Games as Art - Ebert gives his views

[Romier S]

I saw this posted after at the Gaming-age forums and thought it would be an excellent conversation piece for us here. Respectability, and recognition of gaming as medium is something alot of us want to see. All of us play games for leisure, but I'm sure we have experienced games that transcend the experience of only just playing a game and puts it at the level of seeing a quality film, or reading a good book. Mr. Ebert disagrees to an extent and considers the medium inferior. Take a read of a letter he recieved, and the response given which explains his standpoint and feel free to add your thoughts..

 

Q. I was saddened to read that you consider video games an inherently inferior medium to film and literature, despite your admitted lack of familiarity with the great works of the medium. This strikes me as especially perplexing, given how receptive you have been in the past to other oft-maligned media such as comic books and animation. Was not film itself once a new field of art? Did it not also take decades for its academic respectability to be recognized?

 

There are already countless serious studies on game theory and criticism available, including Mark S. Meadows' Pause & Effect: The Art of Interactive Narrative, Nick Montfort's Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fiction, Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan's First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game, and Mark J.P. Wolf's The Medium of the Video Game, to name a few.

 

I hold out hope that you will take the time to broaden your experience with games beyond the trashy, artless "adaptations" that pollute our movie theaters, and let you discover the true wonder of this emerging medium, just as you have so passionately helped me to appreciate the greatness of many wonderful films.

 

Andrew Davis, St. Cloud, Minn.

 

A. Yours is the most civil of countless messages I have received after writing that I did indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.

 

I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.

[The Daisy]

I agree with what he has to say, to a certain extent. I think the issue is that games aren't trying to become movies, they're much more than that because of the choices that we are allowed to make. The developers do have authorial control, because you do have a path that you have to follow in a game. Even if it does allow you multiple branching paths... you are still following the story that they created.

 

To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers.

 

Let's see... we've been making games that can be considered interactive fiction for how long now? 10-15 years tops? The spoken and written word has been around quite a bit longer than that. Give them a few more years and you will have something that will be considered a "classic"... as long as they never use the word "WOOT!"

 

Glen

[Josh]

But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.

 

Honestly, I was with him until he wrote that. That's just insulting.

 

Anyway, as a writer, I have a huge investment in authorial control, and I do believe in a well-crafted story be it in novel of film form.

 

This isn't to say, however, that interactive fiction can't be elegant even WITH player choices. Problem is it's just more difficult and takes out the "what if" that makes some fiction so great, because you can always go back and play out that "what if." In a lot of instances, it's best to keep that sacred.

 

For example, what if Luke went to the darkside in Empire, just like you could choose to do in KOTOR? Kinda ruins the story as we know it, right? Ruins the struggle, depletes the void between protagonist and antagonist. It's antithetical to good fiction.

[Dave C]

Personally, I've always perceived video games as an art form. It has most if not all the elements of traditionally accepted art forms (i.e.: story telling, art direction, character creation, collaboration, etc.). Granted, some video games are pure car wrecks looking to cash in on the latest popcorn flick or gangsta wanna be, and may not be worthy of being called art (but to each his own, i.e.: feces art), but there are a few gems out there that are certainly worthy, especially when it comes to many of the fantasy titles. Which brings me to my next point, look how long it took for "critics" to consider a fantasy film to be considered Oscar worthy.

 

I have to disagree with Ebert. Being able to interact in a newly created story / environment, filled with interesting characters and lush with incredibly detailed backgrounds and textures is just icing on the cake and should not discount video games and video game creation as viable art form.

[Blind Squirrel]

I'd be able to take the "video games aren't art" line more seriously if the artistic community didn't consider putting a crucifix in urine 'art'. The real truth of the affair is that video games aren't pretentious enough right now to be considered art. There is still a public perception that they are for kids.

 

There are a lot of great artists who weren't considered great until after they died. Shakespear's plays were popular entertainment, not the highest of art, when he was writing them. It goes to show that what is or is not art is very much a matter of uninformed public perception. People rarely consider the question: if it's old and boring but liked by 'intellectuals', then it's art. Give video games a few hundred years to gather some dust and they'll be considered art too

 

Ebert says that "To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers," but that is because of a vauge collective sense that you shouldn't compare a video game to high art. The great artists of history are put on a pedestal and become mythic figures whom you dare not reproach over time. If you actually look at their works without that baggage attached, however, you can see that it's not magical. It's just good enough for them to have become very popular at one point and has enough lasting appeal to be remembered. If they actually experienced both, most people would probably find The Legend of Zelda, OOT more enjoyable and more expressive than Bach's music, but would probably never dare to call the former better, because, well, it's Bach!

[Angry the Clown]

"But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilised and empathetic."

 

I feel that way about a lot of films he's given more than three stars to in recent years.

[foogledricks]

art (ärt) The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

 

I think first, before we even debate this, we have to concede that there is such thing as bad art. Most people equate their judgement of bad quality to not art, rather than bad art.

 

You might think that Dude, Where's My Car has little artistic value, but it is still a work of art. Even if it is on the bottom-rung in your opinion.

 

That being said, I think the most important word used in art's definition is beauty:

 

Beauty The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality.

 

Music, Paintings, Movies and (yes) games can do this. In fact, these elements are frequently debated when reviewing games. So Ebert, if you were involved with gaming, you'd see that it is already art.

[Dave C]

So Ebert, if you were involved with gaming, you'd see that it is already art.

 

Yes it is:

 

http://www.movingimage.us/exhibitions/cs98/Default.htm

[Qui Gon kim]

Speaking of interactive fiction and authorial control, remember those "choose your own adventure" books that came out during the 80s, in which the reader could choose branching paths that lead to multiple storylines? I remember some were saying at the time that this was the wave of the future for literature.

 

As for videogames, the problem is that the storyline is NOT a requirement for a great game (for example sports, racing or puzzle games). The core gameplay mechanics and controls (therefore making the game fun to play) are the most important part of a video game and take precedence over plot.

[MastaRedSnappa]

I liken Ebert's response to what my dad thinks about rap music: "That's not real music!" (The same thing I'm sure his dad said to him about rock 'n roll etc.)

 

When the kids who grew up playing video games become the establishment (and old fogies like Ebert are rolling over in their graves), there won't even be a question of whether video games are art or not.

[General Zot]

I agree with Masta Snappa on this. We don't know what video games will be in a hundred years, they may branch into the highest forms of expression and introspection humans have ever known. I mean consider this: if you were in a false world like Neo in the Matrix that could simultaneously recreate reality perfectly to your senses while it warped it in any desired fashion, is that art? Or does that reach beyond art to something totally new?

 

I disagree with Stencil on one point. Authoritative control is harder to attain by the the nature of player choice, but it is not lost. As in the KOTOR example, even though you can be light/dark and do as you please most of the time, all paths eventually lead you to the climax of the game (where the main char is revealed as you know who.) No matter what you have choosen before, the author can reign you in at that point and make you deal with that development. Now whether you were light or dark, the story twists into either being about free choice and redemption (light side), or the inevitability of fate and a person's nature defining themselves (dark). See what I mean? You have two valid stories there instead of one, if the game is well scripted and designed.

 

EDIT: "Disagree" with Stencil isn't really correct as I read again what he wrote. I think he and I are on the same page here...

[Cyberwoo]

Meh I had a somewhat winded reply typed out but the more I typed the more I felt like this whole argument is just silly. The bottom line is I want to be entertained when I watch a movie or play a video game. I never ask myself "was that art I just experienced". Those concerned with what is and isn't art can debate all they want. Meanwhile I'll be enjoying video games/movies for what they are...entertainment. Artsy fartsy people are not the type of people I associate with and I could care less what they think about video games. Oh and when did Roger Ebert become a video game expert?

[dogbert]

Artsy fartsy people are not the type of people I associate with and I could care less what they think about video games.

 

Really? Do you care what people on here think about videogames? Because I know some of the people on this site whose views are well respected do care about the potential of videogames to be 'art'.

 

I'm not going to get into the whole art vs entertainment argument as that's been done to death. I think there's room in the world for both, often in the same very game or movie

[Romier S]

I think there's room in the world for both, often in the same very game or movie

Definitely. Being entertained and appreciating something for being a true piece of art are not mutually exclusive. Schindler's List is one hell of entertaining, and emotional movie. It's also what I would consider to be a work of modern art in the world of filmmaking. I can appreciate, and acknowlege both. Just as I can do the same for Shadow of the Colossus, Rez, or Panzer Dragoon Orta.

[Cyberwoo]

Really? Do you care what people on here think about videogames? Because I know some of the people on this site whose views are well respected do care about the potential of videogames to be 'art'.

 

 

For the most part I respect LCVG'rs opinions on games because gaming is a part of our lives and we actually know what we are talking about. When you get people outside of the gaming community (ie: Roger f'n Ebert) commenting about stuff he has no clue about then ya I could care less.

[AnthonyVolpe]

"To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. "

 

There were bad books being written the same time the Bronte sisters were writing books, there were bad films being made when Citizen Kane was being made, and there were bad records being made when Sgt. Pepper was being recorded.

 

And at the same time there are videogames being made that were "unworthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers," there were also games like Halo 2, Grand Theft Auto III (accept it - it's a classic), Final Fantasy VII, Knights of the Old Republic, and Half-Life that are entertainment industry landmarks with great stories that moved people the same way Sgt. Pepper, Wuthering Heights and Citizen Kane did.

 

Get with it, Ebert...

[JFo]

Get with it, Ebert...

 

I think what we have here is nothing more than a generational gap. Ebert is not a gamer, nor does he come from an era in which video games were a part of every day life. I'm sure the same thing will happen with all of us at some point in our lives. Some new form of music, art, or entertainment will emerge that wasn't possible before and we'll look at it in much the same way Ebert sees gaming.

 

Personally, I think his opinion is irrelevant simply because he is so ignorant of video games in general.

[Josh]

Personally, I think his opinion is irrelevant simply because he is so ignorant of video games in general.

 

It's interesting you say that, mainly because we've all taken his opinion so seriously since he's a well-respected critic of another artform.

 

So we come full-circle to the way journalists treat videogames. I know we've talked about this before, but by accepting a quantitative reviewing process for videogames, we reduce them to quantitative things.

 

At this point in time, movies are rated and criticized purely on qualitative metrics: Does the movie move viewers emotionally? Is it exciting? Erotic? Action-packed? Meanwhile, videogames are rated based on more banal, quantitative aspects: How long is it? Are the graphics good? Are the controls intuitive?

 

I'm not saying we're to blame, but I think we're dealing with peers who aren't looking for art while the rest of us seek experience in the rough.

[Big Daddy Bling Bling]

At this point in time, movies are rated and criticized purely on qualitative metrics: Does the movie move viewers emotionally? Is it exciting? Erotic? Action-packed? Meanwhile, videogames are rated based on more banal, quantitative aspects: How long is it? Are the graphics good? Are the controls intuitive?

 

Games demand a more rigorous rating system because of the higher price and larger time investment. Qualitative measures are fine for a $4, 2 hour investment. A 10-40 hour $60 investment needs more scrutiny.

[Romier S]

'm not saying we're to blame, but I think we're dealing with peers who aren't looking for art while the rest of us seek experience in the rough.

Excellent point, and I agree.

 

A 10-40 hour $60 investment needs more scrutiny.

So much so as to ignore the qualitative metrics that Josh mentions? Games can still move you emotionally. They can also provide action packed sequences that are just as exciting as any movie out there. More so in fact when you take into account the level of interactivity that a game offers over a more static medium like film.

 

This does bring up an interesting point though that I wanted to mention here. Is it perhaps easier to qualify a game as being art if it offers a more linear experience as opposed to an open ended world where "player choice" is at the forefront as opposed to a strong narrative? Does linearity, and more importantly strong storytelling dictate what is and isn't art in the world of videogames? I do realize that the answer to this question will be different for each person, but I do believe it's at the heart of Ebert's "authorial control" argument.

[Josh]

Games demand a more rigorous rating system because of the higher price and larger time investment. Qualitative measures are fine for a $4, 2 hour investment. A 10-40 hour $60 investment needs more scrutiny.

 

And a Miro painting is worth maybe $20 in canvas and paint, yet it sells for thousands, if not millions.

[JFo]

This does bring up an interesting point though that I wanted to mention here. Is it perhaps easier to qualify a game as being art if it offers a more linear experience as opposed to an open ended world where "player choice" is at the forefront as opposed to a strong narrative? Does linearity, and more importantly strong storytelling dictate what is and isn't art in the world of videogames? I do realize that the answer to this question will be different for each person, but I do believe it's at the heart of Ebert's "authorial control" argument.

 

Perhaps this is a naive way of thinking, but I always thought that great art allows the one who experiences it to invest something of themselves in it. A film, a book, or a play may follow a set script or a painting may not physically change when different people look at it. However, that doesn't mean that everyone walks away from these artistic experiences with the same conclusion. The same work could have different meanings for each person. The creator of the work can make it however he or she likes, but that doesn't give them complete control over those who come in contact with it.

 

For that reason, I think it's foolish to even suggest that video games cannot be considered an art form just because the player has a choice in how things play out. If anything, it's the most collaborative form of artistic expression there is giving the creator and the audience the chance to create a completely unique experience for that one person (or however many people may be playing the game). What really fascinates me the most is when a developer can put the player in the mindset of the character he or she is playing.

 

For instance, towards the beginning of Beyond Good and Evil, there's a section Jade and Pey'j decide to take their run-down hovercraft out for a spin to the Mammago Garage. Before they leave however, Pey'j warns Jade (who is controlled by the player) to go easy on the hovercraft lest it break down. I've watched a couple people play this section of the game and the reaction is always the same: The players will slowly move the hovercraft in the direction of the garage, hoping to keep it running until they arrives there. Of course no matter how easy you go on the craft, it always breaks down and stalls in the water when you get within a certain distance of Mammago's. Every person I've seen play the game up to that point has gotten pissed off when that happens, which is interesting, because it's probably the exact same way that the character of Jade would feel at that moment.

 

Certainly other forms of art Ebert considers legitimate or "high" art can do the same, but video games are truly unique in the way they bring about these emotional responses. It will take time, but as someone said earlier, when we're all old fogies and in charge of things, games will probably be widely considered a great art form.

[Big Daddy Bling Bling]

And a Miro painting is worth maybe $20 in canvas and paint, yet it sells for thousands, if not millions.

 

Paintings are pretty irrelevant considering that people don't base their buying decisions on the commercial reviews under discussion here. A potential buyer can see everything there is to the product before making a decision.

 

So much so as to ignore the qualitative metrics that Josh mentions? Games can still move you emotionally. They can also provide action packed sequences that are just as exciting as any movie out there. More so in fact when you take into account the level of interactivity that a game offers over a more static medium like film.

 

Nothing was said to the effect of ignoring qualitative measures, I don't know how you inferred it. However, game reviews need to be more detailed than movie reviews, thus touching on both measures, for a variety of reasons. I honestly don't even know anyone who reads movie reviews and then makes decisions based on them. Much of their potential informative utility is cancelled by the general impulsive nature of movie watching decisions. If people are intrigued by a movie, they'll go see it. The reviews are just there to provide convenient fodder for ads. In contrast, games are usually a researched purchase and people will take reviews into account when making a decision. The competition between games is much stiffer. Movies don't really have anything like Live vs. 2K6 where consumers size up every detail of how they compare and then decide on one.

 

On the spectrum of quality, games are dispersed over a much wider area than movies are. While certain features of movies can be taken for granted, games offer less consistency. For example, the vast majority of movies fall within the 1.5-2.5 hour range, so length is never really a relevant concern. If movies ranged from 20 minutes to hundreds of hours as games do, I can guarentee that movie reviewers would take length into account. The other "banal, quantitative" aspects such as graphics and controls provide barriers to enjoyment that movies don't have. Again, if movies had problems like aliasing, pop-in, vsynch tearing, unstable framerates, and shoddy controls, they'd be relevant to reviews and would be discussed. A cinematic game such as Indigo Prophecy could succeed in every area a movie reviewer considers, yet it would still be a frustrating experience if the controls made it difficult to walk around.

 

When you consider the amount of time spent watching a movie vs. playing a game to completion, something that could be easily overlooked over the short term can become a huge problem over the long term.

 

We must also consider that every game is not a Panzer Dragoon. In fact, most games are racing/sports/ect.......basically items of the unartistic variety. It makes sense that the traditional review style is closely in tune with the majority of games it is designed to review. If most of the movies made were instructional self-help videos, the scope of the average movie review would change.

 

At any rate, reviewers do seem to review qualitatively when necessary. For example, IGN doesn't average the individual categories.Artistic aspects are what allow a very short game like Rez to walk away with a high score. The Romance of the Three Kingdoms games score in the 8.5 - 9.0 range even though they sport 16 bit graphics. Despite being totally devoid of any real gameplay, Indigo Prophecy scored well on the strength of its cinematic elements alone.

 

Of all the potential criticisms that could be leveled at gaming journalism, I don't think the scope of the traditional reviews is a valid one. The metrics synch up with the requirements of the majority of product under review, and allowances are made for games that offer a non-traditional experience.

[Josh]

I rarely buy games based on reviews or comparisons of feature sets between one game and another. In fact, my game buying process is a wholly neurotic, emotional experience that can only be described as irrational by those who play by the numbers.

 

I buy games simply based on who worked on it (Shadow of the Colossus, Psychonauts, Ratchet & Clank, BG&E); how I felt about the art direction (Mark of Kri, Death Jr., Ico, Sly Cooper, Voodoo Vince); who else was playing it that I considered friends (Rainbow Six, SOCOM, Crimson Skies); or whichever had the most realistic-looking Yankee Stadium (MVP Baseball).

 

I mean, look at me and sports games: I don't like football, so I don't play Madden or any of those. I don't like playing basketball games either. The only sports game I play is baseball and I base that on how pretty Yankee Stadium looks. Yeah, I'm a dork.

 

Clearly not rational decision-making, I know, but as you can see many of them worked out. Many didn't, but I stubbornly plodded ahead and played them anyway. The only other criteria I can think of that I didn't list above are those games recommended by friends (Burnout, Rez, Panzer Dragoon Orta, KOTOR) or sequels to games to which I have an emotional attachment (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Wipeout).

 

As far as the argument that because games are more expensive, we should be more rational and quantitative in our decision-making, I find I operate in completely the opposite manner. With movies, since we're only a Netflix Qeue add or very occasional $10 at the theater, I really don't care. I'll see anything. I very rarely need to see a movie in a theater unless it's the latest Burton or Gilliam flick. I very often NEED to buy a certain game. Sure, I could qeue it at gamerang, but I'd rather go spend $50 on it and take my chances. Rational? No. Fun? Yes.

 

Maybe as a result you have a better catalogs of games (and a better portfolio most likely) according to gamerankings.com, but I find it more interesting and fun to go with my gut in the stupid ways listed above. Just like movies, games are all pretty much priced the same, so I need to base my decisions on factors I know affect me personally.

 

Sometimes I get lucky (Ico) and sometimes I fail miserably (Death Jr.).

[Romier S]

Nothing was said to the effect of ignoring qualitative measures, I don't know how you inferred it.

I inferred no such thing, I was posing a question relevant to the discussion. Not everything mentioned is strict rebuttal to your opinion.

 

Of all the potential criticisms that could be leveled at gaming journalism, I don't think the scope of the traditional reviews is a valid one. The metrics synch up with the requirements of the majority of product under review, and allowances are made for games that offer a non-traditional experience.

I think you misunderstand his point entirely. Josh's post has very little to do with actually criticizing games reviews. It has more to do with illustrating why it's so difficult for the mainstream to view games as art when games journalists themselves review games from a quantitative perspective. It's not so much a criticism, as it is the reality of what we as gamers expect from a game review as you noted.