Roger Ebert infuriates gamers worldwide

[MinisterofDOOM]

By discussing things he knows absolutely nothing about.

Step one: go read that. Read it first, then come back to this post.

Read it? Good. Let's proceed.

I'll start by saying that I don't have any particular feelings on the matter. More than that, I simply don't care. More on that later, but I thought it important to get that out of the way before bashing Ebert. Because it's not his point I take issue with. It's the fact that he's making any point at all.

See...Ebert makes a critical admission in that article. A multi-layered admission which undermines anything (anything at all) he has to say on the subject of videogames.
One line says it all: "Nothing she shows from this game seemed of more than decorative interest on the level of a greeting card. Is the game scored? She doesn't say. Do you win if you're the first to find the balance between the urban and the natural? Can you control the flower?"
So...so you don't KNOW the answers to these questions? Not only do you know nothing about games as a whole, but you know nothing about the specific examples you're discussing? Not only have no NOT PLAYED these games, but you haven't even bothered to reasearch them long enough to learn the MOST FUNDAMENTAL, CENTRAL gameplay elements? How can you NOT know that you control flower petals in Flower? That's like not knowing the Alien is the villain in Alien. And his questions don't come across as rhetorical, because he uses in a way that supports his shallow analysis ("I don't know much about this but what I've seen....").

Ebert's not a game critic. He's not a game ANYTHING. And as such, he has no business discussing anything videogame-related. They are not his department. He has ZERO experience with them, relying on second- and third-hand relayed information. He bases his opinions on gameplay videos. Which, to echo Kieron Gillen, is akin to me analyzing (not just judging, but analyzing) a movie based solely on its theater poster. Actually, more than that: it's akin to me analyzing movies as a whole based on a SINGLE movie poster. It simply does not work. Regardless of viewpoint, you can't analyze without understanding.

Part of the problem with the gameplay video/movie poster perspective is that it's based upon what's presented, and nothing more. And, in that instance, I'm disappointed in the linked TED talk. Kellee Santiago has done games an injustice with her extremely poor choice of representative games. When I try to think of games that I might use to support a "games are art" argument, none of the games she chose come to mind. Braid, while interesting, was overly impressed with itself and, worse, poorly realized. Flower is barely a game at all, featuring zero creativity. It's just an interactive wind video. It's neat, and beautiful, but not a good example of artistry. And the Waco game was a simply idiotic choice. When presenting a case, you must present SOLID evidence. Not evidence that's full of holes from the beginning.

Tell me, if you were a fledgling artist trying to make a name for yourself and prove that your works are real art and not merely chicken scratch, would you paint murals of actual massacres to support your case? Only if you're an idiot. Presenting evidence that's already suspect only serves to case MORE doubt on whatever case you happen to be making. Which is why the TED talk annoys me more than Ebert's analysis based on it. Ms. Santiago WILLINGLY takes the spotlight to represent a viewpoint, and then she lets it (and those who share that viewpoint) down by doing a horrible job of supporting it. It's infuriating. Maybe if some genuinely NOTEWORTHY games had been suggested, Ebert might have had a desire to at least analyze them more deeply. But he was, understandably, unimpressed by the examples presented. You don't use Dragonforce to represent music as art. You use Mozart. There are some truly horrible games out there, and any of them could put a real damper on the validity of games as art for a long time to come. But there are also some fantastically original works of human creativity to be found. THOSE are the ones to use as evidence. Not fricking Braid.

In case you'd like to ask, If I were to present examples to support games as art, I can think of two outstanding selections. One of them even directly addresses one of Ebert's points by sheer coincidence.
1: The Void. This game IS art. And by that I mean the gameplay is art. In an abstract sort of way. Which makes it feel even more artistic. The game is masterfully creative and original, and I would consider it art both "on the surface" and mechanically.
2: The Longest Journey. And I like that this one fires a hollowpoint right at the brain cavity of Ebert's "If you can win, it isn't art; if you can't win, it isn't a game" theory. TLJ is an adventure game. As such, it's very story driven. It tells a story, which involves creative characters, places, and events. And it's a linear story, with a single outcome. So you CAN NOT "win." You can finish the game, but you can't win. But it's not merely a story-delivery system. Because the player must play. There are puzzles to solve, story aspects to uncover, conversations to participate in, all of these requiring the player to play the game. You must think and figure out. You must PARTICIPATE. It's not a digital choose-your-own-adventure or an interactive laserdisc show in which you simply hit "next" to advance the story. It's a participatory experience that involves the player. Which makes it a game. A game you cannot win.

Anyway, whether or not games are art doesn't matter one bit to me. I fail to see how games being art or not being art changes my experience with them, or, really, impacts me in any way at all. Games can be art or not art. Won't affect how I play, enjoy, view, or criticize them. But, as Ebert's article has been linked to by every gaming news/blog this side of the galaxy, I thought it'd be fun to address his points.

Oh, P.S.
The picture of the grimacing kid at the top of Ebert's article pisses me off. And it further proves that Ebert knows about as much about games as I do about which kind of tampons work best. I resent the implications the picture makes, and cheerfully point Mr. Uninformed toward this study which shows that the average age of video game players is 35.

Ebert:
Either play some games YOURSELF or stick to film. Thanks.

[RCA]

My first reaction to this 3,000 word post (Thanks MoD ) was that I didn't agree with Ebert but I will keep an open mind because maybe Ebert had some interesting points. I watched the TED talk and thought it was pretty good and I was able to see what Kellee was trying to do by introducing the "chicken scratch" art. But as Ebert went on, I felt like he was more concerned with blindly defending his point with arguments that in my opinion weren't very well thought out. The final straw for me was this:

Her next example is a game named "Braid" (above). This is a game "that explores our own relationship with our past...you encounter enemies and collect puzzle pieces, but there's one key difference...you can't die." You can go back in time and correct your mistakes. In chess, this is known as taking back a move, and negates the whole discipline of the game. Nor am I persuaded that I can learn about my own past by taking back my mistakes in a video game. She also admires a story told between the games levels, which exhibits prose on the level of a wordy fortune cookie.

This is where I stopped reading because all credibility was immediately lost in Ebert's article. If Ebert ever played Braid, he would quickly realize that the rewind dynamic is essential to the game-play in Braid. I can understand his distaste for mindless shooters but for every mindless-shooter in the gaming industry, there is a mind-less action film (Steel) in the movie industry. Robert Ebert sounds like the big burly guy who is dragged to an abstract art gallery by his girl friend and sits there trying to convince the attendees that this isn't art. Who are you to say what is or isn't art?

My take on all of this is...
Does Ebert think that film is art?
If so then he couldn't be more wrong by saying games aren't art.
If Ebert doesn't think film is art then he should rethink his definition.
Film is as much an art-form as game development.

MoD's post:
I agree, whether or not games are or aren't doesn't mean much to me, I will still have the same experience.
This seems like an issue for developers.

I do have to disagree that Braid isn't an artistic enough game to use to defend the "games are art" argument. Granted I have never played or heard of The Void or The Longest Journey and I am sure they are better examples than Braid but I don't think it's fair to rip on the TED talk because she used Braid. Also previous to the TED talk, Ebert didn't share any details about why he didn't feel games are art so when you use TLJ to attack "If you can win, it isn't art; if you can't win, it isn't a game" argument you need to realize that heading into the TED talk you wouldn't know this. Unless you would of use TLJ as an example regardless if you didn't know Ebert's stance on gaming but based on Ebert's arguments he would of just created a different excuse as to why TLJ isn't an art form. I bet that if you ran that TED talk, Ebert would of wrote in his article that if a game can't be finished then it isn't art. I did feel that the Waco game was a terrible example though.

Any way, I think this is an interesting topic and I would like to read other people's opinions...
Based on the demographic NICO serves, I already know what peoples thoughts are but I would like to know why.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I think you're right: Ebert was inventing arguments to support his preconceived viewpoint, and he'd just modify or reinvent to counter any games I offer.

BTW, it's 1100 words, not 3000.

I'm not saying Braid's a bad game. I just don't think it actually succeeds at doing much that's artistic. The presentation is unusual, but even when it comes to museum art, I don't feel that's enough to turn the mundane into "art" (take weird modern art that consists of nothing more than an open soup can, etc.). And while everyone else was busy fawning over the story in the game, I was busy being annoyed with how poorly the time-puzzle mechanics were related to the player, and how the story was really just a series of walls-o-text (irony noted) and not really a PART of the game. So it might have been on the right track, but the execution was lacking.

But, yes, Ebert completely missed the point of the rewind mechanic in Braid. Which I don't think would be the case if he had actually PLAYED the game. Although I could be wrong, as he may well just be playing dumb to support his argument, in which case he might very well pretend not to "get it" even if he really did.

[RCA]

BTW, it's 1100 words, not 3000.

I apologize. Your post was 1100 words, but add that with the "supplemental" reading and boom, 3000 .

[BusyBadger]

Ebert's an idiot. He's quick to dismiss the value to others of something that he himself has no understanding of. It's akin to someone having never seen The Godfather calling it mindless tripe because no one really wants to see the goings-on of a family with a criminal enterprise as its foundation.

It's funny that Braid is specifically mentioned because that's one of the first titles that came to mind for me. Maybe Ebert should take a look at Ōkami and see if there's anything artsy about that. The thing is, with the variety of movies out there you'd think that he could see that there's value in everything out there - even if he can't understand the value he should understand the concept.

Maybe a crucifix in a jar of urine is more his speed.