That was a wonderfully mature and well done article. I applaud your brilliance, Sir Yahtzee.
Roger Ebert still annoys me, though.
Roger Ebert still annoys me, though.
Videogames as Art
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
When there's even a tiny inkling that your country's government is considering government censorship on videogames because videogames aren't considered "art" like movies or books, and someone as respected as Ebert feels the same way, it's not that stupid to get angry and butthurt about it.
I've bought and have tried hard to like Halo 1-3.SenseOfTumour said:
They are shit......=P
Moral of the story is, don't expect an opinion to change even when someone has given it a good try...lol
I had literally not considered this angle of the issue until right now. Well said.NightmareTaco said:
Wow. One of the reasons I always liked ZP is that, in addition to all the witticisms, the puns, the frantic pace, the great writing, the whole everything everyone loves, I actually found myself having similar tastes to Yahtzee, so rather than take his word as just a cautionary tale I could actually take his advice to heart, save for a few exceptions (Half-life 2, a jewel of game design? Ha!) But never has he written a column that hits so close to my own opinion. Well, OK, my own opinion is less "Roger Ebert is a good critic and is entitled to his opinion" and more "Who is the 'Roger Egbert' and why is everyone talking about him?" but the point stands.
Ebert doesn't know what games are. He hasn't bothered to learn. He hasn't bothered to research. He admits he hasn't played games and says he has no reason not to. His column's point is based on a speech and stills of games shown during that speech. Therefore, he has not said anything about games as art. He said something about a speech about games as art. Even if he said 'I do not believe games will be art', what he meant was 'Even though this speech I saw tried to convince me that games are art, I remain unconvinced'. He is no more qualified to talk about video games than I am to talk about the role of tribal conflicts in the generation of civil wars in Africa. Even if Ebert understands a lot about movies and writes great reviews about them much in the way I make brilliant posts that leave everyone in awe at my intelligence, that doesn't make either of us an expert in everything.
Anyone who can properly argue the point that games are art must do so from a vantage point in which games are understood at a deep level. Imagine a book critic wanting to argue against the idea someone wrote that Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose is a postmodernist novel because of its self-referencing nature as a book about books. If upon talking to the presenter of this idea he found out that it was a kid whose only other reading material was Dr. Seuss books, he could not make his case because his opponent will not understand the source of the points he makes. In this case, our opponent has made a point about all books without having never read a book at all; therefore, we must not pay him a second thought.
It's too bad though, because if I wanted to complain about it I'd write an essay parodying his. I'd call it 'A Modest Rebuttal'. "Now, even though I am hopelessly handicapped by my love of videogames, I must say I never found a movie so interesting it inspired me to watch it..."
Ebert doesn't know what games are. He hasn't bothered to learn. He hasn't bothered to research. He admits he hasn't played games and says he has no reason not to. His column's point is based on a speech and stills of games shown during that speech. Therefore, he has not said anything about games as art. He said something about a speech about games as art. Even if he said 'I do not believe games will be art', what he meant was 'Even though this speech I saw tried to convince me that games are art, I remain unconvinced'. He is no more qualified to talk about video games than I am to talk about the role of tribal conflicts in the generation of civil wars in Africa. Even if Ebert understands a lot about movies and writes great reviews about them much in the way I make brilliant posts that leave everyone in awe at my intelligence, that doesn't make either of us an expert in everything.
Anyone who can properly argue the point that games are art must do so from a vantage point in which games are understood at a deep level. Imagine a book critic wanting to argue against the idea someone wrote that Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose is a postmodernist novel because of its self-referencing nature as a book about books. If upon talking to the presenter of this idea he found out that it was a kid whose only other reading material was Dr. Seuss books, he could not make his case because his opponent will not understand the source of the points he makes. In this case, our opponent has made a point about all books without having never read a book at all; therefore, we must not pay him a second thought.
It's too bad though, because if I wanted to complain about it I'd write an essay parodying his. I'd call it 'A Modest Rebuttal'. "Now, even though I am hopelessly handicapped by my love of videogames, I must say I never found a movie so interesting it inspired me to watch it..."
The entire Roger Ebert critique on video games not being art is of no valid point in the community. It's like a music critic stating his opinions about football. Actually, it states more about the community being so up in arms about what a film critic says on video games then it states if games are art or not art.
Either way, my two cents about the entire argument is this: what games do you think Roger Ebert saw? do you think shadow of the collossus? probably not. He looked upon the violent, mad-cap destruction simulators that the medium keeps churning out and keeps recycling endlessly. he saw people shooting other people in the head endless times, he saw space marines killing bug aliens from some god-awful planet. he saw street thugs, covert ops, biological war machines. what he saw is the equivalent of our biggest, best selling games as nothing more then a retread of big blockbuster action movies with the violence turned way the fuck up.
Dead Space is Event horizon. Halo is Starship Troopers. Grand theft Auto is every single gangster movie ever made in the last three decades. Video Games are nothing more then the red-headed stepchild of cinema. Of course it wasn't always like this but now it is. They use B-rated movies as a stepping stone for their games and by any onlooker, how can you defend this as art? how can you defend saints row as art!? That's as ludicrous as stating Bad Boys as art or Puff Daddy as an artist.
Not only is our mindless, brainless crud the center stage of the fricken medium, but our mindless, brainless crud isn't even original!!
The saddest thing is, I believe games were once art until the latches of 14-year-old boy mentality sank it's fangs onto the entire medium and turned everything into generic M-rated trash. During the PSX/N64 era, the genre was pretty much there, and during the next generation it seemed it was going to be accomplished, Until grand theft auto 3 came about and fucked everything up. now it's all mindless violence and aesthetic of coolness.
Cinema is able to take you anywhere, to make you feel anything, be afraid, sad, happy or depressed. Paintings are similar and so is music. Video games are an artform, there is no denying it no matter how much you have contempt for it. Yet are video games art? No!!! what emotions does Grand theft auto make you feel or Dead space or Gears of war? what emotions do those games invoke rather then "oh fuck yeah!" at shooting something in the face?
Bioshock, Shadow of the colossus, Psychonauts and the Nintendo games do not always rectify everything in the entire "video games are art" argument. If video games want to be as respected as a form of art, it needs to grow up and try to make you feel something then "oh fuck yeah" more then once every year or so.
Either way, my two cents about the entire argument is this: what games do you think Roger Ebert saw? do you think shadow of the collossus? probably not. He looked upon the violent, mad-cap destruction simulators that the medium keeps churning out and keeps recycling endlessly. he saw people shooting other people in the head endless times, he saw space marines killing bug aliens from some god-awful planet. he saw street thugs, covert ops, biological war machines. what he saw is the equivalent of our biggest, best selling games as nothing more then a retread of big blockbuster action movies with the violence turned way the fuck up.
Dead Space is Event horizon. Halo is Starship Troopers. Grand theft Auto is every single gangster movie ever made in the last three decades. Video Games are nothing more then the red-headed stepchild of cinema. Of course it wasn't always like this but now it is. They use B-rated movies as a stepping stone for their games and by any onlooker, how can you defend this as art? how can you defend saints row as art!? That's as ludicrous as stating Bad Boys as art or Puff Daddy as an artist.
Not only is our mindless, brainless crud the center stage of the fricken medium, but our mindless, brainless crud isn't even original!!
The saddest thing is, I believe games were once art until the latches of 14-year-old boy mentality sank it's fangs onto the entire medium and turned everything into generic M-rated trash. During the PSX/N64 era, the genre was pretty much there, and during the next generation it seemed it was going to be accomplished, Until grand theft auto 3 came about and fucked everything up. now it's all mindless violence and aesthetic of coolness.
Cinema is able to take you anywhere, to make you feel anything, be afraid, sad, happy or depressed. Paintings are similar and so is music. Video games are an artform, there is no denying it no matter how much you have contempt for it. Yet are video games art? No!!! what emotions does Grand theft auto make you feel or Dead space or Gears of war? what emotions do those games invoke rather then "oh fuck yeah!" at shooting something in the face?
Bioshock, Shadow of the colossus, Psychonauts and the Nintendo games do not always rectify everything in the entire "video games are art" argument. If video games want to be as respected as a form of art, it needs to grow up and try to make you feel something then "oh fuck yeah" more then once every year or so.
Interesting. I thought perhaps you might elaborate on being able to see his point about games not being art: because let's face it, we really haven't produced the equivalent of Joyce or Proust in gaming form. Not to say that this disqualifies all games as being art, it just confines most of them to the shallow pop-art end of the spectrum. Also I would contend that art (well, good art) is something which provokes an emotional response. Sentimentalism is really not hard to achieve, all you have to do is make enough people die at the right moments. It takes far more artistic skill to, say, put you into an existential crisis (Dostoyevsky, anyone?)
Awesome! Someone else thought The Spirit was fun! I liked it, I honestly did.
I say that there are some things about art that are purely objective, these traits only qualifying it as art of its medium. Opinion determines good or bad art, in my opinion.
I believe video games are art, and have no problem with objections to that. You know, as long as it's a civil point.
I say that there are some things about art that are purely objective, these traits only qualifying it as art of its medium. Opinion determines good or bad art, in my opinion.
I believe video games are art, and have no problem with objections to that. You know, as long as it's a civil point.
Awww Yahtzee does have a soft side, I was beginning to think he had striped it out and was using it as an in home billiards hall.
On topic: to be honest I was expecting at least a couple dickburgers to get served up in this one. Since you respect the guy I think you may have pulled some punches, but in the end you gave some potent insight on the situation and I respect you for that.
-Great job Yahtzee-
On topic: to be honest I was expecting at least a couple dickburgers to get served up in this one. Since you respect the guy I think you may have pulled some punches, but in the end you gave some potent insight on the situation and I respect you for that.
-Great job Yahtzee-
Isn't it kinda odd how true it is that simply winning as dropped off the gaming spectrum. Take World of Warcraft, you can never really win the game yet it is one of the most popular out there (theoretically you good get every achievment and every piece of gear and finish every quest etc.) or how a great deal of anticipation for sequels now a days tied into the story line, for example what is going to happen to Gordon Freeman in the Artic (HL2-E3) or what is going to happen when the Reapers invade (ME3). At the same time other games (less single player oriented games) are anticipated for the endless hours you can spend playing them with your friends, L4D2 or SC2 for example. Maybe games becoming easier won't be too bad and could actually be good for games who want to open up artistic or story-minded world without worrying that players will get stuck half way through and never fully be able to appreciate (or perhaps despise as the case may be) the developers work. Just as long as they have a healthy range of difficulty settings please 
I think he also might have pulled some punches because, frankly, Ebert's dying. And Yahtzee's on record as saying that he tries to be nice to anyone with a terminal illness.Z-Ri said:
Well, games have made me feel the emotion of guilt in a way that no other artistic medium could ever accomplish. So there's an emotional response for you, I suppose.Shamanic Rhythm said:
I do agree with you that the majority of games are in what we could call the shallow end of the artistic pool, by the way. But quite frankly, most movies and books are in that same part of the pool, too.
What was wrong with Turok again? (although I never played it myself) also so I guess he doesn't really hate everythingQuorothorn said:
If I remember aright, Turok was basically everything he disliked about bad console FPSes in one neat package for him to dismember.Quiet Stranger said:
Also welcome to the escapist and remind me, what is it he doesn't like about FPS....es???Quorothorn said:
You're harsh, much more passionate about Ebert's work than I am I guess, but I sort of agree with you. I've often thought while reading his reviews that he really doesn't deserve the fawning adoration he gets. He has a terminal illness and as at least one poster said, that might have something to do with his career.Uncompetative said:
I don't know the history of film critics. Maybe Ebert was a pioneer as Half Life pioneered FPS engineering? I can't understand why he would be feted as he is otherwise. His attempts to criticize movie logic often result in the championing of hopeless anachronisms and misunderstandings, especially with military technology. I don't really enjoy reading his reviews for their sake.
Very well written. I love Extra Punctuation so much; it's like Zero Punctuation only Yahtzee doesn't feel obligated to exaggerate his opinions for the sake of comedy.