Newsweek's Croal chimes in on 'video games as art' debate

Normally, I'd agree. But the fact remains, "as I understand it" is like the old saying, "Never judge a book by it's cover." In other words, Roger Ebert is more than content to look at the covers of video games and instantly denounce the medium. You cannot use a phrase like "As I understand it" if you have never made the attempt to do so.

After all, Hummers have a 100% explosion rate when hitting rabbits as I understand it. Is this statement valid? I mean, I never actually looked into the instant combustion rates of Hummers as they impacted small rodents. So obviously I'm right and my statement cannot be called into question.

Meanwhile, he states that video games, since they allow the viewer to reach their own conclusion to the narrative, instantly denounces the medias validity as high art. Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Ebert himself praised many films which left the viewer without a clear resolution? In fact, up until his recent "meh rants" on the subject of video games, I attended the Ebert film festival yearly right here in Champaign Urbana. Several of the films he showed had open endings, challenging the viewer to interpret their own conclusion. So since video games do that exact same thing, it's horrid and "low art." I do love his Andy Warhol reference however. Failing to realize his innane observation could just as easily apply to Citizen Kane.

But then he bashes the escapism of video games. Saying that gamers cannot partake of a worthwhile medium because they should be facing reality. And yet he loves to applaud well crafted escapism in the cinema.

Facing facts, Roger Ebert has shown that he lacks the willingness to even research a medium he's hellbent on insulting. If he was willing to research the medium before pissing all over it, we would at least be in a better boat. However, he's not. And so he's roughly the same as an old woman pointing at Astrology as a "devils craft."

That concept comes up tons in games, especially RPGs. I really wonder if Ebert has an antiquated Idea of what videogames are. Does he think games are still on the level of Pac-Man and Pong? Tell this guy to pick up FF4, 5, 6, or 7. Even 8 qualifies as art.

I really don't get this guys opinion. If the musical score to FF7 is considered art, and the artwork of FF7 is considered art, and the story of FF7 is considered art, then how come putting all these things together with a D-pad and a button somehows nullifies the art of its constituent parts?

Seriously, this guy probably hasn't picked up a video game since the early 80's. Games definitely have the capacity to be "art".

Yes some art is interactive, the artist wanting to draw the viewer into acutally experiencing the work. Yes these are called "video GAMES", but plenty of celuloid was in the old penny arcade shows, that not being art either. Yes I belive Mr. Ebert did in fact have a stab at "creating" something. Art evokes response.

Don't care ABOUT ART! I don't care about this debate and argument since I just want to play my video games!

Then why are you posting in the topic?

I don't really think that's what happened here... What Ebert did was toss out an ill-informed opinion on a subject he knows next to nothing about, and then got thoroughly trounced by someone who actually knows something about it. It's the same thing that would happen if a game critic started ranting about Broadway musicals, and got bitch-slapped by a theatre critic. It doesn't prove either of them are outclassed or irrelevant, just that they should keep their mouths shut and stick with what they know. (Or get to know the thing first, and THEN render an opinion).

As far as I am concerned, getting trounced by someone with a greater knowledge on a subject by a colleague (they are both media critics and journalists), is the same as being outclassed.

I think it also does show Ebert in an irrelevant light, because Croal relates his dressing down of video games to earlier criticisms of film- of which Ebert himself should be painfully aware.

Ebert got beaten at his own game, simply, and the margin by which he lost supports the irrelevance of his viewpoint.

They're both media critics and journalists, but those are enormously broad categories. A games critic and a film critic are as closely related as a sports commentator and a weatherman -- they're completely separate jobs, even if they both appear on your local news.

That's why, even if Ebert's shenanigans don't exactly inspire respect for him as a person, they don't make me take his film reviews any less seriously. He's a perfectly decent film critic, he just needs to stop pretending he's anything else.

Well Blue, as I was on my way to getting my own journalism degree, I was taught that there are certain rules which dominate media criticism across the board. Croal and Ebert both know these rules (such as how to present an argument and back it up with documented facts). Croal bested Ebert at this game. End of story.

And, frankly, your assertion that game and film criticism are as far apart as the jobs of a weatherman and a sports commentator, is absurd. As movies like "300" and games like GTA and Psychonauts have shown, there are many points where these two media cross, and similar areas on which they can be judged.

There are similar areas on which sports commentary and weather forecasting can be judged too: analyzing patterns, making predictions, presenting them in a concise and entertaining way. But that doesn't mean the two fields are the same, or even remotely the same.

If there's one thing that everyone here (including Ebert) seems to agree on, it's that games and films are fundamentally different mediums, which can't be compared directly.

I agree that Ebert's arguments are ridiculous. But I think that's got a lot more to do with the fact that he's way out of his field of knowledge than with his overall skills as a journalist. His biggest fallacy was thinking he was capable of debating in this area.

"Always" is saying a lot. Games will evolve and be taken more seriously over time, just like movies were. Eventually they'll be just as mainstream.

And while technical achievements and "fun" are still the major selling points of games, things like story, music and art style are considered very important in certain genres (mostly RPGs). Critical/thematic analysis of games isn't done much like it is with literature, but that doesn't mean it can't be. In the future you might even see serious attempts at deconstructing games like FF Tactics.

I really hope you're joking. Though with a SN of "GearsMaster", you probably prefer games in the shallow shooter genre, which can be adequately described as "pretty but not on the same level as art".

Look into classic RPGs of the 16 bit era for games as art. Chrono Trigger is a personal favorite that elicits an emotional response several times. FF6 (FF3 on US SNES) is a game with beautiful art and musical direction with living characters that go through real growth and development. Even FF7 has character change and elicits emotional response in many cases.

Sure, none of them are "gone with the wind" or "Romeo and Juliette", but they all have artistic merit.

So because I loved Gears I MUST be obsessed w/ FPS's? And nothing else?

Your ignorance is amazing.

For your information I love all types of games. I'm a fan of games like Mario Party, Mario Strikers Charged, Metroid, Trauma Center, and Pokemon. And I also enjoy games like Gears and Dead or Alive 4.

I enjoy videogames. They look nice. They provide fun. But they're NOT art. Sorry but its as simple as that. They'll never be art just like they can't be sports.

@ Crono

I'd like to point out that your own view of FPS games is rather narrow. You appear to be arguing that FPS games either don't evoke emotional response or that since they don't evoke the same sort of responses as RPGs they are less artistic (thus apparently ranking certain emotions over others).

You don't have to have lengthy dialog to evoke emotions. I've felt plenty of emotions playing FPS games.

Yes, but the reason the majority of FPS games get picked on is because they are very simplistic in their vision.

I have studied this issue for about 10 years of my life, because back in the SNES days were were promoused that in the next 10 years games will equal movies and become full mediums in terms of art and entertainment...something that has seem to only just started with the Wii.

I have directed a few short independent films. I have also worked for a video game developer in the past. There are two main problems with why games are not full art...

1) The driving force of games and the driving force of movies are not the same.

Here is how books, movies and music is created. Someone or even a group of people out there gets inspiration and says "WHOA! NEAT IDEA!" With creativity, he writes a pitch and works on said idea. Then he pitches it to the publishers/producers and they try to find a market for it. If they can, they then give money and support to said idea provided that said person(s) can finish it to perfection.

AKA while money is involved, the main driving force is the idea and inspiration itself. If that fails, then the whole thing fails.

This is how games are made. Publishers get together and look at the market. They see a market that offers big bucks and finds what that market likes. Said market wants bloody guts FPS with big titties that only involves one button to play. They then ask one of there developers to make a game like that and put as much cool new stuff in that idea so it seems more than just another game in said market.

AKA the driving seat becomes the consumer and the market, not an inspirational idea.

This is why I think we take such people as Miyamoto, Kojima, Suda51 and Will Wright as geniuses. They have risen so far up the later that all their games comes from the idea. Miyamoto is not so much concern how many polygons are in his game, but rather what would happen if you could swim in space?

That is one thing.

2) This one is simple. Public perception. We still market games as big expensive electronic tom-foolery instead of meaningful experiences that will make you cry, laugh and cheer for those polygons you control. We need to change the market perception by changing the way we market games and then have said high entertainment games to back up our claims.

If games can be more enriching and entertaining than movies than why are they not? Director George A Romaro has the answer to that:

"They always say if you build a bigger, better mousetrap than people will come. However, how can people come to such a thing if they have no idea it exist in the first place?"

"Simplistic in their vision?"

Please explain what you mean by "vision" and why most shooters, as opposed to other genres, could be described thusly.