Video Games are art, but apparently Roger Ebert cannot get with the times on this. He first made his opinion clear in 2005, and recently just cemented the evidence of his ignorance this April [see here]. For those out of the loop, Ebert is a world renowned film critic, he also isn’t a gamer and I question whether he’s ever played enough games to be eligible to comment (IE a single game, ever). He’s as ignorant of the medium as middle-america right-wing psycho-moms. If you’ve never played, you have no clue. If you’ve never seen a movie, you have no clue. If you’ve never read a book, you’re likely illiterate (or should be legally considered it) and have no clue. You cannot justifiably comment on something if you’ve never experienced it, Ebert of all people should know this.
If Ebert had sat down and played a good half-dozen of some of the highest rated games of all time and still say they’re not art, then at least he’s not ignorant and I could at least respect him for his beliefs. Right now, he’s garnered zero respect from me. In fact, due to his position as a respected reviewer he’s lost a significant amount of respect. I’d attest that many things are not art, however I’m not an indignant enough person to proclaim my opinion without something to base an opinion on. I give a movie review after I watch the movie, not before and Ebert is reviewing gaming as a whole based on a preconception.
Granted the majority of big-title games care little about telling an actual story (yes Halo, Half-life, you can stand up and be noted as having meaningful story) and merely use it to string together great action scenes. But then I saw the Matrix 2, and I fail to see a valid difference except that video games are more engaging as an art form. Read my review of Repo Men, it was little more than action scenes stitched together by sex scenes and poor plot. Has Ebert never seen a western? They’re little more than action scenes stitched together by modest story, yet they rank as some of the best films in the world. I would personally list The Dollars Trilogy amongst my favorite movies ever, yet by Eberts standard for ‘art’ they certainly are not.
Ebert seems overtly concerned about the aspect of ‘winning’ in a game as a disqualifying aspect for being art. At the end of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly I can tell you I won. At the end of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi I fucking won, and any Star Wars fan will tell you the same. At 8 years old, I beat the Empire, I won. I experienced the same feeling at the end of Avatar when Stephen Lang finally went down, similarly at the end of Alien when Ripley flushed the alien out of the airlock.
He condemns Braid for telling a story between the games level because it “exhibits prose on the level of a wordy fortune cookie.” To which I would respond Hemingways six-word novel (For sale: baby shoes, never used.), which exhibits prose on the level of a rather terse fortune cookie. If you want to talk about story, look at least at Halo, but please look at something by BioWare like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, or Knights of the Old Republic.
However, if we really want to talk about story let’s talk one of the true classics. Grim Fandango for one is a great story, but most gamers already know this for fact. Monkey Island or Space Quest, Kings Quest, the Legend of Kyrandia perhaps? No, I loved the story to all those games, however there’s one that will have the respect of every sci-fi fan with me on this, and they likely won’t know why until I explain why. The Dig.
What? That’s a game? Yes I can hear you. The Dig was the creation of Steven Spielberg, he came up with the story and realized it would take decades before he’d even be able to consider making it (hopefully he’s considering it now, it would be phenomenal) as a film. However, he was a regular to Lucas’ ranch and one of his favorite stops was Lucas Arts to see what they were developing, yet one time he came with an ulterior motive: The Dig.
There was another person at work on the game who commands great respect in their own right for their artistic works. None other than the creator of the Ender saga, Orson Scott Card who was brought on to flesh out the story and turn a film script into a video game script (the difference here is the typical 2 hour movie vs the typical 10 hour game). Simply put, as many Card fans will know, it was amazing. For those interested it is still available in Lucas Arts classics bundle (with Full Throttle, Sam & Max and Grim Fandango – their great story quadruplets). So let’s leave story out of this shall we Mr Ebert? No derisive comments please or I’ll make more too.
Beyond story, and getting past Ebert’s fascination with ‘winning’ in games, what else is there to quantify as art? I don’t much feel like playing a words game, as neither does Ebert. You can argue what qualifies as art from dawn till dusk, however this is simply what Ebert is doing. He’s manipulating what he believes categorizes something as art to fit his own ideals.
Ebert is arguing the definition of art, or more simply asserting that video games will never, ever be art. As David Novitz said, these arguments are usually more about societal values than whether something is a piece of art or not.
“Why aren’t gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? . . . 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.”
Why, Mr Ebert, thank you for clearly displaying how abstract you are from the current times. I grew up playing video games with my parents, they never had a single problem with it. In fact I have many fond memories of playing Age of Empires with my dad. As I’m writing this my wife is eloquently displaying my point by rocking out on Guitar Hero to a Weezer song. My co-workers? Video games are a main avenue of conversation, as frequently (if not more frequently) brought up than movies. Also despite not having children, it doesn’t take any skill whatsoever in foresight to know that my children are going to be in a world much more socially accepting of games than this one currently is.
Do I need to justify to these people that I’m studying a great art form? No, I don’t need to justify anything to them, because they already know. Anyone who played through Final Fantasy 7 knows it triggered emotions just as good, if not better than many movies, when Aerith died. Is that not art? It is to me, and I know to all my generation it is.
Video Games are already art, Mr Ebert
Video Games are art, but apparently Roger Ebert cannot get with the times on this. He first made his opinion clear in 2005, and recently just cemented the evidence of his ignorance this April [see here]. For those out of the loop, Ebert is a world renowned film critic, he also isn’t a gamer and I question whether he’s ever played enough games to be eligible to comment (IE a single game, ever). He’s as ignorant of the medium as middle-america right-wing psycho-moms. If you’ve never played, you have no clue. If you’ve never seen a movie, you have no clue. If you’ve never read a book, you’re likely illiterate (or should be legally considered it) and have no clue. You cannot justifiably comment on something if you’ve never experienced it, Ebert of all people should know this.
Granted the majority of big-title games care little about telling an actual story (yes Halo, Half-life, you can stand up and be noted as having meaningful story) and merely use it to string together great action scenes. But then I saw the Matrix 2, and I fail to see a valid difference except that video games are more engaging as an art form. Read my review of Repo Men, it was little more than action scenes stitched together by sex scenes and poor plot. Has Ebert never seen a western? They’re little more than action scenes stitched together by modest story, yet they rank as some of the best films in the world. I would personally list The Dollars Trilogy amongst my favorite movies ever, yet by Eberts standard for ‘art’ they certainly are not.
He condemns Braid for telling a story between the games level because it “exhibits prose on the level of a wordy fortune cookie.” To which I would respond Hemingways six-word novel (For sale: baby shoes, never used.), which exhibits prose on the level of a rather terse fortune cookie. If you want to talk about story, look at least at Halo, but please look at something by BioWare like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, or Knights of the Old Republic.
“Why aren’t gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? . . . 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.”
Why, Mr Ebert, thank you for clearly displaying how abstract you are from the current times. I grew up playing video games with my parents, they never had a single problem with it. In fact I have many fond memories of playing Age of Empires with my dad. As I’m writing this my wife is eloquently displaying my point by rocking out on Guitar Hero to a Weezer song. My co-workers? Video games are a main avenue of conversation, as frequently (if not more frequently) brought up than movies. Also despite not having children, it doesn’t take any skill whatsoever in foresight to know that my children are going to be in a world much more socially accepting of games than this one currently is.