By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Roger Ebert says video games can never be art

Grahamhsu on 18 April 2010
famousringo said:
Grahamhsu said:
famousringo said:
Grahamhsu said:
Gnac said:
Any medium that expects your constant attention before showing you more of itself is not art; it's a woman.

this!

There is art involved with games; graphics, story, etc. But at the sum of it all a game is still just a game.

I disagree. If you change the gameplay mechanics, you change the experience.

Take Silent Hill: Shattered Memories as an example. The game designers wanted to create a sense of fear and helplessness in the player, so instead of empowering the player with weapons and making it a fight for survival, they provide the player with escape routes and make enemy encounters a flight for survival.

You change the rules, and you change the emotional content of the game. The rules of interaction are what differentiate games from other media, and they are a tool of expression and subject to different interpretations just like music or imagery.

You are speaking of Level design (I consider it art), not gameplay. In music we take away all the unimportant notes in a chord to understand it's function and meaning. Same idea applies in this, strip silent hill of music, level design, graphics, and story. By doing so we enter the core of the game, which is essentially killing monsters with a knife/pistol/whatever weapon exists in such game. So are you telling me killing monsters can be considered "art"?

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.

We are talking about different games, and not even arguing on similar points, Shattered Memories is the only Silent Hill game I haven't watched my friend play and beat, either way my point is still strip that game to it's basics. As I haven't played the game I have no idea what the gameplay is. Silent Hill SM may be considered art, I consider Heavy Rain art, but i don't count it as a game because I feel like the "game" is more story than game, which would make it a interactive movie in my opinion.

Since it seems you don't see the point I was trying to make in my previous post I'll do an example. A game doesn't need to have music, story, etc TO BE A GAME. A game only requires GAMEPLAY. Let's compare by using 2 extremely basic games.  Pong and Mario Brothers NES, I'll list elements that are included in both games.

Pong:

gameplay: at it's core it is virtual tennis

graphics: 2 lines and 1 dot count as graphics and can even be considered visual art. If I were to print a shirt that said pong and had a print on the front that looked like |    .         | I'm sure someone in the world will buy it.

Mario:

gameplay: from the most basic viewpoint it is jumping on goombas, spitting fire at them, and sliding down flag poles.

Music: lots of interesting music in this one I like the water one the most =P

graphics: lots of sprites

level design: some pretty creative levels, with secret passages etc.

story: The princess is always in the "other" castle and a big green dragon  constantly tries to cockblock you.

Thesis: A game can have artistic elements, some games don't need graphics (there's an XBL indie title that is only sound based), some games don't need sound, some games don't need story, but every game needs gameplay, and gameplay can never be considered art. Therefore games cannot = art. Prove that wrong to me. Also art must have some AESTHETIC value, pleasing to the eye, pleasing to the ear, etc. Show me how gameplay is "aesthetic" and I'll bow down and say games = art.




-=Dew the disco dancing fo da Unco Graham=-

Around the Network
Scoobes on 18 April 2010
Reasonable said:
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.


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).


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?

1- It's not really an argument that either side can win, only time and perception due to the subjective nature of the topic.

2- Those games don't have narrative, acting, artwork (as in the CG kind), or any creativity (except in innovative moves maybe). If games are considered art it's not due to the people that play them (like in Badminton or Chess), but the people that create them. They're the ones trying to acheive something fantastical in the medium. Gamers are just the ones who experience it.

3- There are probably more than you think. Sony especially has pushed for this with devs like Team Ico and Quantum Dream trying to create "arty" type games rather than pure fun games with a narrative. Also, most games require a lot of artists. They themselves would probably feel that the final product should be considered as art.

If you want to experience an "art" game then Shadow of the Colossus is one that comes to mind.

As for the last comment, it doesn't really. Time will tell how games are viewed. I think what video games are acheiving now is new and more innovative ways on invoking emotion through interaction. The "art of interactivity" if you will.




Get your Portable ID!

Khuutra on 18 April 2010

A lot of people who haven't spent some time studying critical theory probably aren't comfortable hearing this, but "art" in the academic sense isn't actually something inherent to a work.



Scoobes on 18 April 2010
Grahamhsu said:
famousringo said:
Grahamhsu said:
famousringo said:
Grahamhsu said:
Gnac said:
Any medium that expects your constant attention before showing you more of itself is not art; it's a woman.

this!

There is art involved with games; graphics, story, etc. But at the sum of it all a game is still just a game.

I disagree. If you change the gameplay mechanics, you change the experience.

Take Silent Hill: Shattered Memories as an example. The game designers wanted to create a sense of fear and helplessness in the player, so instead of empowering the player with weapons and making it a fight for survival, they provide the player with escape routes and make enemy encounters a flight for survival.

You change the rules, and you change the emotional content of the game. The rules of interaction are what differentiate games from other media, and they are a tool of expression and subject to different interpretations just like music or imagery.

You are speaking of Level design (I consider it art), not gameplay. In music we take away all the unimportant notes in a chord to understand it's function and meaning. Same idea applies in this, strip silent hill of music, level design, graphics, and story. By doing so we enter the core of the game, which is essentially killing monsters with a knife/pistol/whatever weapon exists in such game. So are you telling me killing monsters can be considered "art"?

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.

We are talking about different games, and not even arguing on similar points, Shattered Memories is the only Silent Hill game I haven't watched my friend play and beat, either way my point is still strip that game to it's basics. As I haven't played the game I have no idea what the gameplay is. Silent Hill SM may be considered art, I consider Heavy Rain art, but i don't count it as a game because I feel like the "game" is more story than game, which would make it a interactive movie in my opinion.

Since it seems you don't see the point I was trying to make in my previous post I'll do an example. A game doesn't need to have music, story, etc TO BE A GAME. A game only requires GAMEPLAY. Let's compare by using 2 extremely basic games.  Pong and Mario Brothers NES, I'll list elements that are included in both games.

Pong:

gameplay: at it's core it is virtual tennis

graphics: 2 lines and 1 dot count as graphics and can even be considered visual art. If I were to print a shirt that said pong and had a print on the front that looked like |    .         | I'm sure someone in the world will buy it.

Mario:

gameplay: from the most basic viewpoint it is jumping on goombas, spitting fire at them, and sliding down flag poles.

Music: lots of interesting music in this one I like the water one the most =P

graphics: lots of sprites

level design: some pretty creative levels, with secret passages etc.

story: The princess is always in the "other" castle and a big green dragon  constantly tries to cockblock you.

Thesis: A game can have artistic elements, some games don't need graphics (there's an XBL indie title that is only sound based), some games don't need sound, some games don't need story, but every game needs gameplay, and gameplay can never be considered art. Therefore games cannot = art. Prove that wrong to me. Also art must have some AESTHETIC value, pleasing to the eye, pleasing to the ear, etc. Show me how gameplay is "aesthetic" and I'll bow down and say games = art.

You're still arguing on something subjective and open to interpretation. I'd be interested to see how you'd break down the gameplay for shadow of the colossus or Flow.




Get your Portable ID!

amp316 on 18 April 2010

According to the criteria that makes up the definition of art, Ebert is right. He presented his case and proved his points effectively. There are rules to a game and this is what makes it a game. I liked his comparison of saying that what Michael Jordan did wasn't art. He used this example to show that regardless of how extraordinary "gaming" of any form might be, it is a game and tied to rules. He is correct and I didn't find anything that he said at all to be insulting to my favorite hobby.



Proud member of the SONIC SUPPORT SQUAD

Tag "Sorry man. Someone pissed in my Wheaties."

"There are like ten games a year that sell over a million units."  High Voltage CEO -  Eric Nofsinger

Around the Network
Grahamhsu on 18 April 2010

You want to see me breakdown SotC or Flow? Fine I will, SotC kill bigass monsters by stabbing the weakpoint, Flow: eat smaller organisms and move up in levels. Tell me how that is art?! How is that aesthetics? There is a golden triangle which is the most pleasing triangle for a human eye to see, that is art. Art is not subjective, and the golden triangle AS WELL AS other GOLDEN shapes prove that it is not subjective, as the human mind has an idea for what it believes sounds/looks beautiful. Same in music, you think it's random chaotic notes? No there is a structure, and chords that are more pleasing to the ear than others. The only thing subjective part in art is your own viewpoint. Whether you think this piece of art is ugly, meh, or the most wondrous you've ever laid eyes on.




-=Dew the disco dancing fo da Unco Graham=-

leo-j on 18 April 2010
amp316 said:
According to the criteria that makes up the definition of art, Ebert is right. He presented his case and proved his points effectively. There are rules to a game and this is what makes it a game. I liked his comparison of saying that what Michael Jordan did wasn't art. He used this example to show that regardless of how extraordinary "gaming" of any form might be, it is a game and tied to rules. He is correct and I didn't find anything that he said at all to be insulting to my favorite hobby.

I have to say from that viewpoint I agree.. but art is subjective, anything can be considered art in my opinion, and I believe those games that offer an artistic view to there own world's are a perfect example of art in gaming.



 

mM
Grahamhsu on 18 April 2010

THANK YOU AMP!!!




-=Dew the disco dancing fo da Unco Graham=-

SaviorX on 18 April 2010
Gnac said:
Any medium that expects your constant attention before showing you more of itself is not art; it's a woman.

This.............this is the greatest VGChartz post of all-time.

Can I get this tagged? Best.Post.Ever.



Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

Zucas on 18 April 2010

Well by academic terms he's probably right, although I'm not ones to make truth claims so I won't say gaming can "never be art". But the way he presented it and how he gave his examples to fuel his argument, it's actually quite good. For someone I always seem to disagree with on his reviews of movies, I must say this was a well thought out and fair analysis of the game industry. Wasn't a movies are better than games argument or anything like that, but simply asserting something that if you think about, makes a lot of sense.

But as some have already stated and Ebert gets as well, even if it can't be technically called art, it doesn't bring down the value of the video game industry or development process at all. Things can be amazing and wonderful just like art in their own way, and after 12 years of playing video games I know that to be true.