best gaming quote ever

“Santiago might cite a [sic] 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.”

That quote just makes it a matter of semantics. If I am playing it on my wii, DS, or PS3 ect, I call it a "videogame". I cannot win Noby Noby Boy. Does it cease to be a videogame, and become something else? You could call it whatever you want, the populous at large will still call it a videogame. And if Noby Noby Boy is "art" and "Mario Galaxy" is a game with a thousand shades of gray in between, what do I care of the semantics? I'm still holding a controller, interacting with the representations on screen.

I do not think videogames HAVE to be art or that I am deeply concerned on whether or not they are. It's a matter of saying that if a person is able to interact with it, it can still have self expression, and a message, and be considered "art". Whether or not modern games are "art" is a different discussion as to whether or not they can "be" art.

I respect Mr. Ebert immensely and would never think to backtalk to him when it comes to film criticism, but the man has admitted on more than one occasion that he doesn't know the first thing about video games and it's not a medium that his critical background can be easily applied to.

All incumbent art critics are like that, though. Always have been.

I'm sure if Rubang were here, he could tell us how long it was before cinema was accepted as an art form by the artistic community at large.

I do, of course, agree with him that people care WAAAAAAAY too much what he and other critics think. If we want to form a legitimate critical discourse, then it's up to us to elevate the discourse.

Strides are being taken, though they're hard to see in places.

There are no knives or pistols in Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. Their exclusion is a choice made by the game designers, not by the level desginers. The core of the game alternates between exploration of the environment (as a metaphor for exploring ones own internal self) and fleeing the monsters (I'll leave the symbolic interpretation of this up to you ).

If Silent Hill: SM had included killing monsters, that wouldn't invalidate it as art, either. That would simply feed the fantasy that the player is a powerful force of righteousness rather than a confused and terrified lost soul. Just because a theme is hackneyed, cliche, or derivative doesn't mean it isn't art anymore.

why cant a game a game be art? I dont see why they cant. The renderings of individual characters, as well as hand drawings of different scenes, characters, etc are all pieces of art so why can't the final product be considered a collective form of art bring together cinema, drawing, and graphic arts together.

One word - creativity. I believe that if something is incredibly creative, it MAY transcend into what we commonly call "art". It appears Ebert is saying, because "something" can have an outcome it cannot be classed as "art". Is it he who made this "rule" up? He then refers to sports stars to support his logic. He is getting mixed up with the players and the sport. I am the video game player, not the video game. Jordan is the basketball player, not "basketball". I am not necessarily saying basketball is art, either. I am just trying to point out that if Ebert is using this point to logically support his view... well it's flawed logic, lol.

It shows to me that this person is "old fashion" and cannot and will not take into account any "new" paradigm shifting media.

1 - I note most saying he's wrong aren't actually posting any arguments that actually give weight to their denial - sorry, but true, and just going 'you're old and wrong' doesn't actually argue anything

2 - most games clearly aren't Art (in the sense of high Art, not a pretty picture) because most games, as Ebert notes, are games, just like Chess or Badminton. As he notes, few are falling over demanding Badminton be seen as Art (and Badminton was sure interactive the last time I checked)

3 - to be Art, whatever the actual definition, their has to be an intent to create Art I believe - for example Kubrick was most certainly aiming to create Art using cinema as the medium whereas (obviously to all I hope) Michael Bay isn't. And by the same token I'm not really sure who, apart from a small number of individuals, are really trying to create Art using videogames as the medium. I'm not buying accidental Art or the artistic creation of a level or a creature design - that's the same as all the cool designs we see in films all the time, and it's just craftsmanship, not Art.


Now, despite seeming to argue for Ebert, I will say that, because I believe anything can be used to create Art, then in principle videogames can of course be Art (and it's on this point I guess I diverge from Ebert a little).

But have any so far? None I've played. Although some tell a great tale well and certainly show the ability to deliver a fun game and a good narrative too (although the actual number of games I'm thinking of is tiny compared to the actual number of games out there).

Will videogames get there someday? Maybe. Ebert acknowledges that. I suspect he's out in thinking it's quite as far off as he states, but I suspect it ain't going to be anytime soon either.

But as Ebert notes - will a videogame that is recognized as Art actually be a videogame in the traditional sense? Has any gameplay mechanic ever felt like Art? The elements of videogames that feel like Art tend to be those that don't involve you actually playing - a created mood, an evocation of an emotion - which raises the question is the gameplay actually getting in the way of creating Art?

Anyway - I'm just going to say I'm sure videogames can be Art, but that they haven't achieved that yet and I agree with Ebert that it'll be a while before we see it happen.

I also agree with him the interesting question is the increasing focus around this very topic. With videogames big business now and a lot of creative energy being expended to develop them, does the industry and those who enjoy it (us the gamers) feel a need to have that recognition?

Does it matter? Should videogames not be seen as either pure games or the equivalent of a decent Hollywood popcorn movie? Isn't that really where the industry is right now?


He does ask a damn good question there.

because those three forms have to tied down to a control mechanism that requires someone to manage it. To allow certain things to happen in the game, you must make it happen. If you don't you don't see it.

And if you try to control art in that way it will lose its very nature: to be able to envelope people in what it is that it represents. You have a picture before you, you don't have to do anything to see the other fragments, everything is laid out to you to create perfect harmony, in music and movies you do not have to do anything to hear the next note or see the next frame, you let it envelope you in its entirety.

That's how I would see it. In individual cases, certain game fragments could be considered art, but together as a package it losses its essence.

Not to mention that gamers in general need to get off the high horse, it's still and will only ever be a game. And it's sad that people can't accept things for what they are, forget about the fish that wanted to be a bird and soar through the other blue ocean.

This still comes down to what you see and interpret as art, which in itself is entirely subjective. For some, the interactivity and it's ability to invoke emotions could in itself be considerred art.

A few years ago, in the Tate Modern they had a giant slide that was considered art due to its architecture.... I saw a giant slide and a huge waste of money.

Not like there is a proper definition of art that people aren't arguing about. It has changed both its meaning over the centuries, various things have been included as they became accepted, recognized... or were just appealing to the senses enough.
It's just a cultural thing and it's within the culture/society rather than in the object itself.
Some traditional Japanese arts were not considered art when they were created and their purpose wasn't even to create sometihng, let alone something appealing that aimed to be art.

But I'm fine with games being entertainment, so I don't care particularly whether they get more or less recognition as art.


Though in one of his arguments, I think he's wrong, if the purpose is to establish whether certain games are art.