While Ebert is blatantly wrong to write off all games in this fashion, and is obviously doing so having little or no gamesplaying experience, it is difficult to offer up a convincing argument against him when the majority of games have storylines entirely driven by publishers' marketing men. Let's be honest - the storytelling in most mainstream games is pathetic.

Having said that, games offer a completely different experience to films and it's almost pointless comparing the two. Are the hours I spend being lost in a zombie-infested city, or exploring a lost wilderness "wasted"? Not to me - they let me experience things that I just can't do in real life.

I have a lot of respect for Ebert as a film critic, but he should stick to talking about subjects he actually knows something about.

Wow, I guess playing "Computer Space" on his dusty abacus around the turn of the century really spoiled his old ass on the whole gaming experience. Well, after listening to Ebert decry the lack of art in gaming I guess I'll be giving it up.

By the way, I'm really glad to hear that "Mom and Dad Save the World", "See Spot Run", and "Addams Family Values" did not, apparently, represent a loss of those precious hours I have available to make myself more cultured, civilized and empathetic. And here I thought there were a waste of my GD time.

While he might have a point (no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers).

I would argue that the videogame industry is still young. What were movies like for the first 20 years?

If I wanted to get snarky... I would suggest that Ebert, with all of his world-renoundness, has not been able to offer anything to help the Movie industry. Basically this poor guy is doing nothing but rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic.

Ebert doesn't know squat about movies either!

It's pointless to compare art genres. You certainly won't change anyone's mind and art is best as a to each his own thing.

I believe his whole point is flawed because video games are all about authorial control. Even in games where free form play is allowed, GTA, Spiderman, etc., you still objectives, predetermined by the game makers, that must be completed, almost certainly in some sequence, to have the game be "complete."

Plus, just to be a jerk, what does Ebert do anyway. He comments. Wow! Why doesn't he go actually create something, like game makers do, instead of sitting there criticizing other peoples work.

It seems ignorant to say that games are inherently inferior to cinema or literature. How can one art form be inferior to another? This is not a competition. Painting is not inferior to sculpture. They are merely different art forms. Video games are a new art form that Ebert might be having trouble really grasping. If one wanted to be antagonistic it would seem more logical to say video games are superior to cinema. What is "better"? To sit in a room watching someone take action and do things that you never will? Or to actually be that person? To be "in" the movie, if you will? To be in Jurassic Park as a T-rex walks by, able to look around and run or die, depending on your actions? That would seem inherently more interesting and engaging and "superior", if we wanted to reduce it to some immature battle, which is what Ebert apparently wants to do. You can't really blame him. It is natural when you are old to have difficulty with new concepts and experiences. He grew up with this passive medium where you sit idley by and watch people do things. That is his whole frame of reference which is reflected in his physique. We are a new generation, a younger generation. Someday we will probably be confronted by something new and we will have trouble coming to terms with it too but for now we are on the edge of the new.

When did Ebert get a face lift??

Just one more thing - how is slicing a cow in half or splashing blobs of paint on a canvas art, but creating a fully realised virtual environment not?

>>Plus, just to be a jerk, what does Ebert do anyway. He comments. Wow! Why doesn't he go actually create something, like game makers do, instead of sitting there criticizing other peoples work.

Ebert is a fantastic writer. :)

However.. He's correct, only in a few cases has games transended their simple origins to impact someone emotionally like film or theater has. But games are Young, compared to Drama. Give it time.

Roger Ebert isn't into video games? OH MY GOD! Why go on living?

Honestly tho, who cares what he thinks about video games, anyway? It's like going to an old folks' home and asking for their opinions on gangster rap albums.

"Has no one deigned to show him a Metal Gear Solid or even the original Xenosaga yet?"

Not sure I would hold either of those up as examples of "art". They don't hold up in any sense to even mediocre films.

In fact, you're looking at it the wrong way. You don't write a book trying to compete with a film on the same criteria and you don't design a video game that way either. Games, if they are art, are their own art form. I would argue that chess is artistic in its elegant complexity. So is Go. I would argue that games like Rez and Katamari Damacy are art in their own unique ways as well.

But if you're going to compare video games to film, you're going to fall into the same trap Ebert has. There is just no game you can look at, however linear its story, and say "the writing, editing, acting, visuals and overall story-telling are as tight as any film". Because a) that's not what games are about, and b) it's not true anyway. The art of video games lies elsewhere.

What's up with his face?

a) Plastic Surgery
b) Photoshopped

I think he had more than just a face lift. Looks like a bit of lipo around the chin/neck, maybe some dermabrasion or laser treatment. Either way, he looks damn scary--in an andriod kind of way. If you squint he even starts looking like an old crazy woman.

"Plus, just to be a jerk, what does Ebert do anyway. He comments. Wow! Why doesn't he go actually create something, "

Umm, he did. He wrote "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", "Up!" and "Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens". Make fun all you want, but these are cult favorites.

Besides, I get annoyed when people complain about how critics never create anything. You've obviously never heard of the French New Wave and directors including but not limited to Jean-Luc Godard and Francois Truffaut - some of the most famous and well-respected directors in the history of film - who all started out as critics writing for the Cahiers du Cinema (in fact their theories, including the auteur theory, are still taught in film schools) and only became directors because they were sick of all the bad movies they had to write about. That should be proof enough that critics can be at least as creative as anybody else. They have a broader view of their industry than most who grew up as creators. The fact is they chose to be critics, probably in many cases because it's an easier and better paying job than being a creator.

I wonder if Ebert has tried out King Kong.

<paraphrase>
"Oh look, it's the film critics buffet!"
"I'm sorry, but that buffet is specifically for Roger Ebert."
</paraphrase>

I have to agree with the comments that games != film (even in the best of cases)... but Half-Life , and especially HL2 come pretty damned close.

Want me to tell you how many of my friends CRIED when a certain somebody from final fantasy 7 died? A LOT of them.

If anything, videogames have the potential to be the GREATEST artform, because unlike film, books, etc. you are actually involved with what's happening. You get involved with the characters plight, get scared when he/she's in danger, After a good video game you feel a sense of acomplishment. Other art forms can't evoke HALF as much feeling because it's being projected onto you, and there is no active involvement on your part except keeping your eyes open.

He totally has a point. Compare Medal of Honor to Saving Private Ryan - no comparison. I can't stack even FFVII next to the great movies I've seen. I don't like Titanic, but it's deeper than any Blizzard, Square or EA title.

It's a question of control. Square can't really stop me from spending 10 hours (or 6 months) between scenes, and then how moving is it when Aeris dies? Games have trouble with timing and emotion, but I think improvements are happening. Look at Shadow of the Colossus. Developers CAN do better, but they haven't, because fun and escapism sells more than mood and emotion. I don't blame them. It's why there were Rambo movies and why TV shows exist.

I don't think movies are all that great, either, but knee jerk 'He doesn't know what he's talking about' is silly.

Videogames are too open to be movies and too closed to be sports (usually). But they more generally resemble sports. Anyone can watch a movie or read a book, but not everyone can play a 60 hour RPG.

As for Ebert, his show was a big catalyst for quality in the movie industry. Most videogame websites owe their existence in part to 'Siskel and Ebert', because they really popularized reviews and they warn people about content. People did reviews before and after him, of course, but his show was national/international and so was very influential. Reviews are essential to making better movies and games. If we know nothing, we'll spend $50 on anything with a cool cover, or $10 on anything with a cool movie poster, and then the studios/publishers will make crap. Just a couple months ago, I avoided Alexander because of that man and I love him dearly for it. He watches crap so I don't have to.

"What's up with his face?"

Um, guys, he had cancer.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/spotlight/2002/03/20-ebert.htm

I have a lot of respect for him as a film critic. I don't always agree with his opinions on films, but I can almost always appreciate his insight.

I think the first comment was about all that needs to be said. Well done, Nick.

I would also suggest that Ebert check out Beyond Good and Evil or Eternal Darkness.

Hate to be Juvenile but that is quite possibly the most androgenous pic I have ever seen.
That said he's your typical ignorant old fogies spewing about something which he is clearly not very familiar with.

Why is this story posted twice on joystiq.com? It's the first new story after the wrap-up from yesterday.

Hmmm,

You folks may have missed the most telling reason not to follow Ebert's beliefs. According to the excerpts above, the key difference between movies and games is that movies are solely in the author's control, and that games are in the gamer's control. Moreover, by implying that only movies can make us more cultured and civilized he is implying that we need to pay attention to the authors/directors of movies to become more cultured and civilized. This line of logic leads to the conclusion that Ebert believes we should look to the movies as the basis for our decisions.

For me, movies are just about entertainment. I don't look to somebody who is good at directing a movie to teach me about civilization. I want to be in charge of my own life and my own decisions.

According to his logic it looks like I'm a video game guy all the way.

Ebert is kind of the man, of course we can find some example of some lame movie he gave a good review, but overall, he's on point and a good critic. Which is a valid career, by the way.

Almost anyone is going to sound like an ass trying to answer that question. Especially when you pull a quote, and post it on a video game site.

Rather than get mad at him, look at it the other way: as gamers we should demand more from our games - more engaging stories and more creative use of the amazing interaction that is possible - trying to make a game like a movie does not always the best game.

People don't get mad at songs because they don't like them as much as movies, they like songs AND movies, so games can be added to the canon of 'art' in my mind. It's a different form of expression.

Personally I don't think games are at the level of my favorite movies and books, but I still love them - it might get there, there's a lot of growth happening and maybe sometime, but great video games don't stack up to what one might call a 'great' novel or movie because a) it's subject to opinion anyway, and b) movies and novels are different in that they offer the story to you, rather than having you pick your own path or do actions to reach the next level or wave. You don't play games for the same reasons you watch a movie. A two hour game would disappoint and a 25 hour movie filled with redundant collecting of coins or killing 6508 zombies by hand or machete would be unwatchable.

I agree with him.

The Call of Duty / Saving Private Ryan comparison is spot on.

Video games can be fun, but ultimately we see a mix of what we want and what the creators want. With movies we see what the creators want exclusively. This level of control gives them much, much more power. Take HL2. In any given "plot" scene you could be running around tipping things over, paying no attention to the dialogue, and possibly creating enough noise to drown the dialogue out.

How effective is the story telling if it can be entirely ignored?

Ah, I see what happened with the "earlier" post... another one of our bloggers accidentally made a duplicate post with a timestamp 12 hours in the past. That post has since been removed. Thanks for the watchful eyes, guys!

who gives a crap about this guy anyways! he always rates the crappiest movies with a "TWO THUMBS UP" well i think he needs to take those two thumbs and shove them up his rectum, cause i don't wanna guy who gives crappy movies good ratings rating video games anyway! the GOOD games have EXCELLENT storylines or at least some form of a good plot, yes, we have games like tetris etc. but many games do have legitimately decent stories such as half life 1 and 2, ffVII, etc.

#6 - I'd have to say that I don't like B-Bert either, but I can say that he does do something by giving an opinion on something; even if I don't agree with it, as is true in this case. I was an entertainment writter for four years, and an opinions editor for one, and I value somebody giving out what they think, even if it is only to prove their own ignorance.

It seems like he shouldn't be able to criticize if he hasn't actually done any video game work himself, but then again I don't cook, but I can sure tell you when something sucks.

I personal opinion on this matter is that I believe E-Bert is scared. Look at him; he belongs on, "Beat the Geeks," for crying out loud. And in his mind I can only imagine in his own self perception that he is indeed a very traveled, knowledgeable, cultured man.

He's spent his life in print and film, obsorbing as much as possible. Durring the last twenty years though a medium has been simmering to a boil. Durring the eighties, and early to mid-90's games weren't nearly at the pinicale that they are today - as is proof with the PS2's sales, compared to the PS1 - and there was no need for him to even give them the time of day.

This has left him a man lost in the year 2006. He's actually out of touch with one of the largest entertainment industries in the world. No back history. No knowledge. No experience. Sure this must scare him; and with all who lack knowledge in an area he must choose only one of two options. 1) Just admit that he knows little about the subject, or 2) Defend his own knowlege by downplaying the significance of another subject.

It would would appear that he has chosen option 2. Instead of hunkering down, going back to his the gaming roots, and working his way forward, so that he can embrace a culture, he will simply pass us off as unimportant, nay, unworthy, of having our own true forms of storytelling.

Ten bucks says he has never in his life finished a game, or spent any more than five minutes with a modern one.

If he had, he would realise that the story in some videogames can become MUCH more powerful than movies could ever hope to accomplish, simply BECAUSE of the fact that it is interactive, that you steer these characters through their world yourself, and you spend so many hours with them.

They become much more alive because of this, much more like actual people you know. Most of the times, I can't say I give two shits about when anybody dies in a movie. With videogames on the other hand, not so, especially if the dead character was one that you had control over, one that was in your party or something. Their absence is felt much more intensely. You don't get that specific kind of attachment with movies or books.

And that's just one example, really. Something else to consider would be the way locations and backgrounds are shown to the viewer. In movies, what you get is maybe a shot of two seconds. Some camera panning maybe. In a book all you get is a description. In a game? You get to walk around and gawk at your environment as from all angles long as you like, take it all in, explore spots that seem interesting. In Zelda OoT, if you want to sit at the lake for a while and watch the sunset, you can. No way this is possible in movies or books. You don't get any of that immersion, and I believe it really is an important new element of storytelling.

So in ways, movies and books are vastly inferior to games.

Something else he doesn't really even consider is gameplay. Can gameplay be art? I'd say look at Ikaruga for example.

Give him copies of the Star Wars prequels and then sit his ass down and have him play Knights of the Old Republic.

Then give him a copy of Ico just for good measure.

His argument wasn't that games are inferior to movies, but that they will never be as good as movies BECAUSE LACK OF AUTHORIAL CONTROL.

That argument is clearly wrong.

It assumes that authorial control is necessary to make (great) art. He's completely ignoring interactive art. Moreover someone pointed out what's art, if not how the art consumer experiences it? Where's the authorial control in that?

Even if you assume authorial control is necessary to make good art (I don't), videogames have plenty of authorial control. Traditional RPGs use decision trees to guide the players where the game designer wants them to go. All video game worlds are completely made of things the game designer decided to put there. How is this not authorial control?

Eberts strikes me as a cultural purist, who sees the whole remix culture as an abomination instead of embracing new forms of art as they evolve.

Ebert is at the same time both wrong and right. If one regards games as solely a form of narrative art they come up short compared to literature, film, comics, and all other forms where the narrator has absolute control. But taken on its own, interactive narrative is a unique and relatively new art form that must be considered for what it does that others cannot duplicate. Much in the same way that comics are well suited to some narrative styles and tedious for others.

About a decade ago, Penn Gillette of Penn & Teller fame was asked we he didn't get involved in game design as it seemed a natural outlet for the team's talents. He said he wasn't interested in creating situations where he gave up control of the narrative. Even on those occasions when an audience member was pulled up on stage there was little or no real interactivity. The guy has to do as he is told. No mater what he does the conclusion is always, "Is this your card?" It always is the card in question.

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the games Ebert has been exposed to in recent times have been movie tie-ins. On top of being atrocious more often than not they almost always duplicate the narrative of the film and everything is a foregone conclusion. Either Obi-wan lops off all of Anikin's remaining limbs or Anikin kills him. There aren't any real choices. Even the latter end is not really an ending so much as a failure. We don't get to see the world that comes of that and are reduced to whipping up some quickie alternate fan fiction in our heads to derive any satisfaction.

Interactive narrative requires a different mindset than traditional narrative forms. It can derive technique from those forms but must evolve new concepts to achieve its full stature. Part of the problem is that having a real world in which the player's choices are genuinely meaningful yet there is still a narrative voice guiding the story is complex and labor intensive. Lucas doesn't need to work out a different path in which Anikin doesn't lose an arm to Count Dooku. No matter how skillful the player is that event is going to be forced upon him to keep the story to its single path. The first interactive fiction in which the player has freedom to make real choices but doesn't feel like he's lacking good reasons to go where the author leads has yet to be produced. Things are much closer than they were a few years ago. The GTA giant sandbox style of design has upped the ante a bit. Fable made a lot of unfulfilled promises but suggested where things may go in the future.

Deus Ex. That is perhaps the finest example of video game as art. The story is deep and well told.

All I can say is, thank God it's Roger Ebert and not Leonard Maltin. If it were Maltin, I'd have to destroy something.

Trying to say games are an art form by pointing out hokie examples in other fields (the cow blood smearing painting, for example) is faulty. You could argue that ISN'T art, therefore by pointing something else that ISN'T art, you claim another medium IS art. Dumb.

Also, look at the nature of a game. Interesting camera angles, plot pacing, total immersion, it is all sacrificed so we have a better idea of what is going on, and how we beat the game. We want a first person perspective for shooters because that is the easiest control scheme to shoot everything. Show me a single movie where one part of the screen shows the main characters ammo (which undoubtedly would be the infinite sign) another bar for how wounded he is. I'll die when Arnold shoots someone and numbers come flying above his head.

Show me a movie where you stare at the same person's back for 20 hours, a la every platformer.

No game will ever have the emotional punch of Schindler's list. Any game made of such would have Schindler packing an uzi to protect his jews or have him searching concentration camps for various colored cards to remove workers from the trains to Auschwitz.

Here is the real deal: art should be timeless. A great book a long time ago should be a great book now. A hundred years from now people will still read "The Sound and the Fury." Casablanca will still be rentable on the new spiffy holographic direct-to-brain technology. Video games die out, end of story. The punch they pack, as the graphics become outdated, and our minds grow accustomed to the better and better of now, the less the affect.

Fifty years from now, if people still hail Half-Life 2 as one of the greatest cinematic gaming events...well, then I'll be wrong. But I won't. But fifty years from now people will still read Shakespeare, kids in classes will still groan at his name and whine about how he sucks.

Art has existed since we were walking around hitting animals with sticks. Literature has existed ever since we learned how to read. There is no comparison. Movies are the closest thing you can compare video games too, and even then, much of what we watch now is dictated by the "pander to the 18 year old" mentality.

Video games are entertainment. No knock against entertainment. But cut scenes do not make a game art. It makes it a game with sections of a movie. Cut scenes, well, maybe you can call that a form of art. But pressing A to make mario jump isn't.

"Video games die out, end of story."

That's nonsense, no offense. Everybody still likes Super Mario Brothers 3 today. Same with Zelda ALttP. Ikaruga is one of the most critically acclaimed modern games even though it's based on an old concept and doesn't have flashy 3D. Games like these are in fact timeless, I don't know why you'd think they would die out.

Yeah so they're few and far between, but name me some movies that came out this year which will be forever remembered? You don't get a new Schindler's List every day.

Good Job David! That is good enough to be published. See, this is what I love about Joystiq.

So another douche bag putting down videogames, eh?

By looking at his picture, you can seriously put him down by his appearance. What a joke.

I agree with Nick, the first to post. He's a legendary and respected (by me) film critic who has mistakenly embarrassed himself by opening a can of worms that he didn't recognize as a can or worms.

He is of a generation that missed the opportunity to garner the unique and unparalleled experience that the best of video games has to offer.

We would not judge the legitimacy of motion pictures as an art form by the glut of pap that fills the cineplex week after week. Nor should he judge video games with the casual observations of someone who hasn't the experience or inclination to know what's being produced or how to judge it.

I would think that his comments will serve as fodder for some gaming sites but will have no power to persuade the uninitiated. Like talking religion , politics or like trying to get grandma to play Ninja Gaiden.

"To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers…."

Final Fantasy 6 - Shakespeare

Final Fantasy 5 - Tolkien

Spartan - Homer

Zelda - Cervantes

Metal Gear Solid - Nelson DeMille

The list goes on.

I have to admit that I view videogame storylines with lesser expectations than those of film. It's a simple fact that, while there is a short list of games that put real effort to creating a cohesive story, most are either excessively simple (as is the case with most fps games) or have storylines reminiscent of the babbling of an addict in need of a fix (like MGS).

The fact that there is such a short list of games that have a comprehensive story leaves us less to consider when making an argument against Mr. Ebert. Of the short list of games that do have a big story, it seems tough enough for its writers to make it cohesive yet still linked to the gameplay. It's extremely rare among those games that their story be well written to the standards of film and literature.

While I’m sure that there are those that enjoyed the story in Metal Gear Solid games, I always considered it the weakest part of the game. While the game plays very well, its story is little more than an obsessive rant. If you put that up against great literature or film, such as The Lord of the Rings, you get a great story vs. a long-winded rant in a videogame.

That said, I've always liked the way some stories mix into the gameplay. Splinter Cell does an excellent job of this. It never tries to create a big story as much as keep a story going while you play the game. Keeping that in mind, it's the perfect way to tell a story in a videogame without trying to compete with other mediums such as film.

One of the better stories in videogames comes from the Legacy of Kain games. Though some of the games may fall short in how they play, the story is comprehensive and compelling (much thanks to excellent voice actors). At times, it actually becomes part of the way some of its games play. Even so, its story falls short of great film.

The simple fact is that a great story that could compete with film in a videogame would actually hurt the game. It would take away from its interactivity. While film and literature may be better at telling a comprehensive story, videogames create situations to endure or survive and worlds to explore or manipulate. It's impossible to compare the two on a level playing field.

When looking at videogames vs. film or literature, it's a case of "apples and oranges."

Tetris will live forever.

With narrative video games, I can see his point. I can't think of a game that really served as commentary on some universal truth and made me reflect on what it means to be human. However, it's ridiculous to say that will never happen. Video games are still quite young... Hell, it took hundreds of years before dramatists invented the concept of putting two actors on stage together.

For formalist art, however, video games would seem to be on the absolute cutting egde. Tetris is the most obvious example, and will almost certainly be around hundreds of years from now. It is one of the greatest games of all time and one of the most mesmerizing works of formalism at the same time.

He’s absolutely right....they are inferior, but I believe video games will find their way.

Half-life 2 is the only game that is remotely close to a film experience

Video games absolutely are inferior to literature and film AS ART, which is what he meant.

Rockwell, no he didn't. He said video games are inferior to movies as an art form, because video games lack authorial control. That's bollock.

Games should never be compared to movies/literature anyway... this is our own inferiority complex at work here. Ebert hit on a good point when he said games are about interaction... this is key, this is ALL games are about... STORY is not essential to what makes a game good, but it is ESSENTIAL to literature and film. Tetris is one of the greatest games ever made, yet the story is a joke... so yes if you look at a game through the lens of film then they are inferior as story telling mediums... they are. Stories ARE about authorship, they are... games are not.. they are about participation, there is a BIG DIFFERENCE...

A story in a game is actually a whole different layer, take the story out, and you still have a game.. If you have a lame game with a great story... guess what... you have a lame game. If you have a great game with a lame story, guess what... you have a great game. STORY is to games as special effects is to movies... they can help out but are not essential (to most genres at least)...

I actually respect ebert alot more than i respect all game critics toghether. AT least ebert has made movies... i don't know of any game critic that has made a game... and yet they speak as if they know about development.

First of all, I respect Roger Ebert. That being said...

Roger, you say that video games will never be as good as film and literature. Now, I might disagree with that, but for the moment lets assume that this is true.

Even if this is true, its a completely silly thing to say. Why? Because film is much closer to video games than it is to literature.

And one other thing, if film and literature are superior to video games becaues video games involve choice while literature/film involves authorial control, does that mean that literature and film are superior to real life?

I agree with ebert. we can argue about the merits of final fantasy but to compare it with Shakespeare is stupid. Macbeth and Julies Caesar contain some of the most memorable scenes in all of literature. really, who has never heard the line Out, damned spot! out, I say! now where is your famous final fantasy qoute?

where is ebert's original post?

This has all been said before by critics WITHIN the gaming industry. I remember an article from like 5 years ago on IGN that made similar arguments to what Ebert is saying...found it:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/085/085422p1.html

"Unfortunately, there aren't quite as many opportunities for introspection in a round of Quake as there are in Torment. That isn't to say that Quake's not an important or beautiful game, only that it's not profound in terms of profound art. ... But because games like Torment are more the exception than the norm, computer games as a whole fit more into the Art of the Everyday category (e.g., the art of walking, the art of training cats, the art of working closely with intolerable people, etc.) than into the Profound Art category."