exactly, it is sometimes about feelings… so why need videogames have to say something about human condition…? When I listen to the Rite of Spring, I listen to the music, I don’t care about historical context or what Strawinski wanted to say… it says something in the language of music :-) If games say something, they should do it in the language of videogames, just my humble opinion…
but E4 is better than Flower or Braid
hey, that was sneaky trolling…
You’re really focused on the human condition, aren’t you?
btw. you know why E4 is so good? Because I can revisit it and spend an hour with it and enjoy the experience… (I liked the other games, but I don’t feel like I want to revisit them very soon…)
Somebody should have shown E4 to Ebert… ah, critics… they always look in the wrong direction.
Ebert would have immediately dismissed it since it has points.
yes, but the points are so important. They are as important like notes in a musical score… Music consists of numbers and counting, so do games. But his field are movies… You can say he is an expert. Why is it important what he thinks about different fields. If he wants to say something about videogames, he should spend some time playing… like he could become a movie critic by only reading the scripts…
Thank goodness we’re having this pointless conversation again.
[/worthless post]
Excellent point. I think it falls in line with his admission later in the article he’s unable to justifiably say that games can’t be art to those that play them.
Even with his dictionary-pulled definition, video games can easily fall into that construct yet he (at least originally) failed to see how. His comment they can be technically excluded by it is just not correct -
“… producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power”
You simply don’t play a game if it doesn’t do anything for you emotionally. That is the primary purpose for them - “I am enjoying this” is an expression of an emotion.
Self discovery is to be found in understanding why you’re enjoying the game. For instance, why would someone like one of the Resident Evil games? That’s not exactly your stereotypical escapism - who wants to live in THAT world? Likewise, does anyone really want to be constantly wary of snipers or someone stabbing them in the back like in Call of Duty?
Whether it’s some stupid Zynga p.o.s., Pac Man, Pong, or Civ IV, those games all create an emotional experience for us and that is the primary reason they exist and the reason why people buy them. If a game doesn’t engage us emotionally, it’s boring and collects dust. Different games provide different emotional experiences and therefore most gamers play more than one or two games. It’s really pretty darn basic (at least imho).
[/another worthless post]
I’m with Ken Levine on this one. I don’t give a shit what a film guy thinks about video games. I have no need or want to be accepted by some other medium. Coming from Film/TV, which I found very limiting after playing Doom, maybe i’m in the minority, since I know sooo many game designers that want to do movies…
Dan --games and emotion. You are right, but games at this point we are awesome at the negative side of the emotional tree(Fear,Anger), no so good at the positives. i have yet fallen in love with a game character the same way i fall for say, Pony Boy when he died, or the depth of characters in Godfather…or even Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy.
BUT games are beyond story and narrative,–which we get so hung up on these days and to me the real question is can game play be art? I personally think so, hell I think the creation of the FPS was a work of art, that Super Mario Bros was a work of art, and X-Com was also a work of art…one that obviously was so awesome no one can replicate it.
Agreed. A thousand times, agreed.
I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve played a game that was recommended to me because it was an artistic achievement that also turned out to be fun to actually play.
I turned on my xbox yesterday and I could have played Alan Wake, Red Dead, but I had it enough with mediocre stories and cutscenes… so I played E4 for an hour, like I used to listen to music… this is the truth. I thought, would be great to have a thread about games and art in QT3 and that E4 is a great game and great art, and bam, it happened… go check it, I am NewBROF on xbox live. Unfortunately I can’t express what makes E4 great art (same for the 4th symphony of Beethoven), I only can say I love it and that it gives me great feelings… not an art critic here…
Go and ask Philip Glass how long it took the critics to accept his style of music… many, many years. Or remember Pauline Kael how she dismissed Kubricks work…?
You guys talking about Flower and Every Extend are taking the wrong tack when it comes to winning Roger Ebert over.
Just make him play Dear Esther.
Not to convince him of anything, mind you. I’m thinking more as a punishment.
I think Ebert is missing out on what could, conceivably, be some really wonderful experiences for him. Just like your avoidance of rap music and 17th century French literature could mean for you. On the other hand, there’s a whole lot to experience in this wide world, and I for one don’t hold it against Ebert that he’d rather spend his limited time in other ways than playing games. I myself don’t watch nearly as many movies as he does, and I’ve probably missed quite a few excellent experiences that way. I will, ultimately, live.
I think you have a good point, but your analogies are a bit mixed.
It’s like declaring “Music” can’t be art. Or “Writing” can’t be art.
Ebert is locking himself out of a medium, not a genre.
He’s stopped with the art thing - hence the thread. I’m just commenting about his refusal to play games. He is missing out, but there’s too much else in the world for it to be a big deal.
It is interesting people have tried to make him play SotC to show him he was wrong. As great as it is, its artistic greatness can probably only be valued by someone experienced enough in the medium. The purity of the gameplay will be lost on novice gamers who won’t have a base to start from in their judgement. So will be the excellence of execution, especially considering it is prev-gen now. We are then left with a minimalistic story, good atmosphere and contrast in dynamics which might or might not affect a non-gamer.
He wouldn’t be able to PLAY SotC. He’d find the controls impenetrable, get frustrated, and give up after a few minutes. If you forced him to keep trying, he’d find the whole experience agonizing.
Haven’t you ever tried to get a non-gamer family member to play an action game? For the average non-gaming person of Ebert’s age, it’s the equivalent of being handed a violin, pushed out on stage, and asked to play Beethoven.
I thought they wanted him to play Flower.
Probably because it’s short, and he can get the feeling of swooshing around within a half an hour or so.
Is a much better choice…
Nah. Braid just gets the game part right.