Recently, the famed, and occasionally agreeable film critic made the following statement, “I did indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.”
Now, if you take a second to ponder that does it really make any sense? I make the argument that for that very reason video games are inherently superior to film and literature for that very reason. How can direct interaction with individual consuming the work make it inferior compared to a medium that is passive by its very nature?
He goes on [unfortunately] to say, “The nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. 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…. for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.” I find this statement entirely offensive.
Take into consideration a game by the name of, Pong. I challenge anyone to tell me that it is not a work of art. As a pioneer in the game industry, it takes a fundamentally simple concept and executes it to perfection. It represents a simple game that occurs throughout life varying from tennis, to kickball. How can something to reduces a basic form into its most fundamental elements not be art? Because, when it comes down to the so called greatest dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers, are their works anything more than commentaries on life?
Furthermore, if Ebert wants to looks at video games that issues authorial control, he should check out the Metal Gear Solid games, that are essentially cuts scenes with unsatisfying game play interspersed throughout.
Masterful post up to “with unsatisfying game play interspersed throughout.”
I read that too by Ebert and thought the same thing. Other then your one mistake I agree with you fully.
What?! Did I spell something wrong?
As is the custom, I disagree with you and largely agree with Ebert (although I haven’t read exactly what he said- you didn’t even provide a link!). Video games (and even film to some extent) are largely considered— just as Ebert says— to be ranked somewhere “below” literature. And while certainly there is a lot of creativity in both (and both can be considered art, obviously), I agree with the masses on this one. If you are trying to list the criterion for what makes a good piece of *art*, good literature will by its very nature almost always win. This is b/c the visual experience vs. the imagined or projected experience will always be more concrete- and as a result more limiting.
As an example, I’ll use westerns. The most famous example of a genre-type novel that is still considered ‘literary’ is Larry McMurtry’s “Lonesome Dove” series. It has been adapted to television as I’m sure you know, and is a pretty solitary example of a western being taken seriously as literature. In terms of its writing, this is because it transcends stereotypes, and provides a thoughtful story along with a deeper, more thoughtful undertone as opposed to mindless shoot-em-ups, etc. The characters are dense, complex, and as a result: interesting.
Probably the most famous Western on television is HBO’s “Deadwood” – of which I happen to be a big fan. What makes this show interesting (and critically acclaimed) isn’t nec. *how* the sets or characters look, but how they talk. “Deadwood” makes use of several Western cliches (the lone gunman, the sexy/noble prostitute, etc.) but does so with extremely interesting and often difficult-to-follow scenes and dialogue regarding the nature of the town itself, its politics, its diverse group of residents, and as a result- human nature. Unlike “Lonesome Dove,” however, to apply Ebert’s medium claim to film (in this case tv), “DW” is automatically limited: by using a visual medium, the imagination of the audience is severely limited. When “Lonesome Dove” was created for the big screen, instead of hundreds of thousands of different versions of each character, a whole generation of people- when thinking about these characters and ideas- will be thinking about one (1) person- one visual image that is controlled by the director and more specifically, the *actor*. Certainly there is wiggle room in film/tv for the audience’s imagination— they will always project something right back on to the screen of course— but this doesn’t come even remotely close to good literature- which will use basic narrative techniques to guide you, but won’t hold your hand.
Lastly, think about the video game “Gun” that was recently released. I asked for this game for Xmas b/c I haven’t played a good western game in a while, and it looked interesting to me at first glance. I’m in the mood for a genre-FPS which gives me control of the character(s). What I would *hope* for (but not expect) is a storyline that is even remotely interesting.
From Gun’s website: “Experience the BRUTALITY, LAWLESSNESS, GREED and LUST that was the West.”
“New and savage ways to punish”
“Extensive variety of missions and game play”
“Brutal realism”
“Expansive interavtice world”
Those are the bullet points Activision chooses for their website’s copy. Why? Because those are exactly what gamers want. It is what *I* want out of a game like this- it is what everyone wants. You can look at an image of the main characters ( http://www.activision.com/content/image/Image_fcd67eeb-4d5b-4f45-9dbd-b912a1fe98d4.jpg) and right away you know what you’re in for- more of the same. A renegade, his sexy prostitute friend who redeems herself or makes a big sacrifice, and an evil dark-looking bad guy. I’m sure they will find a way to make the plot at least a little more interesting, but there you have it. And in my opinion, this isn’t entirely a bad thing. They need this game to have mass appeal. Making a FPS that really pushed it “outside” of the genre doesn’t make any sense for video games. There will be narrative, structural, and artistic decisions made of course- and in some respects it would be silly not to call a game like this, in its own right, a piece of art. But is it *more* interesting or artistic than television? I would argue not. Being in control of the characters and their destinies (???) gives me an entertaining control, but not an imaginative control. Will this game, for example, stimulate me any other way than visually? Cna I apply any of this to my own life? Probably not. Film would do better. Literature would be even better than that.
The story for Gun is actually written by a pretty bad movie writer, so the story is at least somewhat interesting.
“Being in control of the characters and their destinies (???) gives me an entertaining control, but not an imaginative control.”
When were we ever talking about give YOU imaginative control? You certainly don’t have this in film or literature.
“Will this game, for example, stimulate me any other way than visually? ”
Gun, will probably not, but there are any other number of games that are intellectually stimulating. And, some of those are not even intended to be. For example, when I first played Dungeon Siege, it was pretty inspired by some of the designs and occurrences, and that is one of the most mindless games out there.
What about games like Max Payne that as definitely linear? It seems to offer the same canned incite that you would get from film or literature.
Also, I have seen Deadwood. Highly over rated. Can I apply anything from that in my own life? No. Would Lonesome Dove do better? No. In this case, as far as applicability to real life, I am going to have to go with Gun.
Every time someone makes this argument to me, it makes more sense if you turn it on its head.
I forget to mention the reason I did not provide a link: I do not write link based posts. I included all the relevant points in my initial rant. Had I thought anything else was of note I would have included it. I am not arguing the article he wrote, just the points I mentioned.
i brought up the issue of literal control as a plus for video games. of course you dont have it in literature or film- although that is changing to some extent with dvds. i dont have a hard time imagining a future where people can string together their own version of the movie based on different scenes that they could include/exclude automatically somehow. and as for imaginitive control, i brought it up because that is precisely what makes film and literature narratives superior to thsoe of video games.
And I would never say that video games are *never* intellectually stimulating. I would only maintain that I highly doubt the genre will ever come close to good film or literature in that regard.
I have a hard time taking more away from games like ‘Gun’ than film or literature of the same genre because it relies so heavily on stereotypes. The only real way to deal with the issue of stereotypes in games and still have it be actually rewarding (for me @ least) is to parody it. The hands-down best example of this is the ‘Monkey Island’ series and the way it handles contemporary ideas about 17th century (etc.) piracy.
http://tinyurl.com/82tex
I think the biggest problem is that video games, as a medium are still in early development, and have not advanced to the stage that allows it to be as great as the best films, and literature. Also, I think we are giving film and literature far too much credit, as around 99% of both are just a waste of time.
I think you will find Gun does not rely on stereotypes as heavily as you think. Also, it is not a FPS.
fine. TPS.
If anybody found this “post” interesting CAG has a good thread about this…not really what anybody posted below the first post but the links to eberts sayings as well has letters he has recieved.
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77370