Warren Spector (of System Shock and Deus Ex fame) asks, Where's Gaming's Roger Ebert?
42 replies, posted
i'd nominate jeff gerstmann but he shit on yoshi's island so fuck him
[editline]13th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41445396]I believe that the Binding of Issac is a good example of an artistic game. It's a game about "[URL="http://www.twinfinite.net/blog/2012/10/01/big-sloppy-slomper-chompers/"]Kids with shitty lives [that] make up fake, creative worlds that they can get forever trapped in.[/URL]" It's a deceptively simple game, yet opens up the doors for tons of deeper analysis and debate.[/QUOTE]
i kinda feel like people look for the wrong things when they try to look at games as art. the most pertinent artistic thing about a video game is the interactivity and the emotions it makes the players feel, as that's what makes gaming what it is. sure, that's what binding of isaac is about, but you could express that same concept in a movie, or a painting, or a novel, or what-have-you. in this instance, how is it expressed through the act of playing the game? what does it make the player feel about this theme, and how is it unique to the chosen medium? i've seen people talk about the writing or art in a game to validate it as artistic, which is misguided imo
[editline]13th July 2013[/editline]
i'd also like to add that a game doesn't necessarily have to have a complex theme or story to be artistic. super mario bros. 3 is a masterpiece of level design and atmosphere that makes the player feel subtle emotions through its interactive nature which fall under the broad umbrella of "having fun". you would not be able to express the tension and relief of well-designed platforming in any other medium
[QUOTE=doommarine23;41444854][B]TL:DR - Don't be Shallow, Games are equal "art" as anything else is.[/B]
Aren't games already art?[/QUOTE]
yes, but a ton of people don't think so, or have a selectively permeable opinion. facepunch is a good example. there was a thread about mincraft in ITN, saying that it was a contender for some art exhibit along with journey and others, and people came in and said "it's not even complete game lmao how is it art??? no it's just tools to create art, so that means ms paint is art!!"
it's not just with videogames, though. remember all those articles about abstract art being destroyed? there's always a bunch of chucklefucks that say "it's not art, i could do that. i could shit on a canvas."
facepunch doesn't understand art.
What made Roger Ebert special was his sheer passion for his artform. We have plenty of people like that available to us through the internet.
But even film doesn't need Roger Ebert. Actual film scholarship, which is the study of film and its cultural impact on the medium, even frowns on people using him as a reference for how influential a film is.
I don't understand why people refuse to consider games art. What is the requirement? That it be a form of expression? It already is. That it be entertaining? I find them very entertaining.
What kind of guidelines are you people setting?
You can't really critically analyze a game they way you can a movie because the nature of the material is not the same.
It would be like trying to do a critical review of a comic book the same as you would a novel. The best you can do is review the comic book as a comic book. Watchmen, as good as it is, simply is not on the same playing field as The Grapes of Wrath.
A movie that works well, works well on many levels. Visuals, writing, acting, technically, music, editing...the list goes on.
A great game could be as simple as Pacman or Nethack. Even if you limit the eligible games to visually complex games, you still have the problem of virtual characters who sound human but are obviously not real. LA Noire blew people away with the facial technology but that was nowhere near human enough to be on the same level with movies. The depth just isn't there to warrant the critical analysis. Review games as games, that is, judge them against other similar games and that's all you can do.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;41448134]You can't really critically analyze a game they way you can a movie because the nature of the material is not the same.
It would be like trying to do a critical review of a comic book the same as you would a novel. The best you can do is review the comic book as a comic book. Watchmen, as good as it is, simply is not on the same playing field as The Grapes of Wrath.
A movie that works well, works well on many levels. Visuals, writing, acting, technically, music, editing...the list goes on.
A great game could be as simple as Pacman or Nethack. Even if you limit the eligible games to visually complex games, you still have the problem of virtual characters who sound human but are obviously not real. LA Noire blew people away with the facial technology but that was nowhere near human enough to be on the same level with movies. The depth just isn't there to warrant the critical analysis. Review games as games, that is, judge them against other similar games and that's all you can do.[/QUOTE]
I'd argue that games have certain advantages that can't be touched with traditional media. The fact that you are, personally, inserted into the media has potential to make gameplay experiences much more personal that experiences received from a movie. You're no longer watching a stranger run around on camera; you're the one running around on camera. You're not watching someone run away from the monster, you're the one running away from the monster. Alternatively, you're the monster.
For example, Spec Ops: The Line is a strong example because normally, you're watching a person struggle with difficult moral decisions and fighting against fate. In this game, you're the character making the difficult decisions, and fighting against fate. You're irrevocably doomed from the moment you start playing, but you're still the catalyst for every event in the game. Everything that happens is your fault. This left a stronger impression on me than any novel or movie has.
I'm also not trying to argue that gaming is the superior art-form; I'm merely trying to illustrate how different it is from other art-forms. Maybe being difficult to compare isn't a bad thing. I believe that the Oculus Rift and the advent of the first generation of acceptable consumer-grade VR will make these differences more profound.
I'm sure he's out there, tearing Epic Mickey a new one.
Epic Mickey 1 was a pretty good game
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41447115]
facepunch doesn't understand art.[/QUOTE]
Most people don't. There seems to be a major misconception that the capacity to create is something that is beyond most people because what they create doesn't reach some unreachable imaginary and often incredibly vague standard.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41447115]yes, but a ton of people don't think so, or have a selectively permeable opinion. facepunch is a good example. there was a thread about mincraft in ITN, saying that it was a contender for some art exhibit along with journey and others, and people came in and said "it's not even complete game lmao how is it art??? no it's just tools to create art, so that means ms paint is art!!"
it's not just with videogames, though. remember all those articles about abstract art being destroyed? there's always a bunch of chucklefucks that say "it's not art, i could do that. i could shit on a canvas."
facepunch doesn't understand art.[/QUOTE]
Aren't you cute, labelling +1000 people as artistically myopic with the press of a key as if you aren't part of the very same forum!
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41448330]I'd argue that games have certain advantages that can't be touched with traditional media. The fact that you are, personally, inserted into the media has potential to make gameplay experiences much more personal that experiences received from a movie. You're no longer watching a stranger run around on camera; you're the one running around on camera. You're not watching someone run away from the monster, you're the one running away from the monster. Alternatively, you're the monster.
For example, Spec Ops: The Line is a strong example because normally, you're watching a person struggle with difficult moral decisions and fighting against fate. In this game, you're the character making the difficult decisions, and fighting against fate. You're irrevocably doomed from the moment you start playing, but you're still the catalyst for every event in the game. Everything that happens is your fault. This left a stronger impression on me than any novel or movie has.
I'm also not trying to argue that gaming is the superior art-form; I'm merely trying to illustrate how different it is from other art-forms. Maybe being difficult to compare isn't a bad thing. I believe that the Oculus Rift and the advent of the first generation of acceptable consumer-grade VR will make these differences more profound.[/QUOTE]
The variation in experiences works against critical analysis though. How can you analyze the subtext in a game sequence the same way you would in a movie? In the movie, all scenes play the same for all audiences. When we watch The Godfather, we are all seeing the same thing. Your review of The Godfather speaks of the same movie I saw, so what you say can enlighten me or bring new perspective to what I saw.
In a nonlinear game, you may see scenes that I don't. Thus, your review would have no relevance to the game I experienced.
edit: I just realized I went off on a different tangent. I disagree with the game being more immersive, more like YOU are the main character. I think the only reason written material and movies work is because we can make the leap in our imagination to be 'in' the story. When I read a book about someone trapped in a zombie infested world, I am in that zombie infested world, if the story is a good one. Even a great zombie game can't make me feel any more in the game world than a good book can make me feel in the book world. Same with movies, I identify with the characters in a good movie as much as if I was playing those characters in a game.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.