Post by cucumberboy on May 6, 2010 8:33:31 GMT -5
Continued from the Critics thread.
My opinion in general is starting to change, though.
As David and I have discussed on the show, or view is that art is about an artist (or artists) expressing their interpretation of the world. The audience shouldn't have a say in the matter, otherwise it's just as much about the audience's interpretation as the artist's. As such, the interactivity of video games dilutes the purity of the artist's vision and message. My view was that the only way a video game could approach the traditional definition of art was if the game forced the audience to make a choice within the game that they didn't want to make. Of course, the ability to save, go back, and try it another way is a sort of cheat.
A lot of recent games seem committed to doing this. "Batman: Arkham Asylum," for instance, does such a thorough job of creating an atmosphere and forcing the audience into Batman's shoes- using the interactivity to create in us a paranoia and dread that is almost suffocating- that it is more emotionally and intellectually engaging than the majority of movies released. Truly, it is an artist's vision, in which he allows us to come in and look around, while always reminding us that we aren't really welcome.
Ebert is getting old; that goes without saying. He's had some experiences in the last few years that, in some ways, have given him a more sunny outlook on life and, in others, much dimmer. His poorly-written outright rejection of Kick-Ass (a film I haven't seen as hasn't gotten universally good reviews elsewhere) and his trumpeting of every single thing about Avatar speaks to his rapidly-disappearing literary nuances.
It is sad and a little frustrating. But, lest we get too condescending about him, we should try to take the time to realize that we're not where he is yet. Perhaps in about forty years, I'll be exactly the same way.
This is going to be a long post, but if the subject still interests you, I'd really appreciate it if you take to consideration this post. And hopefully more people will join the discussion!
It's very encouraging to see that you might be changing your mind, because (and I don't mean this to belittle your arguments in any way) it seems very much like your previous unwillingness to see video games as an art form was a result of your lack of experience with them since many of them meet your requirements for art (which I by the way agree with to a large extent). The fact that you bring up Arkham Asylum points to this as well since, while it is a very entertaining and interesting game, its artistic ambitions and/or accomplishments are not as great as many other games. The game is more of an action game, and not a very story-driven one (although I'd agree with the points you make about it). It's a very run-of-the-mill game when it comes to story actually, and definitely not one I'd think of when thinking of video games as art.
It's also important to understand to which extent the makers of a video game have control over their game. There is no way you can do anything that the makers of the game doesn't want you be able to in the game. Everything down to (literally) the laws of physics in the world is in the hands of those who are directing your experience. The best example of freedom in games would be the so-called "open-world-games" where you are allowed to roam free in the world and find your own sollution to things, usually while still following a very linear storyline. These are admittedly probably not the best examples of video games as art. Games like these include the GTA series, the Mafia and Red Dead Redemption.
In the old forum I brought up the game Mass Effect and the Sophie's Choice-esque descision you have to make at one point in the game. The sequel is now out and might very well be the best game of all time in my opinion. A quick playthrough takes about 20 hours and most of that is dialogue. You constantly have to make quick and difficult decisions and (spoilers) by the end of the game some, many, or all of your friends may be dead. The game might even end with your own character dying. All the decisions you made in the first game will impact your experience with the second game in a huge way.
Of course, you don't have to watch the whole thing, but this is a video of the first minutes of the game. Recognize the voice of the man in the beginning? (proboards creates an ad next to the video for some reason)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hia_m36pEpA (I recommend you watch it in 720)
Often times you will have to choose between your friends' loyalty or your own concience. In the mission (part of the mission) in this video you're helping your friend Garrus, who since the first game has become more and more disillusioned by the growing bureaucracy in the galaxy and has decided to take the law into his own hands. When you meet him in Mass Effect 2, you haven't seen him in two years and his character has changed a lot, but depending on how you play the game you can reinstill hope into him. Depending on how you play the game you will also gain different conversation options. In this video for example, you can save the character of Sidonis, and convince Garrus it was the right thing to do.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezih2ausUA4&feature=related (again, HD)
The conversation system works in a way that you choose a short version of what you want to say and your character says it in a more interesting way. At the three-minute-mark, Shepard (the main character) pulls Sidonis back and tells him not to move. That's an example of when you have to react fast. If you don't react quickly enough, Garrus will take the shot.
I just want to end this post by quoting an article from cracked.com:
(http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-ebert-is-wrong-in-defense-of-games-as-art)
PS. Playing a great video games can put you into an altered state of mind that I have simply never experienced from a film. I played through this game at a friends house on an HD projector in a completely dark room with surround sound. It was one of the most relaxing things I've ever done. For anyone who's interested, I suggest you switch to HD and fullscreen: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfrW3dtaRmo The demo is available here: www.bigdownload.com/games/braid/pc/braid-demo/ DS.
I used to agree with him about video games not being art up until he changed his argument to something much more simplistic and condescending.
My opinion in general is starting to change, though.
As David and I have discussed on the show, or view is that art is about an artist (or artists) expressing their interpretation of the world. The audience shouldn't have a say in the matter, otherwise it's just as much about the audience's interpretation as the artist's. As such, the interactivity of video games dilutes the purity of the artist's vision and message. My view was that the only way a video game could approach the traditional definition of art was if the game forced the audience to make a choice within the game that they didn't want to make. Of course, the ability to save, go back, and try it another way is a sort of cheat.
A lot of recent games seem committed to doing this. "Batman: Arkham Asylum," for instance, does such a thorough job of creating an atmosphere and forcing the audience into Batman's shoes- using the interactivity to create in us a paranoia and dread that is almost suffocating- that it is more emotionally and intellectually engaging than the majority of movies released. Truly, it is an artist's vision, in which he allows us to come in and look around, while always reminding us that we aren't really welcome.
Ebert is getting old; that goes without saying. He's had some experiences in the last few years that, in some ways, have given him a more sunny outlook on life and, in others, much dimmer. His poorly-written outright rejection of Kick-Ass (a film I haven't seen as hasn't gotten universally good reviews elsewhere) and his trumpeting of every single thing about Avatar speaks to his rapidly-disappearing literary nuances.
It is sad and a little frustrating. But, lest we get too condescending about him, we should try to take the time to realize that we're not where he is yet. Perhaps in about forty years, I'll be exactly the same way.
This is going to be a long post, but if the subject still interests you, I'd really appreciate it if you take to consideration this post. And hopefully more people will join the discussion!
It's very encouraging to see that you might be changing your mind, because (and I don't mean this to belittle your arguments in any way) it seems very much like your previous unwillingness to see video games as an art form was a result of your lack of experience with them since many of them meet your requirements for art (which I by the way agree with to a large extent). The fact that you bring up Arkham Asylum points to this as well since, while it is a very entertaining and interesting game, its artistic ambitions and/or accomplishments are not as great as many other games. The game is more of an action game, and not a very story-driven one (although I'd agree with the points you make about it). It's a very run-of-the-mill game when it comes to story actually, and definitely not one I'd think of when thinking of video games as art.
It's also important to understand to which extent the makers of a video game have control over their game. There is no way you can do anything that the makers of the game doesn't want you be able to in the game. Everything down to (literally) the laws of physics in the world is in the hands of those who are directing your experience. The best example of freedom in games would be the so-called "open-world-games" where you are allowed to roam free in the world and find your own sollution to things, usually while still following a very linear storyline. These are admittedly probably not the best examples of video games as art. Games like these include the GTA series, the Mafia and Red Dead Redemption.
In the old forum I brought up the game Mass Effect and the Sophie's Choice-esque descision you have to make at one point in the game. The sequel is now out and might very well be the best game of all time in my opinion. A quick playthrough takes about 20 hours and most of that is dialogue. You constantly have to make quick and difficult decisions and (spoilers) by the end of the game some, many, or all of your friends may be dead. The game might even end with your own character dying. All the decisions you made in the first game will impact your experience with the second game in a huge way.
Of course, you don't have to watch the whole thing, but this is a video of the first minutes of the game. Recognize the voice of the man in the beginning? (proboards creates an ad next to the video for some reason)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hia_m36pEpA (I recommend you watch it in 720)
Often times you will have to choose between your friends' loyalty or your own concience. In the mission (part of the mission) in this video you're helping your friend Garrus, who since the first game has become more and more disillusioned by the growing bureaucracy in the galaxy and has decided to take the law into his own hands. When you meet him in Mass Effect 2, you haven't seen him in two years and his character has changed a lot, but depending on how you play the game you can reinstill hope into him. Depending on how you play the game you will also gain different conversation options. In this video for example, you can save the character of Sidonis, and convince Garrus it was the right thing to do.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezih2ausUA4&feature=related (again, HD)
The conversation system works in a way that you choose a short version of what you want to say and your character says it in a more interesting way. At the three-minute-mark, Shepard (the main character) pulls Sidonis back and tells him not to move. That's an example of when you have to react fast. If you don't react quickly enough, Garrus will take the shot.
I just want to end this post by quoting an article from cracked.com:
But why even bother with all of this? Ebert himself wonders: “Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form….Why aren’t gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves?” And he’s already answered his own question: “do we as their consumers become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, philosophical (and so on) by experiencing them?” Anybody who’s ever felt even an inkling of something like that from a game is going to be understandably “concerned” when you insist that they’re lying.
(http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-ebert-is-wrong-in-defense-of-games-as-art)
PS. Playing a great video games can put you into an altered state of mind that I have simply never experienced from a film. I played through this game at a friends house on an HD projector in a completely dark room with surround sound. It was one of the most relaxing things I've ever done. For anyone who's interested, I suggest you switch to HD and fullscreen: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfrW3dtaRmo The demo is available here: www.bigdownload.com/games/braid/pc/braid-demo/ DS.