3 ms·

the author doesn't actually claim its impossible, his main point is that "No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison w

the author doesn't actually claim its impossible, his main point is that "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."

tptacek 17y ago
Bad art: still art.
- glhaynes 17y ago
  Yeah. It bothers me when people confuse the terms "art" and "great art" and then multiply that confusion by applying it further in their argument.
cgranade 17y ago
Which is a real act of moving the goalposts, really. Can video games only be art if they compare with masterworks? What, then, of those poets today whose works will fail to stand the test of time? Are they doomed to have all their toils "not art" simply because somewhere, sometime, there was a better poet? A deeper complaint, however, is that the great masterworks of video games are incomparable to the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets because video games are an inherently different medium. If the plot of Heavy Rain were presented as a TV miniseries or a movie, it would be at best mediocre, but the plot is simple in the game precisely because it branches and reacts to your choices-- something no movie can do. Thus, the story expands in ways that a movie cannot, and it loses in a naive comparison. As I've said elsewhere, the Metal Gear Solid series is a wonderful example of an artistic work, but it too would lose much if direct naively compared to a great novel-- its charm comes from (among other things) its delightful strangeness, its vibrancy and its interactivity. The story is dynamic and something to be explored, rather than experienced. A better comparison may be to a written work like Lyra's Oxford, a companion to Phillip Pullman's excellent His Dark Materials trilogy that serves to show glimpses of what the protagonist's alternate England looks like, letting the reader explore a truly foreign land. How much more, though, can you explore the post-apocalyptic landscapes of Fallout or the dark urban fantasies of Final Fantasy VII? By leveraging interactivity, these games allow you to explore an environment in ways that books simply cannot. This isn't to say that books don't have their own strengths over games-- they definitely do!-- but rather to emphasize how different the media are.
electromagnetic 17y ago
There's no video game out there in which the story is of a comparable quality with a novel? A reply from a video game reviewer (me, for clarification): Okay, let's get started: The Halo series, anything by BioWare, The Elder Scrolls series (excluding Oblivion, story out and out sucked monkey nuts as it didn't have a single plot twist or revelation in it anywhere), Fallout 1 and especially 2, anything by Tim Schafer (hello Grim Fandango?), Broken Sword 1 & 2, Space Quest (especially #6), the legend of Kyrandia, Kings Quest, The Longest Journey . . . Here's the coupe de grace, The Dig. Spielberg gave the idea to Lucasarts because he knew it would take decades before the technology would be available to do the story justice. Written by Spielberg and Orson Scott Card. I'm sorry, but Ebert has no fucking clue. There was a game out in 1995 written by the Steven Spielberg and the Orson Scott Card, that game alone quantified the video game medium as having great potential for artistic works. There's a whole whack of games from the SCUMM era that have so much story it's still unbelievable by today's standards, even with BioWare. Sorry Mr. Ebert you're now entering your second decade of being out of touch with the world, obviously we left you behind in 1995 when Spielberg, one of the greatest film directors alive, saw greater potential in video games than in film. If you were aware of this fact, I wouldn't doubt you would still hold a grudge against video games like newspapers hold a grudge against the internet and blogs. I know it must hurt that video games are know a bigger global entertainment resource than film, but that is a fact you will just have to live with. Don't worry, just like the inevitable death of newspapers, you'll probably still be so outdated that you won't notice the death of film before the world has forgotten your once relevance.
- apu 17y ago
  Yes, games are great, and art, and Ebert's wrong about them. But I think you're unfairly judging (and berating) Ebert about much of the other stuff. He's actually remarkably on top of things considering both his age (67) and his status (can't talk, eat, or drink due to cancer surgery and the loss of his fucking jaw!). He has an active blog with some of the best writing out there, he's hyper-active on twitter, he knows about newspapers going down and is not living in the past there, he's starting a new online presence for himself and his readers, and he doesn't "hold a grudge against video games"; he just doesn't seem them as art. Your angry rant only hurts your (mostly) valid points.

tptacek 17y ago

Bad art: still art.

glhaynes 17y ago
Yeah. It bothers me when people confuse the terms "art" and "great art" and then multiply that confusion by applying it further in their argument.

cgranade 17y ago

Which is a real act of moving the goalposts, really. Can video games only be art if they compare with masterworks? What, then, of those poets today whose works will fail to stand the test of time? Are they doomed to have all their toils "not art" simply because somewhere, sometime, there was a better poet? A deeper complaint, however, is that the great masterworks of video games are incomparable to the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets because video games are an inherently different medium. If the plot of Heavy Rain were presented as a TV miniseries or a movie, it would be at best mediocre, but the plot is simple in the game precisely because it branches and reacts to your choices-- something no movie can do. Thus, the story expands in ways that a movie cannot, and it loses in a naive comparison. As I've said elsewhere, the Metal Gear Solid series is a wonderful example of an artistic work, but it too would lose much if direct naively compared to a great novel-- its charm comes from (among other things) its delightful strangeness, its vibrancy and its interactivity. The story is dynamic and something to be explored, rather than experienced. A better comparison may be to a written work like Lyra's Oxford, a companion to Phillip Pullman's excellent His Dark Materials trilogy that serves to show glimpses of what the protagonist's alternate England looks like, letting the reader explore a truly foreign land. How much more, though, can you explore the post-apocalyptic landscapes of Fallout or the dark urban fantasies of Final Fantasy VII? By leveraging interactivity, these games allow you to explore an environment in ways that books simply cannot. This isn't to say that books don't have their own strengths over games-- they definitely do!-- but rather to emphasize how different the media are.

electromagnetic 17y ago

There's no video game out there in which the story is of a comparable quality with a novel? A reply from a video game reviewer (me, for clarification): Okay, let's get started: The Halo series, anything by BioWare, The Elder Scrolls series (excluding Oblivion, story out and out sucked monkey nuts as it didn't have a single plot twist or revelation in it anywhere), Fallout 1 and especially 2, anything by Tim Schafer (hello Grim Fandango?), Broken Sword 1 & 2, Space Quest (especially #6), the legend of Kyrandia, Kings Quest, The Longest Journey . . . Here's the coupe de grace, The Dig. Spielberg gave the idea to Lucasarts because he knew it would take decades before the technology would be available to do the story justice. Written by Spielberg and Orson Scott Card. I'm sorry, but Ebert has no fucking clue. There was a game out in 1995 written by the Steven Spielberg and the Orson Scott Card, that game alone quantified the video game medium as having great potential for artistic works. There's a whole whack of games from the SCUMM era that have so much story it's still unbelievable by today's standards, even with BioWare. Sorry Mr. Ebert you're now entering your second decade of being out of touch with the world, obviously we left you behind in 1995 when Spielberg, one of the greatest film directors alive, saw greater potential in video games than in film. If you were aware of this fact, I wouldn't doubt you would still hold a grudge against video games like newspapers hold a grudge against the internet and blogs. I know it must hurt that video games are know a bigger global entertainment resource than film, but that is a fact you will just have to live with. Don't worry, just like the inevitable death of newspapers, you'll probably still be so outdated that you won't notice the death of film before the world has forgotten your once relevance.

apu 17y ago
Yes, games are great, and art, and Ebert's wrong about them. But I think you're unfairly judging (and berating) Ebert about much of the other stuff. He's actually remarkably on top of things considering both his age (67) and his status (can't talk, eat, or drink due to cancer surgery and the loss of his fucking jaw!). He has an active blog with some of the best writing out there, he's hyper-active on twitter, he knows about newspapers going down and is not living in the past there, he's starting a new online presence for himself and his readers, and he doesn't "hold a grudge against video games"; he just doesn't seem them as art. Your angry rant only hurts your (mostly) valid points.