Ebert: Video Games Can Never Be Art

[Eyenixon]

That's perfectly fine, I can see your reasoning and agree with it to an extent - I just believe that there hasn't been a game that has come close to being a work of art, but as I have mentioned before and given example with (A Mind Forever Voyaging, Ultima IV) some have approached what I could consider art.

Also I agree with your assertion that it's more difficult to make art out of games than it is for any other medium, that's partly why it hasn't happened in my opinion, how many things do you have to do just right in order to achieve art in the gaming medium?
You have the gameplay completely down, like it's Tetris, completely approachable, yet endlessly replayable and perfectly balanced, but everything else is off kilter, the art is bland, the music is uninspired (although Tetris had excellent music), you have something that seems completely soulless despite its ability to excel in one department.

Does it have to excel in all of those? By your standards it doesn't, the Fallout series is immensely flawed when it comes to gameplay, but that being said, the music is fantastic and the art style is absolutely impeccable, I agree. But by my standards it has to achieve a unity of these things, it has to excel at all of them or at the very least, do something unique with the combination as A Mind Forever Voyaging did. Most importantly, it should
always have good gameplay, since that's what distinguishes the medium from all others, the interactive component.

 

[Madbringer]

I guess it all depends on how high do you want to set the mark for games to truly become art.

I totally agree there has to be that perfect balance struck between all of the elements that make a game, but since those elements are art forms in on themselves, they're all subject to personal feelings and opinions, thus, it's just the matter of you perceiving the elements as being in complete harmony with each other.

The gameplay aspect is the tricky part, really, and i concede the point that it's the toughest aspect (and more importantly, the most basic one) to get right.

Mayhaps the game that can be universally considered art was not designed yet, maybe it never will, for that matter. But the simple fact that it's possible (a fact even Ebert himself seems to realize), that even though the acclaim of the masses is focused rather on the entertainment value, than the aesthetics, prove that games are art - if only a lower form of such, yet to deliver it's flagship product that would establish itself as true art in the eyes of said masses.

 

[Autoduel76]

Your points are all valid but I was going more along the lines of "What does it express that can't be done through these mediums?"

I understand what you were trying to say, I was simply pointing out that this postulate isn't a requirement of art.

The fact (of which I'm not even sure we have established it as fact) that something can be expressed through other mediums doesn't make expression through that choice of medium non-art.

 

[Madbringer]

Hmh. As Eyenixon said earlier, the one thing games have that other mediums do not, is interactivity. But what does that leave games with, really? Would being able to walk inside every building in a city, interact with every item, talk to every person and such, make an ultimate game, regardless of other components like graphics, music and writing?

I think extra interactivity is a bonus - if there is a lot of it (done i a good way), it adds to the experience, and the gameplay value, in on itself an important thing. But if the rest of the elements are good enough, they can easily substitute for the lack of thereof (FMV games spring to mind, although i'm pretty positive all of them were pretty much crap).

So the only logical answer is, games express the feeling of freedom in an environment unlike that we call our own. They expand on the process of using your imagination when reading a book or experiencing visual impulses from watching a movie - in the perfect game, you'd get to do, see and experience whatever you want in the theme proposed by it, by the rules enforced in it's world.

It's something no music, movie, book or painting can do. And no game yet, apparently. :/

 

[Per]

in the perfect game, you'd get to do, see and experience whatever you want in the theme proposed by it, by the rules enforced in it's world.

That's like saying the perfect novel has every sentence related to its theme you could think of in it. Interactivity is a property of games, but increasing interactivity arbitrarily by subdividing abstractions isn't a blanket solution for improving games.

 

[Eyenixon]

Your points are all valid but I was going more along the lines of "What does it express that can't be done through these mediums?"

I understand what you were trying to say, I was simply pointing out that this postulate isn't a requirement of art.

The fact (of which I'm not even sure we have established it as fact) that something can be expressed through other mediums doesn't make expression through that choice of medium non-art.

That's not my definition. Art is expression through unique form, if the myriad assets within videogames are required to be art as much as the game is to be interactively, then it's easy enough to assume that it has to compare to the origins of those assets as it does to its own brethren within its own medium. Part of the argument is how that unique form is to be achieved, and in order to do so there must be comparisons between different forms of art. You can't discuss art and leave art out of it.
The way a painting tells a story versus the way a literary format tells a story need to be compared as well. You can describe what occurs within the painting flatly, but you can also describe what occurs in the painting through a voice, you can interpret it, it's not so much telling the story within the painting as it is extracting the essence of the painting in order to become unique in its own form. No simple telling will do what is necessary for that literary translation to be art. It's the difference between adaptation films and the works they are adapted from.

Thus if games are to have assets comparably to visual art, cinematic art, literary art, then they should most certainly be up for comparison. There's no exclusion involved, and I never meant it like that, my point was that "What does it express that can't be done through these mediums?" As in what can interactivity do on and how must it do so to be art? There's no specific idea here, it's not applying some sort of Orwellian slant of commentary to your game's story and saying "Here's my artwork." It's making that story work within interactivity and interweaving it within that in order for it to become art.

EDIT:

in the perfect game, you'd get to do, see and experience whatever you want in the theme proposed by it, by the rules enforced in it's world.

That's like saying the perfect novel has every sentence related to its theme you could think of in it. Interactivity is a property of games, but increasing interactivity arbitrarily by subdividing abstractions isn't a blanket solution for improving games.

That was never my intent with what I was saying, my point was that a game can involve a player dynamically and allow the player to explore its themes dynamically, it's been done well, the free-form nature of Fallout for example and the way factions react to what you've done. How good and evil are treated in the game's mechanics are also an example, there's no need for it to be intrinsically complex, all it requires is some input from the player that's unique and harbors unique results without it being entirely hard-wired into the game, otherwise it turns into the static baloney I was talking about earlier.
RPGs tend to avoid the static barrier typically, it's just that they haven't gotten to the point where static material is freely interspersed with dynamic material. It should be a mixture of both where both are adequately usable.

This isn't the standard I believe in though, it's simply my idea of what a perfect game would be as art.

 

[Madbringer]

in the perfect game, you'd get to do, see and experience whatever you want in the theme proposed by it, by the rules enforced in it's world.

That's like saying the perfect novel has every sentence related to its theme you could think of in it. Interactivity is a property of games, but increasing interactivity arbitrarily by subdividing abstractions isn't a blanket solution for improving games.

Not in on itself, but it's a direction games should (and do?) head towards, no? Not neglecting the other aspects, of course.

What i meant, was, the "perfect" game wouldn't have to count on build-in limitations to lead the player on a rail towards a goal. You'd be given an objective to follow, a world to follow it in, and the rest is up to you, the player, providing input for the story you yourself write.

All that and still keeping creative integrity is near fiction, of course. But that's how i imagine video games in their most refined forms.

 

[Per]

I imagine video games in their most refined form to be Wasteland, but I'm odd that way.

 

[Professor Danger!]

I imagine video games in their most refined form to be Wasteland, but I'm odd that way.

I do the same thing, but it's more related to my first game. Pac Man. Or more precisely, the far superior Ms. Pac Man.

 

[Verd1234]

Ebert doesn't play video games. So, he isn't really qualified to be talking about them.

Besides, when films came out for the first time, did people even think about considering them art? If some of these people were blind, could they have been qualified to even discuss the subject?

Similarly, Ebert, who doesn't game, isn't qualified.

Still, he makes good arguments but I'm just putting it out there...

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Not in on itself, but it's a direction games should (and do?) head towards, no? Not neglecting the other aspects, of course.

What i meant, was, the "perfect" game wouldn't have to count on build-in limitations to lead the player on a rail towards a goal. You'd be given an objective to follow, a world to follow it in, and the rest is up to you, the player, providing input for the story you yourself write.

All that and still keeping creative integrity is near fiction, of course. But that's how i imagine video games in their most refined forms.

No. Games should be as restrictive as is beneficial, not too much nor too little for what the game aims for. For example, GTA would not be enhanced if you could strike up conversations with every person on the street or, more to your point, go into every building. It creates distractions from the meat and potatoes of the game by not only putting in things that the player can waste their time on in very not fun ways but it creates confusion when the player is looking for a building that they need.

Would Devil May Cry be better if it was in a sandbox world like GTA? No, the game is very concise, it doesn't put in crap to pick up that does nothing, it doesn't put in empty places to go, every area has a purpose and every area is there to provide gameplay and enhance the experience.

Imagine Fallout 3 being as large as it was originally planed (something like 4 times bigger than it is, if I'm not mistaken). Would it be fun to wonder around 4 times more area trying to find random areas? Think about all of the miscellaneous crap laying around in Oblivion, did being able to pick up every plate, fork, cup, etc. improve them game? What about when you walked by tables and sent their contents flying across the room? Did being able to get into conversations with every NPC in the game, most of which were generic and said the same thing, an improvement for the game? Is it good in any game? Does it even make sense?

Video games aren't about making virtual worlds, they are about making games. Games are meant to be fun, not work, and how they achieve being fun depends entirely on the game. FPSs do that through lots of combat with very few, if any, dialogues while visual novels do it entirely through dialogue. There are games which are meant to be virtual worlds, Second Life comes to mind, but not every game has that goal nor should every game try to do such things.

 

[Madbringer]

Where did i say anything about making all games sandbox-y? I said "a" world, not world. Removing all restrictions would be retarded and void the point of making games. However, i do believe most game genres will became more open and will allow it's players more freedom in their decisions, the ability to interact with more impact on the world of the game they are playing.

 

[Oerjeke]

Does someone actually consider movies as art? Well, maybe Eraserhead and Citizen Kane, but movies in general? No, no no. My vision of a artistic movie is the one that all the wanna-be classy twats praise even though they have no point at all. Hmm...maybe I should start a career as a modern artist. I'd just take a shit on a sheet, rub it a bit and sell it for a million bucks to some troglodyte.

 

[Arr0nax]

I personnally think Art as we know it is doomed to vanish so... The only relevant question is what will we want to remember and conserve 100 years from now and I'm pretty sure Games will be part of this stuff.
Also, why should we care about what an old chap says about a youth culture ?

 

[Kilus]

If Endless Ocean didn't look like ass and had some design changes it would be art.

 

[Eyenixon]

Does someone actually consider movies as art? Well, maybe Eraserhead and Citizen Kane, but movies in general? No, no no. My vision of a artistic movie is the one that all the wanna-be classy twats praise even though they have no point at all. Hmm...maybe I should start a career as a modern artist. I'd just take a shit on a sheet, rub it a bit and sell it for a million bucks to some troglodyte.

What movies do you watch? You just effectively dismissed nearly every piece of work by Bresson, Fellini, Tarkovsky, Buñuel, Truffaut, Bergman, and tons of other film makers.

 

[Multidirectional]

Does someone actually consider movies as art? Well, maybe Eraserhead and Citizen Kane, but movies in general? No, no no.

Yes, movies are art. Most of them being shit does not negate that. Most products of any type of art are shit. That's why there are concepts like "bad art". Something being art doesn't automatically make it a good thing.
And it seems you haven't seen too many movies, there are way more of great ones than you seem to think. There are still masterpieces being made every year.

 

[Oerjeke]

I still stick to my oppinion. And yes, there are artistic movies, but still the mainstream is pretty un-artistic. I really can't call a movie like "Mission Impossible" "bad art" since it's not art at all. It's just audiovisual media...or something...you get where I'm aiming here...hopefully...LSA is wonderful.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Whenever a medium is used with an intend to call forth emotion, that's art.

I think that's a good point. Intentional manipulation of the emotions of the audience is certainly one aspect of art. How many games really do this? Most of them are more interested in the fundamentally different task of inducing a feeling of excitement (or non-boredom, perhaps) - more like a sporting event. The ones that do try have done it very poorly, in my experience. I've seen glimpses of potential, however, which is the primary reason I disagree with Ebert; I can see the potential, even if it hasn't been fully utilized yet.

I wonder whether non-linearity isn't the main problem. It seems to me a non-linear game is either a set of rules within which the game takes place or a story in which the emotional manipulation is impossible to guarantee. For example, a shooter is really not much more than a set of physical rules (gravity, damage, running speed) within which the game takes place. Similarly, soccer, or tennis, or downhill skiing is are also mere sets of rules. The game may be exciting, but without a story or human element to fill the gaps, there isn't much art there. In a story-based game with multiple outcomes, the author can't effectively make his point since the player can choose a different path. The fact that there are multiple outcomes by itself diminishes the potential impact of any specific outcome.

I make this observation because the games I've played that have seemed closest to "art" have all been quite linear.

In any case, if you want someone like Ebert to take video games seriously as art, you're going to have to come up with something spectacular - something that is undeniably and unarguably art.

 

[Professor Danger!]

I still stick to my oppinion. And yes, there are artistic movies, but still the mainstream is pretty un-artistic. I really can't call a movie like "Mission Impossible" "bad art" since it's not art at all. It's just audiovisual media...or something...you get where I'm aiming here...hopefully...LSA is wonderful.

Paintings are a visual media.