We've been talking about what we could do to help improve this folder lately. I thought maybe something like this could spark some conversation.

 

Celebrated film critic Roger Ebert recently weighed in on the medium of video games on his website, RogerEbert.com. The verdict? Ebert believes that video games are "inherently inferior to film and literature."

 

The topic came up when a reader objected to the film critic's generally dismissive attitude toward games. Ebert clarified his views on the value of games, lauding the "elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful" elements of some games. Still, Ebert argued, they'll never achieve the "stature of art."

 

His rationale? A video game relies on the interaction and choices of its users, not on the "authorial control" of a writer or director. The most incendiary comment, however, came at the end of the article: "For most gamers," Ebert wrote, "video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic."

 

So, what are your thoughts? A guy whose entire life is watching and reviewing movies is basically saying that video games are a waste of time.

He's not necessarily wrong, is he? That sounds worse than it is, I think. Most people play video games to kill time, right?

he's confusing two arguments. one argument is a separation of categories ('art' from 'games'), and one is an argument of value ('art' from 'crap'). he basically wants to say that games both are not in the same category as art, and are bad art.

 

if video games can't begin to be categorized as art, because of the nature of authorial control & whatnot, then there's no basis for even comparing them to art at all. it's like saying checkers is inferior to poetry because there's no "beauty" in it. well no shit there's no beauty in it, it's a game. if you come into checkers expecting aesthetic beauty, you've obviously misunderstood what the point of checkers is.

 

by separating his categories like that, he can't say that video games are "inferior" to films anymore than he can say that washing my car is. they're different kinds of activities, with different goals & different standards. i COULD wash my car 4 hours a day when i could be watching movies instead, and somebody might want to say i'm wasting my time, but how does it follow that washing my car is somehow inherently inferior to watching a movie?

Regarding authorian control, if a child does paint by numbers or uses crayon in a coloring book, is that not art? And if it is art, who does it belong to?

He's not necessarily wrong, is he? That sounds worse than it is, I think. Most people play video games to kill time, right?

Personally, I always played for the fun and challenge of games; not to kill time. The fun thing contains a lot of variables. When I play the new next Zelda game I won't be playing just to throw time away but I'll be playing it because it'll be a blast.

 

Now fun a lot of the time is storyline and I will say that I can get more into a video game story than a movie simply because you're the one that's participating in it so it feels more real. The art of a great video game itself just feels more authentic than a movie you're just watching from the outside.

If anything, Ebert comes off sounding like a pompous ass, or at least someone who never played video games and thinks it's all still Atari shit designed for little kids.

 

It's as if spending all the years he has reviewing movies has left him with a sense of his method of entertainment being superior to anyone else's.

I have to agree with Ebert here movies based on video games is a complete waste of time and is not art or entertaining in any way possible.

I have a feeling he'd change his mind if he played some of the games out there like the Rainbow 6 series, Resident Evil series, Black and White games, Fable and other well though out and well developed games. If he does not consider computer programmers and developers to be artisans he is either out of his fucking gourd or simply not knowledgable of the time, effort and work that goes into producing games. He should also think about how many movie industry people actually involve themselves in games these days, from actors to script writers to soundtrack composers. However I doubt he even knows fuck all about even basic shit like Pascal compared to his knowledge about cinema so really it's a matter of the blind leading the blind.

Meh. He's just another person that can only see the world in terms of his own interests and values. It's possible, I guess, but I doubt that his view of video games would really change if he played the ones that would otherwise most appeal to his senses. Old people are especially hard to change.

I agree that games made into movies never work, so why bother?

 

Other than that, I say bullshit to games being art and people don't play for the story. Oh, I'm sorry. I don't recall having a shitfest of an argument over at a board (I think its called "tsn" or something) that Xenogears' story wasn't as great as it is made out (or gravy, depending on who was chatting). I think it made a 20 page topic, and wars like that still go on about video games.

 

...I used an RPG, cause that's the first thing I can think up of. Sorry.

I wonder if Ebert ever owned the Sega CD, Panosonic, Goldstar gaming consoles. I can understand Ebert's side of the story considering that he had to sit threw and review classic films like Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Tomb Raider, Super Mario Brothers, The Wizard, Double Dragon, and the Uwe Boll series. How else can he not have a jaded perception of video games when that genre of entertainment invades his precious world of film producing nothing but 90 minute commercials and mindless eye candy.

 

Ebert believes that video games are "inherently inferior to film and literature.

Yup, and Western animation is inherently inferior to Japanese anime.

I think Jobber somewhat accidentally stumbled across the perfect comparison here. Ebert's argument is very similar to the folks that don't consider anime to be worthwhile because it's not all comedy based like the Sunday morning cartoons most of us in the US and Canada grew up watching.

 

Video games are by and large an entirely different world than the movies Ebert makes a living reviewing, and it's human nature to put things you don't understand on a level below the things you do.

I think Jobber somewhat accidentally stumbled across the perfect comparison here. Ebert's argument is very similar to the folks that don't consider anime to be worthwhile because it's not all comedy based like the Sunday morning cartoons most of us in the US and Canada grew up watching.

I thought Jobber was comparing Ebert's comments to the same comments made by people who feel that Western animation is crap because it isn't as artsy or dramatic as anime. As opposed from the point of view that you took, but I'm really not sure now.

I was thinking of the "I don't follow it or know about it so it's crap" angle, but yours works too, and probably better than where I was headed.

I don't buy the authorial control argument. Even in a game like GTA or KOTOR you are still bound by the game designers vision.

 

Ebert has pointed out that there is no Citizen Kane of games, a true undisputed masterpiece. I don't think it has anything to do with the medium, it simply hasn't been made yet. Gaming is still a fairly young industry and it has only recently begun to have an older audience. Look at where it's gone in just 15 years or so. Compare Mario for NES to MGS3. It's only a matter of time.

Yeah, the more money a game brings in, the more money studios will be willing to spend in its development, which means more resources (actors, writers, etc.). Games are already getting big name actors to lend their voices, soon enough you'll be getting directors and writers names' attached to it.

 

And even with all of this, I agree with Ebert. The interaction element prevents it from reaching the levels of film. The simple fact that you fail levels and have to start them again (or any variation of tasks/missions/dying) shows a major difference between video games and movies.

Ebert's right. It's easy to over simplify things, but the fact is that there is no video game that stands as far in the area of art as the greatest works of film and literature. And quite honestly, I'm not sure it can be achieved.

 

Second, video games ARE a waste of time for many people. Sure, there are people who responsibly enjoy video games and appreciate the work. There are other people who forego jobs and responsibilities so they can play violent and distasteful games for hours on end. In the same way there are bad movies and bad books.

 

Ebert stated his opinion, and it's valid. Frankly, it makes gamers look worse if they throw a hissy fit towards anyone who denegrates their interests.

If I invest a couple hours into a great movie, I feel enriched afterwards. If I invest a couple hours into a great game, I still feel some remorse for accomplishing nothing afterwards.

If I invest a couple hours into a great movie, I feel enriched afterwards.  If I invest a couple hours into a great game, I still feel some remorse for accomplishing nothing afterwards.

That doesn't make sense to me. What's the difference? What did watching the movie accomplish? It's just two different forms of entertainment.

Movies can provoke new thoughts, questions and actually have a certain impact on your life. Most video games are like, "yeah, I shot a shitload of people." Good way to spend a few hours.

I think some games can provoke new thoughts, questions and have an impact on your life. For example, when a couple of buddies and I were trying to go pro at Counterstrike. When working on strats and shit, we definitely had to come up with new pin points and whatnot. We'd get together and try to all get on the same page as a collective whole. That inspired a lot of thoughts and questions.

 

I mean, no game has ever changed my life. I don't think a movie has either though.

I've played several video games that have provoked thought, questions and have had an impact on me.

Ebert is still looking to stir some shit over the whole "video games aren't art" argument.

 

Then the throbbing magnetic pull of Soho attracted me, as it has so many young men, and soon I stood regarding the facade of the Windmill Theater. "We Never Closed," said the neon sign. That meant they were open, and that I would soon be over my daily budget.

 

Yes, it was just like you see it in this movie, but a little shabbier. There were comics and song-and-dance acts, and above all, there were dancing girls, and then the lighting shifted and you could see nude models, posed without moving, in "artistic tableaux." I gazed in bliss and wonder. The lighting shifted again, and they disappeared, because how long, really, could a girl be expected to pose like that on a clamshell? All very well for Venus, but hard work six times a day for a variety artiste.

 

The Windmill Theater introduced nudity to the British stage through the brilliant expedient of convincing the Lord Chamberlain (who censored the shows) that a nude, if she did not move, was not "theater" but "art," and fell under the same exemption that permitted nudes in the National Gallery. Oh, how I agreed. Faithful readers will have followed the controversy over whether video games can be an art form. If I argue that they cannot, how then can I claim that a nude model at the Windmill could be art? Anyone who can ask such a question has been spending too much time in the basement with a joy stick.

Ok, now he's just trying to be an ass.

Yeah, I'll give you that. Personally I don't understand the appeal of video games, as the only ones I have ever really invested time into are the Madden series, and I never really play alone. I haven't even owned a platform in years. But Ebert is just taking cheapshots now through his columns.