Roger Ebert: VIDYA GAEMS CAN'T BE ART!!1

[Robot]

Soccer has no aspect that allows it to communicate something beyond the confines of that gameplay, or something "more than itself".

Such as? Watching a cut-scene?

Yes, but more obviously any writing or even just the narrative arc or arcs themselves.

But isn't writing/narrative arc a different medium? It's only complementary to gameplay. Video games are based around gameplay, the story is just flavor. Unless you're talking about "interactive movies", of course.

No, just as film brings together theater and music and presents it in its own unique way; or as theater brings together prose or poetry and acting and does the same; or as poetry and prose are in essence "words" presented in completely different ways. If video games were to be considered art the entire package of dialogue, narrative, cut-scenes, and gameplay would make up the piece and would all be taken into consideration in determining its merit.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Currently gameplay and narrative are blended in very clumsy ways, like the FPS example above, or branching paths and dialogue options in a crpg. However, just because the narrative is clumsy and simple, it hardly disqualifies the genre. It's not like the raw stupidity of something like Crank 3 prevents other films from being art. I've played at least a few games that evoked significantly more emotion and thought than the average movie does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kep9mUEfxA

 

[Data4]

2 and a half pages and no comment about Ebert's freaky flapjaw.

I am disappoint.

 

[Damned Registrations]

If theater is art, then sitcoms are art. If Michelangelo is art, so are the drawings I made as a child. If Bach is art, so is My Chemical Romance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics

What a pleb.

Aesthetic universals

The philosopher Denis Dutton identified seven universal signatures in human aesthetics:[21]

1. Expertise or virtuosity. Technical artistic skills are cultivated, recognized, and admired.
2. Nonutilitarian pleasure. People enjoy art for art's sake, and don't demand that it keep them warm or put food on the table.
3. Style. Artistic objects and performances satisfy rules of composition that place them in a recognizable style.
4. Criticism. People make a point of judging, appreciating, and interpreting works of art.
5. Imitation. With a few important exceptions like abstract painting, works of art simulate experiences of the world.
6. Special focus. Art is set aside from ordinary life and made a dramatic focus of experience.

Interesting. Do video games not qualify for every single one of these criteria? Do they possess (and are presumably made with the intent of creating) strong aesthetic qualities but are not art?

 

[Vibalist]

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

I feel bad for the guy. I always loved his TV show and was really disappointed to learn that he'll never be able to speak again. He seems to be getting along okay, but a number of his reviews and articles reveal him as an intensely social person who interaction and to express himself. For a person like that it must be really hard to not be able to speak anymore.

 

[Radisshu]

Damn, is that real? I've got to youtube this shit.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

 

[Lumpy]

He looks... happy.

 

[Vibalist]

Damn, is that real? I've got to youtube this shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB45Qi1EXlY

 

[Data4]

Ahh... balance has once again been restored...

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

No, just as film brings together theater and music and presents it in its own unique way; or as theater brings together prose or poetry and acting and does the same; or as poetry and prose are in essence "words" presented in completely different ways. If video games were to be considered art the entire package of dialogue, narrative, cut-scenes, and gameplay would make up the piece and would all be taken into consideration in determining its merit.

Again, narrative and gameplay are competing forces in games. The stronger the focus on the narrative, the less and less it can be considered a game, e.g. Heavy Rain. Meaningful narrative depends upon certain things, happening in a certain order, for certain reasons. Alien doesn't work as a movie if Caine makes his saving throw vs. the face hugger, or if they catch the critter when it is still in the chestburster stage. In order to make video game narrative effective, you have to take control away from the player otherwise they're going to screw up the sequence of events, and when you do that, the game ceases to be a game.

You criticized me for judging video games with the same criteria applied to other narrative media, like literature or film. Video games, in so far as they are art, are a narrative medium however, so how else should they be judged? If we judge them as art on the basic of mechanics we reach on absurd situation where we ask which is more artistic: SPECIAL or DND 3rd ed? There's nothing more artistic about game mechanics than there is about the size of the strikezone in baseball, or the moves available to a queen in chess. At that point, we might as well talk about the artistry of car engines, or food processors.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Now I feel bad.

We should all chip in and buy him a Darth Malak mask or something instead of a second copy of PS:T.

 

[Vibalist]

Now I feel bad.

We should all chip in and buy him a Darth Malak mask or something instead of a second copy of PS:T.

Would actually be cool as fuck if he shaved his head bald, had a voicebox installed and wore a Malak mask.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Art Critic is probably the single biggest bullshit job in the world.

Wine critic.

 

[Beautiful Clown Painting]

Let's not give a shit about what is or what constitutes Art. For me art is just chimeras that do materialize and have an impact on society. Following this line of thought, I really think that Wow is the most pregnant form of art this day, it borderlines a political redefinition in certain western circles that I think will tend to extend (not necessary through Wow but at least through its heirs). Aesthetically, I indeed prefer PS:T but who gives a shit about what I consider aesthetically significant? And why should anyone find it significant?
Roger Egbert=Shit.

 

[Robot]

Again, narrative and gameplay are competing forces in games. The stronger the focus on the narrative, the less and less it can be considered a game, e.g. Heavy Rain. Meaningful narrative depends upon certain things, happening in a certain order, for certain reasons. Alien doesn't work as a movie if Caine makes his saving throw vs. the face hugger, or if they catch the critter when it is still in the chestburster stage. In order to make video game narrative effective, you have to take control away from the player otherwise they're going to screw up the sequence of events, and when you do that, the game ceases to be a game.

Plot is barely even a factor in whether something is "art" (exception: film), but obviously there's nothing wrong with limiting a player's choice in certain critical situations, or coming up with multiple "artistic" outcomes tailored to certain major decisions that a player makes. How an artist overcomes the limitations of the art form has always been one of the most intriguing aspects of art anyway.

You criticized me for judging video games with the same criteria applied to other narrative media, like literature or film. Video games, in so far as they are art, are a narrative medium however, so how else should they be judged? If we judge them as art on the basic of mechanics we reach on absurd situation where we ask which is more artistic: SPECIAL or DND 3rd ed? There's nothing more artistic about game mechanics than there is about the size of the strikezone in baseball, or the moves available to a queen in chess. At that point, we might as well talk about the artistry of car engines, or food processors.

They should be judged on how well narrative, or rather the development of characters and themes, mesh with enjoyable gameplay, or CHOICES AND CONSEQUENCES, or simulation of reality, or whatever that game sets out to accomplish, and whether the whole communicates what is meant to be communicated.

Q: Can you really not conceive of a hypothetical game that moved you, taught you a thing or two, and that you enjoyed playing? Do you really believe that such a game could NEVER be produced by human society? If you don't, then your position doesn't reflect your true beliefs and I imagine is pretension. If you do, you lack some serious imagination, sister.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Narrative isn't even required at all for it to be art. There's no narrative in paintings or music (Or even all films, which can simply be an artistic collection of music and visuals).

Gameplay communicates certain emotions far better than anything lacking interaction can. It's pretty hard to feel panicked or relieved over a painting, no matter how well constructed. Narratives do it better, I'd argue gameplay does it best, potentially. The sense of danger and urgency created in a challenging game cannot be replicated through a more passive medium. You have nothing vested in the outcome of a film or book. Whether your favourite character lives or dies, is merely another possible story, and you have no impact on it, no responsibility.

 

[Davaris]

If the totality of a game experience, gives a player the feeling of experiencing a higher plane of existence (or high), when they play it, then as far as I am concerned that player is experiencing art.

 

[KurtH]

By Lujo on April 17, 2010 3:35 AM
Roger if you don't really consider games as art then would be it be fair to say that you really shouldn't consider you human?

I mean think about it with your cancer and all you can speak or do much of what we normal humans can do can you? Like normal humans can speak for instance, don't look like rotting pile of flesh and bone and make rational arguments based on evidence and observation rather than opinions.

But if we are going to play the opinion game here is my opinion: You are not human. You are a bag of shit. A literal leaking wet bag of human excrement. A seriously fuck up man. I mean that's why you need a nurse right? To clean your boo-boos when you make dirty in your bed? Or to aid you in any of the other tasks humans can accomplish. Like speaking or actually looking like a human.

Your really more akin monster at this point y'know. But not one of the scary monsters but instead one of those abominations of science one can only hope to put out their misery ASAP. Like from the Fly movies. You know the type of monster that only really capable of eating and shitting and not much else. If tries something else it might break a bone like its ass and leg. Its the kind of monster that has accepted it should be put out of its misery.

But I digress scum-taint. I am here to touch on the notion what you imagine is making point. It isn't or rather its futile much like the rest of your life. For you see you are going to die. You really are, and you will be forgotten quite quickly by this generation that gobble down any and new information however inane. So I will give it... 3 years after you have died for you to be completely forgotten. There a numerous reasons for this but mostly because nobody gives a shit about old movie reviews. Especially from a critic who has contributed nothing to society.

And people generally don't like you and don't really consider you human anymore. Like on Oprah dragging you out like freak sideshow for her entire audience to leer at. Those were eyes of not care but condescension, that of fat middle aged women looking down at mangled dying puppy in the street. But instead the the puppy is made from brown sheer fecal matter, pubes are oddly sticking out of it, flies are buzzing about its head slowly devouring at its turd flesh and The dogs lower lip is slacked jawed, quivering unable to close, only able to let loose a rancid stench of decay. Thats what you are and that's what all those obese women saw. And how quickly they will forget you as well when Oprah shows them some new book made from chocolate.

I severely doubt this comment will be approved, as the critic of course cannot take a real criticism or argue his case, or if the wrinkled urinal cumlicker will even read this. Ill just say for all others reading that there is no reasoning with this filthy bucket of bubbling stool. You know how old racist hicks never change their stripes? This brown and yellow stain will never change either. He won't play the actual popamole games hes decrying much like how a racist will never talk to a black person to realize they are human. Oh no, far too old, retarded, ignorant and stubborn to do that. He unable to actually complete a game of course being a bag of shit and all but beyond that the thing deludes itself into thinking its higher than us. But a bag of shit is still just a bag of shit and no matter what it does at this point all it can do is reek.

But you know what the bag of shit wants the most in the world as it rots? Attention. You can talk to it all you want but it will not change its mind. Hes a bag of shit. He only wants other bathe in its smell as he slowly rots to death. So you guys could do that and try to reason with liquid diarrhea or you could instead debase and humiliate. Call it out for the vile oozing pus he really is and laugh while you do. Laugh at his slacked jawed face much like did and this the piece of shits inanity. Don't think because he has cancer and is dying hes beyond reproach, you are all far too soft.
------------------------
WHICH OF Y'ALL DEAD MOTHERFUCKERS JUST SAID THAT?

 

[Loki]

Art is that which is created to exist simply as it is, to exist passively, and is not manipulated for any competitive purpose. Chess, as a game, exists in stages, has elements of competition, and is manipulated by a user toward some end. So is basketball, and so is Fallout.

Anything with Interactivity, that is pushed along by a user toward some end, is not art, it is a toy or a game. Toys and games aren't art, because they are meant to be played with and manipulated, they have functions.

However, games and toys can have incidental artistic elements or artistic flair. Great music, graphic art, or writing can create atmosphere for a game, and so we can say Art is put into a game, but the game itself isn't Art.

Michael Jordan would do entirely superfluous body movements when he jumped toward the rim, he did it simply because it looked pretty, so you can say he would bring an artistic element to the game, he would do something that was beautiful in itself, and existed for it's own sake. What he did was an artistic expression, but the game of basketball itself is not Art.

Videogames obviously can have a variety of artistic and philosophical elements within it. PS: T had some good philosophy within it, but that does not mean the game itself is philosophy.

Games can't be Art, by my definition. And my definition is the best definition of all time.

I like what Ebert says here:

Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care.

Do they require validation? In defending their gaming against parents, spouses, children, partners, co-workers or other critics, do they want to be able to look up from the screen and explain, "I'm studying a great form of art?" Then let them say it, if it makes them happy.

 

[Damned Registrations]

By Lujo on April 17, 2010 3:35 AM
Roger if you don't really consider games as art then would be it be fair to say that you really shouldn't consider you human?

I mean think about it with your cancer and all you can speak or do much of what we normal humans can do can you? Like normal humans can speak for instance, don't look like rotting pile of flesh and bone and make rational arguments based on evidence and observation rather than opinions.

But if we are going to play the opinion game here is my opinion: You are not human. You are a bag of shit. A literal leaking wet bag of human excrement. A seriously fuck up man. I mean that's why you need a nurse right? To clean your boo-boos when you make dirty in your bed? Or to aid you in any of the other tasks humans can accomplish. Like speaking or actually looking like a human.

Your really more akin monster at this point y'know. But not one of the scary monsters but instead one of those abominations of science one can only hope to put out their misery ASAP. Like from the Fly movies. You know the type of monster that only really capable of eating and shitting and not much else. If tries something else it might break a bone like its ass and leg. Its the kind of monster that has accepted it should be put out of its misery.

But I digress scum-taint. I am here to touch on the notion what you imagine is making point. It isn't or rather its futile much like the rest of your life. For you see you are going to die. You really are, and you will be forgotten quite quickly by this generation that gobble down any and new information however inane. So I will give it... 3 years after you have died for you to be completely forgotten. There a numerous reasons for this but mostly because nobody gives a shit about old movie reviews. Especially from a critic who has contributed nothing to society.

And people generally don't like you and don't really consider you human anymore. Like on Oprah dragging you out like freak sideshow for her entire audience to leer at. Those were eyes of not care but condescension, that of fat middle aged women looking down at mangled dying puppy in the street. But instead the the puppy is made from brown sheer fecal matter, pubes are oddly sticking out of it, flies are buzzing about its head slowly devouring at its turd flesh and The dogs lower lip is slacked jawed, quivering unable to close, only able to let loose a rancid stench of decay. Thats what you are and that's what all those obese women saw. And how quickly they will forget you as well when Oprah shows them some new book made from chocolate.

I severely doubt this comment will be approved, as the critic of course cannot take a real criticism or argue his case, or if the wrinkled urinal cumlicker will even read this. Ill just say for all others reading that there is no reasoning with this filthy bucket of bubbling stool. You know how old racist hicks never change their stripes? This brown and yellow stain will never change either. He won't play the actual popamole games hes decrying much like how a racist will never talk to a black person to realize they are human. Oh no, far too old, retarded, ignorant and stubborn to do that. He unable to actually complete a game of course being a bag of shit and all but beyond that the thing deludes itself into thinking its higher than us. But a bag of shit is still just a bag of shit and no matter what it does at this point all it can do is reek.

But you know what the bag of shit wants the most in the world as it rots? Attention. You can talk to it all you want but it will not change its mind. Hes a bag of shit. He only wants other bathe in its smell as he slowly rots to death. So you guys could do that and try to reason with liquid diarrhea or you could instead debase and humiliate. Call it out for the vile oozing pus he really is and laugh while you do. Laugh at his slacked jawed face much like did and this the piece of shits inanity. Don't think because he has cancer and is dying hes beyond reproach, you are all far too soft.
------------------------
WHICH OF Y'ALL DEAD MOTHERFUCKERS JUST SAID THAT?

^^^ Work of art.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

By Lujo on April 17, 2010 3:35 AM
Roger if you don't really consider games as art then would be it be fair to say that you really shouldn't consider you human?

I mean think about it with your cancer and all you can speak or do much of what we normal humans can do can you? Like normal humans can speak for instance, don't look like rotting pile of flesh and bone and make rational arguments based on evidence and observation rather than opinions.

But if we are going to play the opinion game here is my opinion: You are not human. You are a bag of shit. A literal leaking wet bag of human excrement. A seriously fuck up man. I mean that's why you need a nurse right? To clean your boo-boos when you make dirty in your bed? Or to aid you in any of the other tasks humans can accomplish. Like speaking or actually looking like a human.

Your really more akin monster at this point y'know. But not one of the scary monsters but instead one of those abominations of science one can only hope to put out their misery ASAP. Like from the Fly movies. You know the type of monster that only really capable of eating and shitting and not much else. If tries something else it might break a bone like its ass and leg. Its the kind of monster that has accepted it should be put out of its misery.

But I digress scum-taint. I am here to touch on the notion what you imagine is making point. It isn't or rather its futile much like the rest of your life. For you see you are going to die. You really are, and you will be forgotten quite quickly by this generation that gobble down any and new information however inane. So I will give it... 3 years after you have died for you to be completely forgotten. There a numerous reasons for this but mostly because nobody gives a shit about old movie reviews. Especially from a critic who has contributed nothing to society.

And people generally don't like you and don't really consider you human anymore. Like on Oprah dragging you out like freak sideshow for her entire audience to leer at. Those were eyes of not care but condescension, that of fat middle aged women looking down at mangled dying puppy in the street. But instead the the puppy is made from brown sheer fecal matter, pubes are oddly sticking out of it, flies are buzzing about its head slowly devouring at its turd flesh and The dogs lower lip is slacked jawed, quivering unable to close, only able to let loose a rancid stench of decay. Thats what you are and that's what all those obese women saw. And how quickly they will forget you as well when Oprah shows them some new book made from chocolate.

I severely doubt this comment will be approved, as the critic of course cannot take a real criticism or argue his case, or if the wrinkled urinal cumlicker will even read this. Ill just say for all others reading that there is no reasoning with this filthy bucket of bubbling stool. You know how old racist hicks never change their stripes? This brown and yellow stain will never change either. He won't play the actual popamole games hes decrying much like how a racist will never talk to a black person to realize they are human. Oh no, far too old, retarded, ignorant and stubborn to do that. He unable to actually complete a game of course being a bag of shit and all but beyond that the thing deludes itself into thinking its higher than us. But a bag of shit is still just a bag of shit and no matter what it does at this point all it can do is reek.

But you know what the bag of shit wants the most in the world as it rots? Attention. You can talk to it all you want but it will not change its mind. Hes a bag of shit. He only wants other bathe in its smell as he slowly rots to death. So you guys could do that and try to reason with liquid diarrhea or you could instead debase and humiliate. Call it out for the vile oozing pus he really is and laugh while you do. Laugh at his slacked jawed face much like did and this the piece of shits inanity. Don't think because he has cancer and is dying hes beyond reproach, you are all far too soft.
------------------------
WHICH OF Y'ALL DEAD MOTHERFUCKERS JUST SAID THAT?

I'm pretty sure he's still continent. It's just that he can't speak or eat (no jaw).

 

[Davaris]

.

Anything with Interactivity, that is pushed along by a user toward some end, is not art, it is a toy or a game. Toys and games aren't art, because they are meant to be played with and manipulated, they have functions.

So is a Ferrari, a Porsche, or classic cars from the 1950s not art? What about a Harley Davidson?

Or even better, what about the art in galleries, that invites the user to interact with it? What about artists that invite crowds of people to help them create art in a semi random way?

 

[Robot]

.

Anything with Interactivity, that is pushed along by a user toward some end, is not art, it is a toy or a game. Toys and games aren't art, because they are meant to be played with and manipulated, they have functions.

So is a Ferrari, a Porsche, or classic cars from the 1950s not art? What about a Harley Davidson?

Or even better, what about the art in galleries, that invites the user to interact with it? What about artists that invite crowds of people to help them create art in a semi random way?

Yeah, architecture jumped out as the big counterexample in my mind.

 

[Loki]

.

Anything with Interactivity, that is pushed along by a user toward some end, is not art, it is a toy or a game. Toys and games aren't art, because they are meant to be played with and manipulated, they have functions.

So is a Ferrari, a Porsche, or classic cars from the 1950s not art? What about a Harley Davidson?

These are vehicles with artistic embellishments. The modelling of the exterior appearance is certainly an artistic endeavor, but the vehicle itself has a ultilitarian purpose, it's meant to be driven, but the aesthetic features attached to it are an incidental artistic element. All modern cars have an aesthetic design, and the design of the aesthetic appearance itself can be considered art, but the vehicle itself, no, that's not art.

Or even better, what about the art in galleries, that invites the user to interact with it?

There is no element of competition toward an end goal, nor is there a specific purpose to the object, unlike games, and sports and vehicles.

What about artists that invite crowds of people to help them create art in a semi random way?

Creation is not the same as the final product. There are different ways to create art, but the Art itself has no specific purpose, function, or narrow definition of what it's supposed to do or mean.