Rober Ebert Hates Video Games (heh)

[mummifiedstalin]

Indeed he does, or at least if they try to be something more than a distraction.

He doesn't really offer a lot of reasons other than the general idea that "none of the games I've ever played [like chess...which isn't a video game, anyway] have ever moved me the way movies have."

Personally, I like Penny Arcade's reaction. Read Tycho's explanation, too:

He's simply a man determined to be on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the human drive to create, and dreadfully so; a monument to the same generational bullpoopie that says because something has not been, it must not and could never be.

One minor point he made which really got to me was that he said that he usually assumes that art is made by one person. And yet aren't movies, almost by definition, made by more than one person? I can't think of a movie that was ever made by a single individual, or at least not the kind of things that Ebert usually praises.

[The Mad Plumber]

I don't believe that it should be interpreted that Roger Ebert hates video games. Judging by his review of the film The Wizard, the obviously plays video games enough to point out glaring errors made by the filmmaker. In a way, I would say that I would define games as being "entertainment" as opposed to "art". However, if a film can be called "art", then I feel that a video game could be called "art" as well.

I am reminded that I once brought up a thread debating the legitimacy of the term "art" and of certain pieces that are defined as "art". I denounced Fountain as not being art, as there was absolutely no effort of Duchamp's side and that the piece has no meaning whatsoever. I briefly saw a video where some characters were going to debate about video games being "art", but I really can't sit through it because I don't feel they were running on all cylinders. Don't confuse "pretension" with "art". Why not consider the field of video game design as being "the art of making video games"? The goal is to make an entertaining game, and it does involve a level of intelligence and creativity to know what makes a good game.

[mummifiedstalin]

There are countless definitions of "art" and what makes something art. But I think the debate over whether a particular work or form or genre is "art" is usually about whether it's culturally significant and worthy of being returned to and thought about seriously.

I'd argue that, for example, the recent Grand Theft Auto games are "art" because they combine a fun satirical perspective on cultural attitudes towards violence with allowing the player a number of ways to interact with a setting that both encourages that violence and forces you to have a real ironic perspective on it. Bioshock and Mass Effect are both games with heavy complicated narratives and various symbolic layers. Now these games may have analogues in film or novels that are better, but that doesn't mean that the games aren't art as well. (Not only the "best" example of something is art.)

I guess my point is that when people start forcing distinctions between "entertainment" and "art," what they're really doing is saying that one thing is capable of REAL emotion or thought and the other is just a distraction.

But that becomes a matter of personal taste really quickly. So I think it's really less about saying what really IS art and more about saying "I want my opinions to be more important than yours." It's pretending to talk about something objective (Art with a capital "A") when you're really just talking about something subjective (my opinion of what I think is "serious").

Anything, any genre, any work is capable of being "art" if taken in the right way by the right person. Duchamp's urinal *IS* art in the context of the direction that art trends were going at the time. It's "conceptual" art that's designed to make a point: put a frame around anything, and we can call it art. But it's not supposed to be emotionally moving like, say, the Sistine Chapel might be to a devout Catholic.

But every work of art doesn't work in the same way: if you say that all art has to inspire profound emotions, then what about, say, atonal music which is designed primarily to experiment with different sounds rather than be traditionally melodic. You don't listen to it like you listen to a love song or even a Beethoven symphony. But it's still art: doing creative things with sound and music. But it may be more "intellectual" than "emotional." And other stuff may be highly emotional but not do much intellectually or in terms of pushing a medium, etc.

[Bix Dugan]

There were some awesome cut-scenes in GTA IV. It felt like something out of The Godfather.

I think Roger is very smart to say such things. I think the Sun-Times' website is locking up today from all the traffic (I can't scroll down when I finally get to the article).
Which also shows how much gamers are quick to check out any critique of our medium.

Did anyone here see Beyond the Valley of the Dolls?
Is that "art"?

[Chuck]

You should see Russ Meyer's Beneath The Valley of The Ultra Vixens with script by Mr. Ebert.

[mummifiedstalin]

Now THAT is art.

[Bix Dugan]

Is that the one Roger wrote?
I knew he did something with a bizarre title.

[siamesesin]

Found a pretty awesome breakdown here.

[Shep]

Apr 21, 2010 17:47:32 GMT -5 Chuck said:

You should see Russ Meyer's Beneath The Valley of The Ultra Vixens with script by Mr. Ebert.

Or "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls." One of the finest film parodies ever imo.

[mummifiedstalin]

Apr 22, 2010 8:21:55 GMT -5 siamesesin said:

Found a pretty awesome breakdown here.

That was well done.

[pyrozombie]

Videogames can be artistic. There was a game released not to long ago, I think it was called "Flower" where the creator made it "less fun" because he felt it began to betray his goal.

As for other games, I feel the entire metal gear series, god of war series, and Heavy Rain are perfect examples of what Ebert feels as impossible.

Long-winded paragraphs ahead; get a drink and a snack, take a bathroom break, your going to be attached to your chair for some time reading this.

Whether it's creator, Hideo Kojima, believes it or not, the Metal Gear series has become a thing of beauty, and near-perfection that I could call art on so many different levels.The metal gear series started out on the NES where you played as Solid Snake, Rookie Special operative, to go into a base called outer heaven and take down a rouge operative named big boss. It eventually evolved to Metal Gear Solid for the PS1, where it caught my eye, as a good action flick, but with some very emotional parts, with a balance of comedy. A definite choice for a game that could have been a movie(which I'm learning will be, but not enough details for me to go on about it). Metal Gear Solid 2; Sons of Liberty, however began a change in that formula, and began to add a psychological-drama aspect, with the main character beginning to question his own existence and purpose, all while fighting off a terrorist-organization composed of a immortal vampire, A woman who is followed by luck, a fat, yet devilishly mad bomber, and A man who says he is Solid Snake as well as the apprentice to Dr. Octopus, and all you have on your side is a old colonel, your girlfriend, a ex-bomb squad member, and a soldier named Iroquois Pliskin, who sounds suspiciously like Solid Snake from last game. Metal Gear Solid 3; Snake Eater was not actually a sequel but a prequel to the series, where you played as Naked Snake, the man who would become Big Boss. The story is set in the cold war, in the middle of Russia, where you fight against a psychotic Russian, as well as a rouge agent and her team of "warriors" who carry specific emotions into battle with them as their names, The Pain, The Fear, The End, The Fury, The Sorrow, and The Joy, also known as The Boss, The woman who taught Naked Snake everything about battle and her line of work. The Characters are memorable, the story impeccable, hands down the greatest storyline of any game I played before I got the sequel. The ending was slightly tear jerking, but for the life of me, I can't reveal. I have a policy about spoilers. The final metal gear solid game, Metal Gear Solid 4; Guns of the Patriots, was about as close to art as you can get without having Rembrandt as a head programmer. The story was dramatic and quite-final for our now aged hero.The entire living cast of characters showed up for the finale, as well as a couple new characters, and showed that the writers at Konami still had it. The plot was absolutely fantastic, with twists and turns that would give any fan of the series goosebumps. Towards the end, you get this amazing cut-scene which I consider art in itself, even if you detach it from the game. (SPOILER Here is a link to view it, but I suggest you get a PS3 and experience it first hand SPOILER Skip ahead to about 1:10, ignore the game play, and just watch the cutscene) The Metal Gear Solid series ends at number 4, however there will be a new Metal Gear game, named Metal Gear Solid; Rising, with the latest hero Raiden playing hero again. Whether or not one of these will be a rightful successor is unknown, but you better believe I will be giving these game a try.

The God of War game has gotten slack in the media for containing scenes of nudity and sex, as well as giving you a small reward for killing innocent townspeople, but these people don't see what I see. The God of War series centers around Kratos, a spartan warrior cursed and seeking revenge on Ares, the god of war himself, for what he has made him do. I won't go any further due to my policy on spoilers to good theater. "Now hold on Pyro, You average person", you might say, "Isn't the God of War series a testosterone-infused hack-and-slash game with the more blood in it as the entire world 4 times over?" Why yes but when looking at Greek or Roman theater the stage was often blood-stained. The story of Kratos is not unlike the style of Greek-Tragedy, A absolute drama with a end that is not exactly the best that could have been. The story aside, the design of the gods and the visual effects should leave anyone in awe in the sheer brilliance and radiance it carries.

And finally, Heavy Rain takes a new view on how to connect story and game, making the first of what they call, A interactive Crime Drama. The game's story revolves around the murders of the serial killer nicknamed "The Origami Killer", whose trademark is drowning small children in rainwater, leaving behind only a origami swan, and a orchid next to the child's body. The characters design actually come from the voice actors(who are actual actors who have starred in films) own appearances(Visit here to see the pictures of the voice talent next to the actual character. It's mainly facial, but with make-up and a quick haircut, the likenesses become uncanny. This link here however will lead you to a film cameo by the voice actor who plays the private detective Scott Shelby. The scene itself is mostly uninteresting filler, but the lines in this scene are directly used by Scott Shelby, and he is dressed exactly like his virtual counterpart, all 5 years prior to the games release.) The story is unlike any I have ever seen. The game has 28 endings total and the entire story is interactive using of system of play I've never experienced before the game's release. This could have been a movie, it by all means should have been. It has boggled my mind why it wasn't but then I realize it wasn't the game's point to give a linear plot. The director wanted to give the player more than one story each time they played or viewed, and that wasn't attainable when it came to film. This game's idea is a work of art in itself.

I really don't get how he can say this about video games than go talking about movies like his opinion matters anymore. Of course games are a distraction, movies are too, and music, and everything else we use to entertain ourselves is a distraction, the distraction we refer to is enjoyment. We distract ourselves so we don't get swallowed whole by the frustration and sadness that unfortunately is included in having a life.For this relic from a older time to deem something art is sheer ignorance that proves that with age does not come wisdom, but the chance of wisdom. Art is formless, shapeless and indescribable but altogether wonderful, beautiful and thought-provoking. Just because he can't see past the 1s and 0s doesn't mean he can just pontificate like an child claiming he hates vegetable because he doesn't like them when he has never tried them without somebody calling him out. It is a insult to anyone who creates anything they are proud of to have this man define what is art, opinion or not.

[Continuing Legend]

I don't really understand why gamers are getting so angry about this.

Dude's a MOVIE critic. I don't really care what his opinion of video games is. (I don't really care what his opinion on movies is, to be honest, but at least he is well-informed about movies because being a MOVIE critic is his job)

Also most movies based on video games suck.. COINCIDENCE?!?!?!

But seriously, why does it matter what Roger Ebert thinks about video games being art or not? Why does it matter what ANYONE thinks?!

I've said that his opinion doesn't really matter because he's not a gamer.. but even so, so what if he were some big-name game designer or something? It'd be weird and sorta disheartening for him to have that opinion, yeah, but whatever. I'll still play the games I want to play and I'll get enjoyment out of them.

You want to debate about whether or not games are art? Great. I'll be over here sniping zombies because I think it's fun and that's all that matters to me.

[lazlo25]

Ya know for a guy who gave positive reviews for Breakin' 2, The Happening, The Uninvited, and 2012, I wouldn't be surprised that he loath video games.

[falseprofit]

I like what he has to say about films but I don't care what roger ebert says about vg's.

[zombiewhacker]

pyrozombie

Dude, if you have a thing about spoilers, why did you give away part of the ending to Metal Gear 3 in your review (ixnay on the igbay ossbay)?