Roger Ebert: Idiot

I think it's a weak statement to say that "Video games can't/aren't art."

Games can be a way for people to express themselves, just like paintings, writings, etc.

However, video games are so much more complex that I think it's agreeable to assume that they can have more artistic value to different people. One person who plays Halo may think "That's not art! That's running around shooting aliens!" while a fan may say "But look at what was done with the story, or how this scene was coreographed, or how this level was designed to play out."

So yeah, I'd say video games are/can be art.

Originally posted by BackFire
Video games can, factually, be art. Just because they all aren't is a meaningless argument. The fact that some can be art means that the medium as a whole has artistic merit, which systematically destroys the argument against Video games not being art. Video games can be art, the few that are prove this to be true.

Ebert denying that video games can be art is reminiscent to the denial of movies being art, which happened when the medium was new and young, much like how it's happened now with video games. In a century people will look back and laugh at the thought of video games not being considered a valid artistic venture by some.

I could not agree more, 👆

Originally posted by Smasandian
No, but it takes 18 batters, plus atleast 4 pitchers each team, plus all the people who created the baseball field, bats, balls, gloves, and other related baseball equipment to design this game.

It's weak and crude to compare the labor of one (keyword) game of baseball to one video game of today.

Originally posted by Praylu
...it does not take up to two years and the work of numerous programmers, artists, designers, etc. to complete one game of baseball. 😉

Originally posted by Smasandian
I just think that they're is art in videogames like I said before, but as an whole, I dont think videogames are. But when I say art, I say that the textures are art. But would you call the gameplay mechanics art?

One of the reason is that great videogames are great because of it being fun. Can you classify great art from bad art by fun?
That's why I dont think its art. To get anything from a videogame, it requires you to play for hours on end and bring up your skill of the videogame. No matter how good the textures are, or how good the colours are, if the game isnt fun, its not good. How can we distinguished the difference between good and bad?

Not by their fun, but by their effect on people, and their purpose. Take the Final Fantasy games - They are generally moving and emotionally affecting on a level not usually seen in video games, they make statements about our society, and they have storylines that put most films to shame. It takes a great artist write these storylines, and great artists to create the beautiful worlds the game takes place in.

I totally agree.

But my point is still the same. Their can be art in videogames, but as an whole, its not art.

Hey Praylu, why is it crude to compare both?

When the video game itself is emotionally moving, I'd say "as a whole", it's art. 😬

Originally posted by Smasandian
I totally agree.

But my point is still the same. Their can be art in videogames, but as an whole, its not art.

Hey Praylu, why is it crude to compare both?

If a piece of it is art, then the whole is art. If you apply the logic that different pieces of art don't comprise a whole work of art then you must apply to everything, including film, music, writing, ect. All of these are art despite the fact that not every aspect of creating the finished product counts as art, video games are no different.

Did anybody read why Ebert said this? Or people just complaing because he said it wasnt?

The reason why he said it was because videogames is all about giving the player choices thus giving up authorial control, while great literature or film or paintings do not.

Backfire, I still dont agree. Sorry. I think the creator of Metal Gear Solid said it best,
"I don't think they're art either, videogames," he said, referring to Roger Ebert's recent commentary on the same subject. "The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."
"While Kojima said that games as a whole aren't art, he did say that games do incorporate art. "Art is the stuff you find in the museum, whether it be a painting or a statue. What I'm doing, what videogame creators are doing, is running the museum--how do we light up things, where do we place things, how do we sell tickets? It's basically running the museum for those who come to the museum to look at the art. For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum."

I dont agree on how people say that some games are art, and some games are not. For example, they say Shadow Of Coloussus is art, while Madden 07 isnt. How does that work? Can one painting, sculpture, novel, music be art, while another one isnt?

Originally posted by Smasandian
I totally agree.

But my point is still the same. Their can be art in videogames, but as an whole, its not art.

Hey Praylu, why is it crude to compare both?

So 😐

The same could be said for movies, music, ect...

Not really.

Music is music. Your not directly involved with the music. The artist records what he wants you to listen too
Movies are the same, the director shoots the movie he wants you see.
Both do not involve any choice by you.
On the other hand, videogames do. Videogames are all about choice, so the decision on what to do is yours, not the programmers. Sure, they're games like Half Life 2 on where everything is linear, but unlike an movie on where you have to see it, you can pretty much do anything, like pick up an garbage bin and throw it around instead of watching the scripted sequence of Breen talking. The programmer might not want you to do that, but its a game, and the player makes that decision.

H.S.6 is right, videogames can be art in the future, but right now, I dont consider videogame as art.
To comment on his other statement about videogames of having an emotional impact and if that happens, it will be considered art, I also agree too. Whenever that might happen.

A quote from Steven Spielbergh, " think the real indicator [of gaming's success as an art form] will be when somebody confesses that they cried at level 17"

But the main question of this discussion about videogames being art/not art is people interpretation of what's art.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Art is the stuff you find in the museum, whether it be a painting or a statue.

I dont agree on how people say that some games are art, and some games are not. For example, they say Shadow Of Coloussus is art, while Madden 07 isnt. How does that work? Can one painting, sculpture, novel, music be art, while another one isnt?

That's stupid, that counts out books, comics, music AND also movies. So that's certainly not true, since we know that at least movies can be art.

And I guess Madden 07 is kind of not art in the same way that New Police Police Story isn't art...meaning, they both are but they don't have much artistic value.

Or compare this beautiful drawing to a drawing by Leonardo DaVinci....both art?

Videogames just seem to be a further step. Pictures (just one) -> Movies (many pictures in one line) -> Videogames (many pitures in many different lines)

I still dont think Madden 07 is art because the game is all about the player choosing what he wants you to play, while on the other hand, directors, painters and writers create what they want you to see or hear. All movies, paintings, music and literature are art because the viewer cant change what they want to see even if they suck, while in all videogames, the player can choose whatever he wants. Some videogames might be considered art like Killer 7, but alot games, like sandbox games, sports games, simulation games and others are all about choice, taking the power away from the artist.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I still dont think Madden 07 is art because the game is all about the player choosing what he wants you to play, while on the other hand, directors, painters and writers create what they want you to see or hear. All movies, paintings, music and literature are art because the viewer cant change what they want to see even if they suck, while in all videogames, the player can choose whatever he wants. Some videogames might be considered art like Killer 7, but alot games, like sandbox games, sports games, simulation games and others are all about choice, taking the power away from the artist.

But that's not true, you can only see what they want you to see...but on such a large scale...it's like looking at a 1 square mile picture, you can't see all of it, but it's there.

Originally posted by Smasandian
"I don't think they're art either, videogames," he said, referring to Roger Ebert's recent commentary on the same subject. "The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."
"While Kojima said that games as a whole aren't art, he did say that games do incorporate art. "Art is the stuff you find in the museum, whether it be a painting or a statue. What I'm doing, what videogame creators are doing, is running the museum--how do we light up things, where do we place things, how do we sell tickets? It's basically running the museum for those who come to the museum to look at the art. For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum."

The same thing can be said for movies. Do you disagree that movies are art?

Originally posted by Smasandian
Both do not involve any choice by you.
On the other hand, videogames do. Videogames are all about choice, so the decision on what to do is yours, not the programmers. Sure, they're games like Half Life 2 on where everything is linear, but unlike an movie on where you have to see it, you can pretty much do anything, like pick up an garbage bin and throw it around instead of watching the scripted sequence of Breen talking. The programmer might not want you to do that, but its a game, and the player makes that decision.

I think you're looking at this too narrow-mindedly. If I can do something in a game, that means it was programmed in there. In other words, somebody intended to give me the option of, say, picking up a barrel and throwing it an enemy, rather than, say, punching them. Like Bardock said, video games may allow you choice, but you still do what the programmers/designers/scripters want you to do.

In this way, video games are like an advanced form of a movie; you may be able to choose what you want to do in one instance, but ultimately, the power is with the programmer (in this case, the 'artist.'😉

Originally posted by Smasandian
To comment on his other statement about videogames of having an emotional impact and if that happens, it will be considered art, I also agree too. Whenever that might happen.

A quote from Steven Spielbergh, " think the real indicator [of gaming's success as an art form] will be when somebody confesses that they cried at level 17"

You've never been emotionally effected or impacted while playing a game? I think you are in an extremely small minority there. 😬

NO! Certain video games have nothing to do with the programmers or what they want you to do. The best illustration would be Fighting games where you CHOOSE how and when you fight another LIVE opponent. The best game BY FAR for this would be Super Smash Brothers for the Nintento 64(best fighting, interactive game ever) I dont have to do anything the programmers want. I can use one attack over and over or I can do a different one. The same for my opponent. That's why those games are the BEST! B/c there is no ending level, or check point, you're actually competing against someone else. ALL CHOICE.

Originally posted by GODOFALL1
NO! Certain video games have nothing to do with the programmers or what they want you to do. The best illustration would be Fighting games where you CHOOSE how and when you fight another LIVE opponent. The best game BY FAR for this would be Super Smash Brothers for the Nintento 64(best fighting, interactive game ever) I dont have to do anything the programmers want. I can use one attack over and over or I can do a different one. The same for my opponent. That's why those games are the BEST! B/c there is no ending level, or check point, you're actually competing against someone else. ALL CHOICE.

But you can punch because a programmer has allowed it. You can use the same move over and over and over because a programmer has allowed you that choice. 😉

Originally posted by GODOFALL1
NO! Certain video games have nothing to do with the programmers or what they want you to do. The best illustration would be Fighting games where you CHOOSE how and when you fight another LIVE opponent. The best game BY FAR for this would be Super Smash Brothers for the Nintento 64(best fighting, interactive game ever) I dont have to do anything the programmers want. I can use one attack over and over or I can do a different one. The same for my opponent. That's why those games are the BEST! B/c there is no ending level, or check point, you're actually competing against someone else. ALL CHOICE.

Originally posted by H. S. 6
The same thing can be said for movies. Do you disagree that movies are art?

I think you're looking at this too narrow-mindedly. If I can do something in a game, that means it was programmed in there. In other words, somebody intended to give me the option of, say, picking up a barrel and throwing it an enemy, rather than, say, punching them. Like Bardock said, video games may allow you choice, but you still do what the programmers/designers/scripters want you to do.

In this way, video games are like an advanced form of a movie; you may be able to choose what you want to do in one instance, but ultimately, the power is with the programmer (in this case, the 'artist.'😉

You've never been emotionally effected or impacted while playing a game? I think you are in an extremely small minority there. 😬

I already answered that question.

I guess it's people's definition of what art is. That's pretty much all I have to say.

No I havnt been emotionally effected by videogames. Are you telling me that you have cried when somebody died in the videogame, or that the world ended? Or happy that the character (not you) beat the game? Or scared for the character when he walks into an trap?

Originally posted by Smasandian
Did anybody read why Ebert said this? Or people just complaing because he said it wasnt?

The reason why he said it was because videogames is all about giving the player choices thus giving up authorial control, while great literature or film or paintings do not.

Backfire, I still dont agree. Sorry. I think the creator of Metal Gear Solid said it best,
"I don't think they're art either, videogames," he said, referring to Roger Ebert's recent commentary on the same subject. "The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."
"While Kojima said that games as a whole aren't art, he did say that games do incorporate art. "Art is the stuff you find in the museum, whether it be a painting or a statue. What I'm doing, what videogame creators are doing, is running the museum--how do we light up things, where do we place things, how do we sell tickets? It's basically running the museum for those who come to the museum to look at the art. For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum."

I dont agree on how people say that some games are art, and some games are not. For example, they say Shadow Of Coloussus is art, while Madden 07 isnt. How does that work? Can one painting, sculpture, novel, music be art, while another one isnt?

Yes, I did read why Ebert said video games aren't art. The fact that video games give players some choice means nothing, it's a pointless statement that has nothing to do with the validity of art, according to the definition. Who ever said that art can't be open ended?

Using Kojima's same reasoning, a film can't be art either. Art has nothing to do with capturing only one person, has shit to do with the definition of art. Art is an expression of feelings or ideas. Video games can be a medium to do this. Just because a video game is trying to capture numerous people doesn't mean that it's not art. Movies are also trying to capture numerous people, and try to get as many people to see the movie as possible. Makes no difference.

Bottom line - Games like Final Fantasy or Resident Evil 4 have just as much artistic merrit as any movie or painting.

Comic Book-based movies almost always suck.

The last one that I actually enjoyed was Batman Returns back in 1992. Michael Keaton, Danny DeVito, Michelle Pfeiffer and Christopher Walken tore it up, que no?

Blade, X-men, Spiderman, Fantastic Four, Batman Begins, Superman Returns, Hulk and Dare Devil all sucked.

Comic book characters belong only in comic books, NOT on the silver screen.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Comic Book-based movies almost always suck.

The last one that I actually enjoyed was Batman Returns back in 1992. Michael Keaton, Danny DeVito, Michelle Pfeiffer and Christopher Walken tore it up, que no?

Blade, X-men, Spiderman, Fantastic Four, Batman Begins, Superman Returns, Hulk and Dare Devil all sucked.

Comic book characters belong only in comic books, NOT on the silver screen.

I disagree with you on so many levels it can't be measured.

For one, simply because the transition of some characters to screen fails this is not to say none of them belong in such place.

Second, many many people would deeply disagree with a few of the films you mentioned above as having sucked including myself.