Finding Remo... on Roger Ebert's homepage

[DGMacphee]

I found a post by Remo on a recent article from Roger Ebert's page. There's a big debate there as to whether computer games are in the same league as movies and books.

Here's what Remo said as per the Ebert article:

From a posting by Chris Remo at Shacknews.com. Subject: "Ebert on Video Games: They are Inferior":

Ebert's rather crass response seems to suggest a limiting definition of what art can be, as well as an unfamiliarity with the sort of control game designers can in fact have over their audiences. Just as in the other forms Ebert mentions, in games that control can be expressed through narrative means or simply through a crafted experience.

For an example off the top of my head of the former, take the strange yet brutally familiar imagining of America presented in Tim Schafer's "Full Throttle" (PC). Set in what appears to be a post-apocalyptic landscape, the seemingly mundane backdrop of a hostile corporate takeover reaches incredible depth of significance. It becomes a metaphor for the country's slow decline into corporate facelessness and the odd juxtaposition between the freedom allowed by a recreated American frontier with the essential powerlessness of the frontier's inhabitants. You think I'm kidding? Play it again.

For another spur of the moment example in a more non-narrative setting, take Shigeru Miyamoto's "Pikmin" (GCN). Miyamoto didn't set out to necessarily create a quirky character-based real-time strategy title, though that's the form the game took. While working in his garden, he decided to craft a game that would evoke the melancholic and solitary feelings he was experiencing.... The fact that "Pikmin" so effectively communicates the emotions Miyamoto intended to convey is not simply an issue of craftsmanship (though craftsmanship is present in spades with the balanced and engaging gameplay), it speaks to the artistry with which the game was conceived.

It is frustrating to see current mainstream criticism -- and no critics are as synonymous with modern mainstream criticism as Ebert -- maintain deliberately ill-informed opinions about gaming as a medium. Not because gaming needs to be recognized as art, which is an opinion that is hotly contested among many gamers, but because it does such a grave disservice to the people behind the games, who are clearly capable of far more expression through their work than many seem prepared to acknowledge.

I also sent a response to Ebert along the same lines, using Deus Ex and Grim Fandango as examples.

The "computer games as art" topic has been often debated here, but now it seems there is some mainstream discussion.

Ebert's a critic I enjoy reading. However, I think he's got a very narrow perspective on what video games can be, and pretty much for the same reasons Remo stated.

Your thoughts?

[Nikolas]

Thanks for this. Interesting site and interesting comments.

Thoughts:

First of all it is rather unfair to have a comparison between the arts. Due to the different nature of each and everyone.

Second it is unfair to do so especially with computer games that have been around for 25-30 years max. Movies have been around for 100 and literature for 3000 (counting ancient civilisations). Hang on another 30-50 years and the check again if computer games are equal with films and books.

There are various arguments in that site.

Some of them have to do with controling the story, and how the story is not controlled by the author by mainly by the player. In this I just have to answer with the aleatoric (alea=dice) music where chance takes a big part in composing and further the choices of the performers make a huge difference in a work. The same thing applies to video games. Although not versitile still, the linear games have started to be bended more and more, with multiple endings and on-line communities with games that never end.

I could actually go forever with the simple question qhat is art. But I find a simple definition quite accurate. Art is a piece of work where there has been applied the experience, training and expertise of the artist. To clarify this: In Greek you have the Art and the Artist. But it so happens that the word Artist means something like "technician" (similar), someone who knows very well his Art. (For those of you who might understand this it is TEXNH and TEXNITHS.)

Of course nowdays, with PhDs and all the technical knowledge that you need to apply on your little piece of art, things have been mixed up a bit. Cause twenty years ago, for example, there wasn't even the notion of having a PhD in composition (like I'm doing now). And actually I find it pretty useless... A scientist is supposed to invent new ways and the artist is supposed to make use of these ways the best way (much better than the scientist).

Anyway carried away a little bit here.

There has not been enough time yet to decide if computer games is art or not.

[Hollister Man]

Are you kidding...

In 50 years, there won't be many good games left, just Doom 5000, Half Life 12, and Return of the Revenge of Castle Wolfenstein.  Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but modern computer games are becoming *less* of an art, more of a twitch-fest.

[Nikolas]

As is mainstream Hollywood films!

I don't see anything artistic about 90% of films from Hollywood. Does this mean that films are not art?

On the contrary I find that the advance in technology as well as the internet will help so much the indie communities (in any field). Just think about it. 10 years ago anything I wanted to do decent in music I had to go in a studio. Now I sit in my home studio with my samples, my mics (don't have any, yet), and my computer and do all the work here. Alone! No hussle! No problem! But quality work. And I don't see any reason why I can't "publish" my music, or my games, or my art through the, so handy, internet.

[DGMacphee]

Here's what kick-started the whole flood of feedback:

Q. I've been a gamer since I was very young, and I haven't been satisfied with most of the movies based on video games, with the exception of the first "Mortal Kombat" and "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within." These were successful as films because they did not try to be a tribute to the game, but films in their own right.

I have not seen "Doom," but don't plan to, nor do I think that it's fair to say that it pleases all gamers. Some of us appreciate film, too. That said, I was surprised at your denial of video games as a worthwhile use of your time. Are you implying that books and film are better mediums, or just better uses of your time?

Films and books have their scabs, as do games, but there are beautiful examples of video games out there -- see "Shadow of the Colossus," "Rez" or the forthcoming "PeaceMaker."

Josh Fishburn, Denver

A. I believe books and films are better mediums, and better uses of my time. But how can I say that when I admit I am unfamiliar with video games? Because I have recently seen classic films by Fassbinder, Ozu, Herzog, Scorsese and Kurosawa, and have recently read novels by Dickens, Cormac McCarthy, Bellow, Nabokov and Hugo, and if there were video games in the same league, someone somewhere who was familiar with the best work in all three mediums would have made a convincing argument in their defense.

I think it's fair to place Warren Spector or Tim Schafer as two affluent auteurs of the computer game industry, akin to the names Ebert mentions.

There are countless others. Peter Molyneux. Will Wright. Sid Meier. Al Lowe. Jeff Minter. Cliff Johnson.

This whole discussion was spawned from his review of the Doom movie. He said it was crap (and rightly so), but made side comments about the immersive and artistic qualities of computer games. Since Ebert admits he's never played computer games, maybe he should stick to critiquing moves and not games since he does not know what the hell he's talking about in this instance.

[ildu]

I do agree with Ebert. Films and books have established themselves as a form of art. And I do agree that 90% of both of these mediums are trash. But it does take a lot of bad to recognize the good. Why I don't think games are at the same standard, is that they're not advanced enough to portray a vision yet and they're very rarely an artistic vision of one person implemented onto the workings of a team. Also, the genres, gametypes, and platforms confuse the definition. If an adventure game on the PC can be called art, is it really comparable with a simple hockey game on a handheld device. And finally, until a game is truly an full-fledged experience to the player, I don't think it can be at the same standard as books and films.

[Redwall]

Why I don't think games are at the same standard, is that they're not advanced enough to portray a vision yet and they're very rarely an artistic vision of one person implemented onto the workings of a team.

How aren't they advanced enough? They're quite far advanced compared to early movies, IMO...

Also, the genres, gametypes, and platforms confuse the definition.

Don't books and movies have similar problems (with regards to genres, at least)?

And finally, until a game is truly an full-fledged experience to the player. . .

Err, what? I don't understand what you're trying to say at all.

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

I saw that over at Ron Gilbert's blog, and found it quite amusing that the reply on top was by a 16-year-old who argued that "games are art because they're part of a multi-billion-dollar industry".

My personal opinion stands, though: anyone who thinks games are not art have obviously never played The Neverhood. (no pun intended)

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Wow. An "are games art" discussion.

Here are my two cents, and sorry for being so curt, but this is really all I have to say on the subject - and it's something I'd like to say.

All "official" definitions aside, art is what touches/changes us in some way. That's about all there is, and of course it makes art highly subjective. I don't think art can be at all objective.

Films can do it, and books. Music has been doing it for thousands of years. The painted works of the masters still reach out to us, and some witty images on this very site can make you laugh out loud and pause for thought. And computer games do it. As I see it, it really is as simple as that.

[remixor]

Hello there AGS forums! How have you been?

I was pretty surprised to see my "news" article show up on Ebert's site.

A couple things I'd like to very briefly point out that I don't think were conveyed in the excerpt Ebert quoted are that story is not a necessity for artistic merit in games (whereas it seems to me that Ebert assumes it is) and that Ebert uses a lack of prior examples (to his knowledge anyway) as proof that games don't have a certain POTENTIAL, which seems like a flawed argument from the beginning to me.

[m0ds]

It was an interesting read with some good and interesting points. I think it's about time we discussed some psycology behind all this, and these are my thoughts. Games CAN be a full-fledged experience, the problem is - finding the audience that is encompassed wholly by that experience.

I beleive there are certain levels of immersion, which I could rate from 0 to 10. For example,

Reading a book is immersive, and providing its read in the right place, very little can distract you or pull you away from it. So I'd give that an immersion level of about 7/8.

A movie is extremely immersive, very little distractions and one huge fecking screen in front of you plus huge surround sound speakers to make sure it takes a LOT to drag you away from the experience. IL of about 9/10.

A computer game, if played induvidually can be quite immersive - but as we're taking control of the action we can reach points where we can't be bothered to continue, find it too hard to continue or simply don't want too. It takes our initiative to play on. It's hard to give computer games an overall immersion, but I wouldn't place it more than 6...

- Firstly, we can play games with our friends. This may increase involvement but not necessarily our immersion as this would affect how much attention we're paying to the game, our friends etc. Playing with mates probably leads to an IL of 4/5.

- Secondly, a computer monitor is in no way dominating - its small, can strain the eyes and means we have to sit in a chair for ages. Sound can be tinny and crap if we're using older PC speakers (but equally can be awesome if we're using newer ones ) and so the "components" that create a computer game aren't so brilliant. As an induvidual we may experience an IL of 6/7?

- Thirdly, we are in control. Reading and watching take little effort, as does hearing. But controlling gives it a whole new element. Games cater for that, obviously, but it doesn't necessarily mean we'll be as immersed as we would be if we were sat down, watching it.

But to counteract this, what about a game like Puzzle Bobble, where we may sit for hours playing advancing through the stages. Does it have us completely immersed? Yes, I spose it does
Here I beleive it breaks down a little more:
- Atmosphere, given a game has a good atmosphere, one that particularly suits the induvidual, we can probably reach an IL of 8.
- Graphics. Hills that don't exist until you get closer, blocky graphics and camera bugs certainly take me out of the experience and make me realise I'm just playing some graphics, lowering it to an IL of 6.

It then breaks down further, to the type of games we're playing. In my opinion, the following exist;

- Sans reflex games, (Zork, FoA, puzzle games) story driven games, games like ours etc - that rely on sitting back and having a little think before you can continue.

- Reflex heavy games, (Space Invaders, Doom, UT) action driven games, sports games etc - games that rely on our finger movements and to a degree our hand&eye co-ordination.

It is still possible to be immersed into a reflex heavy game, but it's "type" of immersion is completely different. I may expand on this later.

As for art forms - who has the upperhand? A lot of people go through scrutinising hours of work to create beautiful artwork for games, and I think a common debate here would be, is 3D art? 3D to me means objects that are placed to a persons decisions/discression. In my experience, I've always been able to select a 3D block or sphere to work with, to create a bigger/more detailed 3D image. I didn't have to phyiscally create that sphere myself. But with 2D art we have to draw it from scratch, relying entirely on our own skill.

If anyone has any thoughts on 3D art/2D art then I'd love to know, because this aspect confuses me!

Hmm, well those are just a few of my thoughts, may post some more later. I should be working .^^

[ManicMatt]

Warren Spector, sure! Peter Molyneux, yup! Jeff Minter? He of hover bover and llamatron? Right? I HATED THOSE GAMES!!!!

And I never paid a penny to play 'em. (No, not through piracy!)

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

A movie is extremely immersive, very little distractions and one huge fecking screen in front of you plus huge surround sound speakers to make sure it takes a LOT to drag you away from the experience. IL of about 9/10.

Not necessarily... for one thing, I personally find most movies extremely boring and zone out of them easily, ESPECIALLY when they lack an interesting plot. For another thing, people usually watch movies with their friends, and for that reason, the immersion level can go down as much as (or even more than) it does when people play video games with their friends.

[TheYak]

The movies I tend to prefer in theaters are action/suspense type because of the co-immersion with the rest of the audience.  Everybody is silent, on the edge of their seat in anticipation of an outcome (even if the outcome is glaringly obvious, the environment serves to plunge most people into this state).

On the other hand, I prefer comedies on my home TV with a group of friends.  Laughter builds off of laughter, and at the conclusion (assuming it was actually a funny comedy) everybody's gone through an enjoyable experience together.  Some dramatic films have similar effects, even binding a group together in their feelings of tragic loss or inwardly cheering an underdog's victory against all odds. 

Both of these experiences have been duplicated in the games I've played, the primary difference being that I had something to do with it.  In a movie,  audience expectation as well as motivation to produce blockbuster earnings dictates (to some extent) the outcome.  In an action/suspense movie, we know (at least the vast majority of the time) that certain characters will live.  We know that our hero who is sneaking around a corner, despite a suspicious guard hearing his footsteps, will narrowly escape being caught in order to fulfill his duty.  Yet we are still immersed in the suspense.  How much more of an artform, how much better is the craft honed, in a game like Thief where you're afraid to make a noise on the reality side of the screen for fear of being caught, with no guarantee of a positive outcome.

If movies can be awarded in categories of cinematography, musical score, and acting competence - why not games?  I've seen still and moving artwork rivaling big-budget motion pictures, heard moving musical scores (even from the time before they could accurately be called "music"), and been so engrossed in atmosphere that my physical body responds (with laughter, chills, nervousness, adrenaline rush, etc.).   

For games without a substantial plotline (or one that only slowly develops), the feeling of interactivity leads one's imagination to fill in the gaps and craft their own storyline.  You apply personality traits to a character based upon their voiced words or even written text.  Even in an action game with only the most loose contrivance of a plot, the story has held twists and turns and feelings of vast relief for me. 

Ebert's devotion to the movie industry obviously makes him rather biased this way, and that much is understandable.  What betrays the inaccuracy most is his admission of never having played video games.  What comes to mind for him might run the range of Space Invaders to Super Mario Bros., or Wolfenstein to Grand Theft Auto.  Without having experienced anything within those ranges, it's like a literary reviewer not being able to differentiate between the immersion of Dr. Seuss's One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish and that of Grapes of Wrath. 

While I'd agree that a good many games would merit more of a "B" movie ranking than not, they're more akin to the many much-praised independant films for their experimentation and originality than they are to the products of the sequel-factory that is Hollywood.

[DGMacphee]

Warren Spector, sure! Peter Molyneux, yup! Jeff Minter? He of hover bover and llamatron? Right? I HATED THOSE GAMES!!!!

All of Minter's games are some of the most tripped-out, psychedelic games you'll ever play. I think they're a prime example of being "creative" in gamemaking.

I don't care what you say... Having things like a toilet or a mandelbrot as bosses in Llamatron is pure genius.

For games without a substantial plotline (or one that only slowly develops), the feeling of interactivity leads one's imagination to fill in the gaps and craft their own storyline.  You apply personality traits to a character based upon their voiced words or even written text.  Even in an action game with only the most loose contrivance of a plot, the story has held twists and turns and feelings of vast relief. 

Ebert's devotion to the movie industry obviously makes him rather biased this way, and that much is understandable.  What betrays the inaccuracy most is his admission of never having played video games.  What comes to mind for him might run the range of Space Invaders to Super Mario Bros., or Wolfenstein to Grand Theft Auto.  Without having experiences anything within those ranges, it's like a literary reviewer not being able to differentiate between the immersion of Dr. Seuss's One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish and that of Grapes of Wrath.

It's an odd fact you mention here because I follow Ebert's reviews quite regularly and know that he's given three/four star reviews to quite a number of generic popcorn/blockbuster movies. I find it odd that he places so little faith in games (some with fairly deep plots) yet enjoys some movies with pretty generic stories.

[Kweepa]

art is what touches/changes us in some way.
[...] games do it. As I see it, it really is as simple as that.

Well said!