Xbox 360 'Games can never be art' - Movie critic

Videogames can never be art, claims movie critic Roger Ebert.

Writing on his blog, the Chicago Sun-Times writier admits that saying never might be going too far, but seems confident that game will not be classified as art in our lifetimes.

"Perhaps it is foolish of me to say 'never,' because never, as Rick Wakeman informs us, is a long, long time. Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form," he noted.

Ebert continued, "One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them."

Ebert went on to comment on a presentation by Flower developer, thatgamecompany, which argued that games CAN be art.

"The three games she chooses as examples do not raise my hopes for a video game that will deserve my attention long enough to play it," argued Ebert. "They are, I regret to say, pathetic. I repeat: 'No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets.'"

What say you, bit-tech?

*snip*

Well, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you take over. This is the type of pattern that things seem to take before exploding on the seen and dominating their genre, market, or whatever. The same thing happened in American rap music, then the iPod, which is starting to become hated because it's so popular, now gaming! Gaming has reached a point in the consciousness of society that it has become mainstream! Game and movie budgets are about the same, the revenue is about the same, with some games even out earning movies! Then you have games going to movies, and movies being made in CG with very little actors. The clash is bound to happen, this is just one of the first shots across the bow! These people are starting to feel threatened.

The guy who said this is a big time movie critic in the US, or at least he thinks he is. There is no "job" for this. He (and another guy who later died) is "self appointed" and got his start berating movies "he" thought were good and he thought sucked. Much like he is doing right now by attacking gaming. Enough people started listening to him and he began taking that path of acension from being ignored, laughed at, attacked, then hollywood started caring about what he said. However, this statement alone shows how ignorant he is (he's talking about games here) "It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome"-Ebert.

Doesn't a movie storyline or script follow the same pattern?

"They are, I regret to say, pathetic. I repeat: 'No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets."-Ebert.

Man I wish I could run into this guy somewhere and debate him in front of a camera! There are plenty of games out eaning movies, have series that span decades, and are every bit as immersive. There is also unworthy garbage on both sides. They're in the "attack" phase now and thats right where we want 'em, because you know what happens next!

 

Does it really matter what he thinks? Art is a very subjective thing. I don't think someone throwing some paint on a canvas is art, yet people will pay huge amounts for it. But bad art is still art, and it's obvious he just doesn't enjoy playing games, or he hasn't played the good ones.

 

To a degree it does. This guy sadly has "some" influence in some circles in hollwood, as they use his name as an endorsement when promoting movies. If it didn't matter it wouldn't have gotten any press. If a game to movie came out like HALO for example, someone like this could start attacking it before it gets the chance get off of the ground. He also could influence skepitcal hollwood execs of not investing in, or seeing gaming as a viable and credible form of creative entertainment if he is not rebutted. Another site has.


http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/108/1084651p1.html

 

i think that to say games are not art is a very narrow point of view. There are loads of games which I think look wonderful, even if the graphical quality isn't the best, for example some of the tunnels on GoW2 or the city on halo odst. They aren't the best quality but the nevertheless look stunning, and I would definitely call them art. I would've thought the art designers for the games would also like to call it so.

I think he needs to try enjoying a game, maybe something with an open world, because some of the sights are stunning, especially if you screenshot them and then look at them out of the context of the game

 

oh yeah I remember Roger "All movies are shìt and my job is to bitch constantly at them for not being good enough" Ebert


good guy





Not saying that games are better than movies or anything, but how the hell would he know anything about games anyway. He's from another generation and he's as clueless as the marmot digging holes in my yard

 

This.


Also, let's play Deus Ex. Someone dig up that meme image please.

 

You're right, there is stuff such as "concept art" for games and the artists that design that stuff. They also often crossover and have experience in both the film and game industries. Games are taking on more of a cinematic feel to them too now. But I also think it's about money and prestige. When you have CG movies replacing actors, and games outearning movies, and also being able to be played by on just about anything, your going to get sombody's attention! You just hit their pocketbook, and these people want to keep gaming in it's place.

 

Anything created by a corporation for the expressed purpose of turning a profit can not be art. Period.

 

Then movies are not art? Nor music? That line of reasoning doesn't make any sense. Most art is created with the intention of selling it for a profit, that's how artists make money so they can afford to create more art.

 

So those "artists" talented enough to sell their works for a "profit" can't call it art?

 

for once i agree with warrior.

corporations build buildings for money, and these buildings, while functional, are also 'art'.

 

Its a very naive viewpoint really, Yes it may not be art in the same sense as a van gogh or hockney.

'Art' comes in so many different forms, I personally come from an art background, its what i did best in at school, and what i went on to college for. Art is as much about the thought processes and creativity of the individual as it is the final piece.

even the things you dont see in a game could be classed as art, Well written highly efficient code for instance is a form of art.

Considering in todays world you could piss up a wall and call it art, why not games?

 

he's kind of clueless.. have you seen the guy lately

walk into a devs lair.. something like what's going on with guildwars 2 right now- and you'd see how serious artists play a role in making a game come to life.. even games like batman:aa had some really good artists involved in making the feel very batman like.. if you put that game in front of his face.. and no not on some console garbage- he couldn't deny that's some good work

isn't the point of art to take you to another place and imagine

 

I remember playing Zelda Ocarina of Time when it first came out... That game was and is a work of art... Add Ico and Shadow of the Collosus to that list... Games made for you to indulge in their simple and creative brilliance. Those games work on a different level and I genuinely don't believe that they were made for mass appeal. The developers wanted to create

 

Art is what the beholder makes of it. Some people find the most obscure things as art, like a chair or even the fibres in a carpet, it's just down to opinion. Personally I don't find games as art, but some I really do. Anyone remember that game with a wolf where you were basically a paint brush and could paint through everything? Was a truly awesome game to look at just because it looked so artsy. Some games inspire some truly amazing art, like i've seen countless products of Gordon Freeman (Half-Life series if you haven't played it) which look fantastic.

 

Art was commissioned by some rich aristocrat to so he could have something classy in his chamberhall. The artist then created something that either had some deeper meaning or employed some new take on the world hidden cleverly through the use of lighting or arrangement of notes that the aristocrat wouldn't understand. Much in the same way that Mozart made of fun of the rich ruling class.

Now music is designed by a committee who chooses the best face and look for the kind of music they want to make, they choose the genre and then they get a team of people to cobble together some lyrics. Then they parade out the pretty face and have the computer do the singing for them. Then they churn out albums. Would an artist be told what their image was to be, what their songs would be about and then lip sync in front of their patrons? Hardly.

Gaming is just as bad. Take any of our precious old school developers like Id and Epic. If they were so artistic they wouldn't sacrifice the quality of their work so they can make a boatload of cash.

Movies, games and music are all the same, product not art. The bottom line is that the moment the creator decides to sacrifice the quality of his work for monetary gain its no longer art and the creator is no longer an artist. I love games and movies and music but whenever I go to a classic art gallery, its clearly not even in the same league. No one has to agree with me, and I understand that.

EDIT: Plus I doubt that CliffyB or John Carmack will die of Syphllis on some island in the south pacific.

 

Music isn't art. lol.

 

Sure I know we'll agree to disagree, but according to your logic, nothing you view in that "classic art gallery" can be considered art! Is admission free? Exactly! Are those painting the ACTUAL original work of the artist or a reprint? Plus Van Gogh sold a painting before going insane an killing himself (so much for dieing of Syphllis on some island in the south pacific), Leonardo Divinci, Michelangelo, and Raphael were regularly commissioned by some rich aristocrat to so he could have something classy in his chamberhall, and thus were paid. I'll just say this, today's works in video games can be every bit as beautiful AND can be brougt to life in a way that could never have been done before!

 

Warrior is bang on the money with this one.... Classical art is constantly bought and sold for large amounts of money. That dosn't mean it's not art. To say that music is made by a comitee or whatever is a sweeping generalisation to be honest. Not all music is like that. Same goes for movies.

As for games, how is a game any less art than a good movie or book? Games can evoke just the same emotions as a good book or movie. Possibly even more so because the interactive element makes you even more attached to the characters. You choose how and when to interact with them, you have, depending on the game, a degree of control as to the outcome of the story. Sometimes, you're choices determine whether a character you may have come to care about lives or dies. How is that NOT art?

Then there's games like The Path........

 

I write songs and I write them for my own satisfaction. According to your ideas on what constitutes art, my music is more worthy than Mozarts!