Roger Ebert not down with Gamer Response Theory

This one's for you, Lobo, straight from Roger's mouth as he responds to a gamer's question:

"Yours is the most civil of countless messages I have received after writing that 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."

Actually it's conceivable that he would agree with GRT, but still think games are poo.

You should link the Answer Man that came from, Fedaykin.

It's a shame that Ebert can't see the potential of the video game medium, since he is so vehement about how movies act as art. But, I attribute this more to his misunderstanding of what video games entail rather than anything else, especially since he has professed his ignorance on the subject of gaming time and again.

Fedaykin, you beat me to this. Check Ron Gilbert's Blog, Grumpy Gamer, for a very insightful persective on the full exchange between Ebert and his reader. Here's an excerpt from Ron's comments:

Given the fact that Roger is not a game player, and that there is enough debate about this very subject from within our industry, this is not surprising.

The one line that really jumped out at me was this:

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.

"Authorial Control".

1) Is Authorial Control necessary in art? Is Art someone expressing an idea, and therefore requires there to be a someone behind the idea?

Yes, I think this is true.

2) Do games have Authorial Control?

This is where I disagree with my childhood hero Roger Ebert.

I think games need and have Authorial Control. There has to be someone at the helm who is giving us their vision for the experience. Movies have a Director, Books have a Author, and Games have a Designer (titles in games in a complex issue I won't get into here).

I don't think Roger has thought about this. He sees toys and doesn't see the person or people behind them and that is our fault (dear lord... when will be stop screwing up).

Take GTA:SA. Who designed it? I don't know. I could probably look it up but I won't because I shouldn't have to. During the debate about GTA, where was the designer? Why was he or she not speaking out, letting us know why they did things the way they did, defending their art? Did I miss it?

During the controversy surrounding Natural Born Killers, Oliver Stone was very vocal about the film and his vision behind it.

This is why the games industry needs more visibility to the people behind the games. It is this humanizing that will ultimately pull them into the realm of art.

Good stuff.

His point is entirely valid. It's hard for a game to guide a player through a fixed experience because the player has so much input. The less input there is and the game is less "a game". However, I still think he is speaking from his generational, um, stupidity about games. The rules of games and the rules of movies and literature are totally different. A game author can still have authorial control by changing the rules of the game, or directing the forces against the player, etc.

There are many games out there where you do not make any decisions at all, save the one that the designer wants you to make.

MoonDragon wrote:

There are many games out there where you do not make any decisions at all, save the one that the designer wants you to make.

Call of Duty 1 & 2, for instance. Or even 90% of the Adventure genre.

Half-Life 2

Perhaps to sway the opinions of non-gamers we should change the name of our hobby. "Video Game" conjures many connotations wholly opposed to art. I propose we now call video games tappies. Tappies and movies will then live side by side in perfect harmony.

Since when is one artform inferior to another? Is painting inferior to sculpture because it cannot achieve real 3D texture? Is sculpture inferior to movies because it doesn't move?

There is a rating system for art?

Botswana wrote:

Is painting inferior to sculpture because it cannot achieve real 3D texture? Is sculpture inferior to movies because it doesn't move?

No sculptures still totally beat movies because movies are 2D, but movies beat paintings because of animation. Don't even get me started on holograms. Especially dinosaur holograms.

Ebert isn't the first to voice such thoughts. It is partially in response to his position that I was motivated to write this, of which the concluding paragraph states:

I therefore believe that Planescape: Torment is the epitome of gaming qua narrative art; it is the best evidence to date that games are fully capable of playing with, and even besting, the big boys.

Gaming is the ultimate art. Here is my reason.

When a designer or designers make a game they have an idea of what the experience and message of that game should be. This would appear to give the game Authorial Control, and as sush, qualify it as art in mister Ebert's opinion. Now, when a player plays this game he himself takes in the experience and message intended then interprets it into something else with his play style and decisions. Like a painter interprets a sunset. When people write about playing games, as all of us do, and you qualify writing as art, then that's another layer of art upon art, upon art. Gaming isart and it is responsible for art.

Yes, I think that highly of my hobby.

Ebert saying that games aren't art because the player gets too much freedom in how he interprets the medium just seems ridiculous when we hold "traditional" art to no such standards.

Lobo wrote:

I therefore believe that Planescape: Torment is the epitome of gaming qua narrative art; it is the best evidence to date that games are fully capable of playing with, and even besting, the big boys.

Too bad the game isn't interesting enough to be able to be played, at least by those of us who cannot devote sufficient time frequently enough to get past the beginning drudgery.
http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/19487

NB: I'm not saying that it's not a great gaming experience for some of you, just that's it's not universal.

Yeah, don't think for one moment that I've forgotten your dissidence. That's the sort of thing that sticks with a man.

Chiggie Von Richtofen, on the other hand, retains my esteem! Good post, Chiggie, and I agree. If only we could all be like you. If only...

Lobo wrote:

Yeah, don't think for one moment that I've forgotten your dissidence. That's the sort of thing that sticks with a man.

It isn't that I've given up on it--as I had to do with Beyond Good & Evil--it's just that there's no way that my regular gaming time can match its needs. Maybe I'll someday (after kids are gone?) I'll get the time to devote to it...assuming it will still run on whatever PC I'll be running by then.

Don't respond with dignity and candor! You're supposed to mock me in turn. After that comes the ritualized mud-wrestling.

Can I mock you instead, Lobo? After all, I do so love the ritualized mud-wrestling. Maybe we can get some SillyRabbit in on this, too.

KaterinLHC wrote:

Can I mock you instead, Lobo? After all, I do so love the ritualized mud-wrestling. Maybe we can get some SillyRabbit in on this, too. ;)

Is it Sweeps Week at GWJ already?

KaterinLHC wrote:

Can I mock you instead, Lobo? After all, I do so love the ritualized mud-wrestling. Maybe we can get some SillyRabbit in on this, too. ;)

I'll be in my bunk!

Botswana wrote:
KaterinLHC wrote:

Can I mock you instead, Lobo? After all, I do so love the ritualized mud-wrestling. Maybe we can get some SillyRabbit in on this, too. ;)

Is it Sweeps Week at GWJ already?

It's always Sweeps Week on the internet.

So when writers and directors break the '4th wall' does this mean they're automatically bad in Eberts view?

How so Eezy? If they break the wall, wouldn't they still be in "Authorial Control" ala Ebert, since they wouldn't require choices of the victim, uh, viewer?

I think Ebert makes thoughtful points about the differences between our beloved medium and the rest of the art world, but I find his conclusion unsound. The more at length he talks about the subject, the more his inexperience with games comes through.

Lobo wrote:

Don't respond with dignity and candor!

C'mon, look at this face...
<---
Now, how can you imagine me saying anything that wasn't of candid dignity?

Oh, and your mama's so nasty she broke the ugly stick, just by looking in its general direction.

croaker wrote:
Lobo wrote:

Don't respond with dignity and candor!

C'mon, look at this face...
<---
Now, how can you imagine me saying anything that wasn't of candid dignity?

Oh, and your mama's so nasty she broke the ugly stick, just by looking in its general direction. :)

Yay! So there will be mud-wrestling after all! w00t!

Okay, so I'm gonna wheel over the martini shaker and camp out here until this dream of Kat-on-Rabbit mud wrestling is realized. Sorry Lobo. I know you started this, but the thought of your glistening, naked body covered in mud does absolutely nothing for me. I'm cutting you from the fantasy. Maybe you can be The Referee or something. Or an Associate Producer. Meanwhile, back at the farm ...

I smell pile on!

When I started a thread on the fairly intellectual topic of a famous critic's thoughts on video games, I had no idea that the discussion would elevate to this level!

No, seriously...Katerin vs SillyRabbit is a much loftier goal in my book than any form of art criticism.

All we need now is for someone to take Authorial Control of the mud wrestling so that it too can reach the pinnacle of Art Form, like movies such as "Freddy Got Fingered". I will take the burden of authorial control for this future art form for the benefit of all Gamers With Jobs. The good news is that Mud Wrestling would need critics to be taken seriously, I'm sure some of you would volunteer for this. We just have to be cautious about being influenced by advertisers. I think we can make it through if we try. Now about that script....

"Everybody on the queen!"

But seriously, I wonder if Ebert's idea of video games is the likes of Minesweeper, Bubbles, Tetris, Donkey Kong and possibly Mortal Combat. After all, those are, without a doubt, classified as "video games." Perhaps we are suffering from a definitional ineptitude here. Just like my home video is not an art piece, so should Tetris not be art either. On the other hand, there are very few books, and even less movies out there, that would get me as involved as Syberia did.

I think if we are going to extend the "Art" title to any video game then we have to extend it to all games. I remember playing Mortal Kombat with my friends in the 5th grade. You could get good enough at a character that when it said "Fight" your fingers would fly across the buttons, rolling and tapping and twitching, and your opponent would just be destroyed. It felt like playing the piano but instead of "Flight of the Bumblebee" it was the sound of Sub Zero ripping the spine out of player 2, and it was totally radical.

I think any game can be viewed as art as long as passion and/or expression are involved in the playing of the game. Although, I might be skewing a little towards my own beliefs. I think before we really dig down and decide if games are Art we should all agree upon a definition for what Art is.

Why should we care anyway? Games are still hugely popular.