right now. However I think when you DO see someone make a successful game like that (or in some differant genere) then all of a sudden you'll see tons of imitators from then on.


In the end we're going to have to agree to disagree, personally as much of a horror fan as I am all of the dark, nilihistic, statements on futility and human isolation and loss of innocence and so on, is rapidly getting silly. It gets to the point where once I really liked this stuff a lot, the quality has gotten to the point where whenever I hear about something being dark and edgy I want to roll my eyes.

I will say though that I *DO* give "The Void" some points though (you mentioned it, but I didn't address it specifically). I consider that game to be a few steps higher than "The Path" for example as it's a bit more multi-faceted and does have a rather clear point that isn't a complete downer.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Wow. If TMNT made him that bitter about games, and granted it was a tough game, I'd hate to see how he would have turned out had he instead gotten addicted to Battletoads. He probably would have ended up just like.. hey, maybe that's why Jack Thompson is such a total jackass when it comes to games. He just got addicted to Battletoads and never once made it passed the speeder bike level.

 

[Mr Smooth]

you understand that "games are not art" is a different to "games suck"

 

[Dectilon]

"...it's so hypnotic, and so repetitive, that it's just not good for my mental health."

"If Ebert had played Final Fantasy..."

...What?

 

[CyberAkuma]

I don't understand why people complain about the water-level in TMNT.
Was it just me that was able to breeze through that level without much difficulty at all?

Hell, if you thought the water level was hard you guys should have seen the third level and the technodrome maze. Hell THOSE levels where WAY harder.

 

[droppingpenny]

Can't you just leave the man alone, it's his fucking opinion. Why should you all care whenever a Film Critic does or doesn't like Videogames? The so called "Gaming Journalism" doesn't really help either by making these kind of things to front-page stories!

 

[Macgyvercas]

One thing the "games are not art" crowd has never been able to explain:

You have writers (an art form), musicians (an art form), storyboardists (an art form), and animators (an art form), all coming together to make a video game, and the end result is...not art?

How does that work?

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Wow, even Ebert admits to liking TMNT, I picked a good username. As has been said this experience probably explains why he has been quite vocal about games having no artistic value or real-world merit. I suppose he kind of views it as being an addictive crapfest a la nintendo hard games.

His view of a gamer is probably how he himself was in those few weeks, addicted obsessives dedicating their lives to performing frustrating tasks in meaningless worlds, I mean... that sounds nothing like me... umm... yeeeah, oh is that the doorbell? gotta go.

 

[zombie711]

what about Prince of Persia(2008) or Final Fantasy XIII or Metal Gear Solid 4?

No chance...

Prince of Persia had some nice graphics, but what kind of artistic statement in there within the game? None.

I can tell you're just trying to annoy me with the FFXIII comment =P, but like PoP, it has nice presentation, but no substance - what artistic message has been conveyed within that game?

As for MGS4...there's a message there, but it's not an artistic one, there's no interpretation, no subtlety - much like Mass Effect it has all the artistic value of any blockbuster film - which is to say, very little.

how about okami. It's one of the highest rated artistic games ever. Heck even super Mario galaxy 2 is artsy

 

[D_987]

One thing the "games are not art" crowd has never been able to explain:

You have writers (an art form), musicians (an art form), storyboardists (an art form), and animators (an art form), all coming together to make a video game, and the end result is...not art?

How does that work?

Just because individual works may be art doesn't mean every work is art. Every book is not art [unless you subscribe to the concept that everything is just good or bad art but it's the same principal], nor every piece of music. If a piece of media doesn't hold artistic merit, if there isn't a message that can be interpreted by the viewer / player [see previous posts for more clarification / explanation] then it holds little to no artistic quality...

how about okami. It's one of the highest rated artistic games ever. Heck even super Mario galaxy 2 is artsy

I'd prefer this not to become a ask me: "is game X art in your opinion?" thread. I've already explained my ideas on games as an art form enough times in this thread.

 

[D_987]

You have things backwards here. Even if it's not direct, good artwork has a very solid, clearly defined point to it that can be easily understood once you know how to look at it.

That's not true at all, look at Shakespeare, there are quotes of his that could have completely contradictory meanings depending on your interpretation...in fact most pieces of accepted "art" do, that's the point, that there's no solid point that can be completely and easily understood - that there's no true interpretation of a medium...

Debatable "OMG that could mean anything" works are for the most part trash, as you can literally do anything and then claim it's meant to provoke thought and 'the meaning is up to the viewer' or some such pretentious thing.

You're taking what I'm saying to the absolute extreme, whilst simultaneously doing the same to your own point. I don't beleive I ever claimed art could be something that could "mean anything", only that it's down to interpretation, if you can quote me on that go ahead, I'll concede I mis-wrote my points, but so far you're acting in the same you claimed I was earlier, only you aren't using quote, you appear to be manipulating my points to suit your own cause.

To put things into perspective I can pretty much ask you what is so good about "The Path"? Truthfully there is very little in the way of clear messages within that game that have not been made better by other games even within the video game medium. Pretty much any message you could infer about girlhood and growing up, and possible horrible fates, in "The Path" was covered better in "Rule Of Rose" and as a work what it was trying to say was quite clear by the end, as opposed to something you mull over and go "well I think it meant this".

You pretty much covered what was so great about The Path, the possible meanings, the variety of messages; the interpretations. It's point is not clear to the player at the end, because said point is entirely down to interpretation - that's the point I'm making and one you don't seem to have grasped...

That is the differance between doing it well, and not.

So you pretty much concede your previous comments [as that pretty much quotes what I was arguing against you with earlier] were inaccurate? Since this was not the same point you made earlier, in fact it's closer to my own argument...

"The Path" is very similar to the guy on ENN releasing a "game" that is nothing but a glowing dot in a blank screen, that you interact with by staring at it. "Oh wait it blinked, that must be a glitch... or was it?". Granted it's not that bad (as ENN was involved in an outright satire of arthouse indie developers, no game is that bad) but it's in that catagory.

"any message you could infer about girlhood and growing up, and possible horrible fates, in "The Path"."

You're wrong, and your own words prove so...

Also, while art inspires other art, you also see trends, and a lot of this Emo Mcangst stuff is pretty much people playing follow the leader, trying to be profound. Most of it pretty much goes to the same places, with the same messages, and very few of the works playing follow the leader are really all that good.

I'm getting slightly fed up of having to repeat myself here, so this'll be the last time I say it. It's not the message I'm debating, the message can be whatever the creator wishes, it's the way the media delivers that message that makes the game art, or not.

[small]Truthfully, I don't think most of the people doing these dary, arty, games could do anything else because they're largely copying what other developers have done before and trying to follow what seems to be a successful trend given all the "hip" gothy pseudo-nilhists out there. I very much doubt most of these developers could say make a game dealing with the joy of human existance, and the positive aspects of humanity for example, largely because there aren't many things to copy off of right now. However I think when you DO see someone make a successful game like that (or in some differant genere) then all of a sudden you'll see tons of imitators from then on.[/small]

This paragraph has nothing to do with the subject matter or debate, so I'm going to ignore it. By all means insult all the indie game developers you want in another debate, but when debating the way art is portrayed bringing your own ideas about creators motives is both pointless and pretentious.

In the end we're going to have to agree to disagree,

I'm not agreeing to disagree when you make points as pointless, out of topic and inaccurate as these...

personally as much of a horror fan as I am all of the dark, nilihistic, statements on futility and human isolation and loss of innocence and so on, is rapidly getting silly. It gets to the point where once I really liked this stuff a lot, the quality has gotten to the point where whenever I hear about something being dark and edgy I want to roll my eyes.

See above paragraph "I'm getting slightly fed up of having to repeat myself..."

I will say though that I *DO* give "The Void" some points though (you mentioned it, but I didn't address it specifically). I consider that game to be a few steps higher than "The Path" for example as it's a bit more multi-faceted and does have a rather clear point that isn't a complete downer.

Good at least we can agree on that...

In all thought this post was near pointless, you're straying so viciously off the point of the original debate [one of my replies you quoted], constantly repeat previously retorted arguments, change my own words and twist the meaning to suit your own argument, and bring up several points that hold little discussion value. If you aren't going to debate the points I'm bringing up, and insist on continuously repeating how much you dislike the artistic statements being made by games like "The Path' then please don't bother replying, if you're going to actually debate how games as a medium display art, and what is an artistic statement in a game then do so - it's quite simple.