Roger Ebert: Games are inferior to books, movies

[CptStern]

I have to agree:


Noted Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert has a few things to say about video games. In a recent edition of his Answer Man column, a reader brought up Ebert's Doom review, in which it was implied that the reviewer had little desire to acquaint himself with the film's source material. Ebert's response was to claim that "books and films are better mediums, and better uses of my time." His justification for this is that he has recently read and seen great works by luminaries of those two forms, and despite an unfamiliarity with games has not seen a convincing argument as to there being games that can live up to the output of Nabokov, Hugo, Scorsese, Kurosawa, and so on."

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/39732


although games like HL2 and darwinia push the envelope in terms of artisitc merit I feel (rightfully so in a genre filled with sequels and movie tie ins) that games are not quite at the level of film literature or any other artistic discipline. That said, it doesnt mean that games cant aspire to higher artistic form but we're not quite there yet


oh and the reader saying that ebert wasnt familiar with the game when criticing Doom is immaterial because the movie should stand on it's own merits

 

[Kyorisu]

Most things based on something else tend to rely on those watching/reading it know something about where it's coming from.

ie you don't watch/read Harry Potter 2 without seeing/reading the chamber of secrets.

 

[CptStern]

ya but it's doom ..what's there to know? plot? characters? it can be summed up in one sentence: "hell takes over, things die messily"

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Books > everything.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Boogymanx]

oh and the reader saying that ebert wasnt familiar with the game when criticing Doom is immaterial because the movie should stand on it's own merits

I agree with you on that point, because in DooM the monsters are from hell (or so they are in D3 - I can't remember D1 and D2). I don't agree with Games are inferior than books or movies. I prefer a book over a movie anyday, and a game over a book. I don't know why I prefer books over movies, I think that it's because most movies are brainless. EDIT: Many games are brainless too. Oh well *shrug*

 

[Solaris]

When we get proper ai and stuff, then games>*.
You could make your own storie.

 

[Gray Fox]

Ron gilbert posted it on his blog with his comments, and please also take time to read the readers comment, there are some very good ones.
http://grumpygamer.com/7827880#comment

 

[CptStern]

I agree with you on that point, because in DooM the monsters are from hell (or so they are in D3 - I can't remember D1 and D2). I don't agree with Games are inferior than books or movies. I prefer a book over a movie anyday, and a game over a book. I don't know why I prefer books over movies, I think that it's because most movies are brainless. EDIT: Many games are brainless too. Oh well *shrug*

ya but it's not what one prefers but rather which has more artistic merit


where's the gaming industrys version of The Catcher in the Rye or Catch-22 or To Kill a mockingbird ..where's the gaming industrys version of Casablanca or Citizen Kane or Vertigo?


the gaming industry is years if not decades from achieving anything that will ever compare to any of the above


Ebert has some good points, from grey fox's link:

"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.

I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe 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. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. "

 

[StardogChampion]

Honestly I'd rather be stuck on a desert island with movies or books than some video games.

despite an unfamiliarity with games has not seen a convincing argument as to there being games that can live up to the output of...

Wrong. Especially as graphics improve until they're almost as good as movies.

 

[dream431ca]

I could see books as better than anything...but movies?? If I had a choice between playing Doom 3 and watching the Doom movie...I'd play Doom 3 cause the movie sucked!

 

[CptStern]

ya but graphics have nothing to do with the artistic merit ...it's like saying a painter who can faithfully reproduce a person in exacting detail is a better artist than say Picasso because of technique


guys guys we're getting bogged down in semantics

movies are not equal to films

doom is a movie

citizen Kane is a film


citizen Kane trumps every game in artistic merit every time, they're just not comarable in any sense of the word


you cant judge doom by the same standards you judge citizen Kane

it's like saying that because HL2 and ET: the game are equal because they're both games

 

[dream431ca]

ya but graphics have nothing to do with the artistic merit ...it's like saying a painter who can faithfully reproduce a person in exacting detail is a better artist than say Picasso because of technique


guys guys we're getting bogged down in semantics

movies are not equal to films

doom is a movie

citizen Kane is a film


citizen Kane trumps every game in artistic merit every time, they're just not comarable in any sense of the word


you cant judge doom by the same standards you judge citizen Kane

it's like saying that because HL2 and ET: the game are equal because they're both games

It's not about the graphics..it's about atmosphere. Doom 3 was a lot more enjoyable because of the engaging atmosphere, were as the doom movie was mostly about the rock and not a good atmosphere at all. It was dark...sometimes, And there wasn't a sense of "OMG!! ness" because the story was changed from Hell demons to lab experiments. So it lost most of it's touch.

I am hopeing that the Silent Hill movie will Not suffer the same fate..I've seen some screen shots of the movie, and so far it looks very good....if it sucks...I will never watch another game to movie conversion.

On the other hand..movies that are not made from a game are pretty good...some of them...but most of the trailers really suck..so I don't go see them because of trailers but based on people's opinions who have seen them.

 

[CptStern]

atmosphere is just one part of the equation ...it's like film noir ..the visuals help the movie but ultimately it's the quality of the story/script/acting that makes or breaks it


doom3/quake4 is an excellent example of this ...great visuals terrible everything else

that said I never said that gaming cant aspire to artistic merit (hl2 being an example) I just dont think they've reached the same level as literature or film ..they may never if publishers like EA get their way (sequel-itis)

 

[Gray Fox]

IMO silent hill2, and mgs,mgs2 surpass any movie I have ever seen. I know a lot of people do not agree with mgs2, but silent hill 2. To me the story, the character development was on par with the best of movies.
And how aboit ICO and wanda and the giant(shadow of the colossus).
Or am I missing the point here?

Oh and I do not think that movies or games will ever reach the same level as books, no matter hwat the attitude of the publisher or developers. Simply cause books do not need big budgets to be made, you do not need to sell as many to get an return in investment, there is far more room for niche products.

 

[CptStern]

IMO silent hill2, and mgs,mgs2 surpass any movie I have ever seen. I know a lot of people do not agree with mgs2, but silent hill 2. To me the story, the character development was on par with the best of movies.
And how aboit ICO and wanda and the giant(shadow of the colossus).
Or am I missing the point here?

ok I havent played any of those games ..but you cant honestly say that any of the above is better (artisitically) than say Citizen Kane or Macbeth ...it's just not possible as those works are beyond what they are and into the realm of masterpiece ...it's like Ballet ..I'm not a big fan but anyone can see that it's a valid form of artistic expression






I think far too many people get confused beween artistic and technical proficiency


I'm a fairly good illustrator and could probably draw better than picasso (technically speaking) but not even for a split second would I ever compare myself with Picasso ..that'd be stupid


to clarify: art is not what's produced by your hand ...art is what's produced by your mind independent of all else


oh and film has already achieved the artisitc status of books ...just watch un chien andalou, All Quiet On The Western Front, Notorius, Rashōmon, African queen, The Bridge On The River Kwai, Dr. Strangelove, Lawrence of Arabia, A clockwork Orange, La Dolce Vita etc etc etc

 

[Direwolf]

This is such a hard comparison to make. Books and movies don't have AI or bumpmapping, and games don't look as real as life. So theres a lot of factors in these mediums that don't have similar factors in any of the others.

That said, books have been around for so long that they've achieved an incredible level of sophistication, and movies are nearly a century old. Videogames as a medium are (maybe) two decades old, although where something crosses the line from "distraction" to "medium" is a little fuzzy. If anything, game makers seem to be improving faster than movie makers did by at least an order of magnitude.

 

[Gray Fox]

I think they are masterpeices. Just read this ending analysis of mgs2 and tell me what you think. http://junkerhq.net/MGS2/index.html , and there is even more to it then that, there were good articles on metalgearsolid.org, but it says now that it is under construction, and I don't have acces to them.

And this review of sh2 http://www.lotusreaver.com/reviews/index.php?section=silent_hill_2
And here on gamefaq's there are some intersting plot analysis
http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/game/561577.html

 

[CptStern]

This is such a hard comparison to make. Books and movies don't have AI or bumpmapping, and games don't look as real as life. So theres a lot of factors in these mediums that don't have similar factors in any of the others.

That said, books have been around for so long that they've achieved an incredible level of sophistication, and movies are nearly a century old. Videogames as a medium are (maybe) two decades old, although where something crosses the line from "distraction" to "medium" is a little fuzzy. If anything, game makers seem to be improving faster than movie makers did by at least an order of magnitude.

I agree, gaming is in it's infancy ..the problem with gaming is that it takes a heck of a lot manpower and money to produce ...Orson wells for example made Citizen Kane with next to no budget yet had the same distribution channels of big movies of the day. That cant be said with gaming. Publishers push out regergitated pap because they couldnt sustain themselves otherwise. I cant remember exactly but something like 80 games turned a profit this year ...had the same happened in hollywood the studio system would be in deep deep trouble





grey fox: I'll have to get back to you tommorrow as I'm stepping out now and wont be back online till tommorrow (my home pc is in pieces but I just got a confirmation that my new stuff has arrived)


I skimmed read through some of it and it is indeed compelling, more when I get back

 

[Raz]

IMO silent hill2, and mgs,mgs2 surpass any movie I have ever seen.

Well, I thought I might be the only one who considered Silent Hill 2's storyline on par with many great movies and books. The depth of the storyline and characters and the symbolism is unmatched by any game I've ever played, save for perhaps something like Planescape: Torment. It also proves, in my eyes, that games can achieve the status of 'art' as this Ebert sees it.

You're my new best friend, Grey Fox.

 

[Gray Fox]

Well, I thought I might be the only one who considered Silent Hill 2's storyline on par with many great movies and books. The depth of the storyline and characters and the symbolism is unmatched by any game I've ever played, save for perhaps something like Planescape: Torment. It also proves, in my eyes, that games can achieve the status of 'art' as this Ebert sees it.

You're my new best friend, Grey Fox.

Your name wouldn't happen to be inspired by the game Psychonauts in any case.

 

[Raz]

No, I haven't played that. It was inspired by Raziel from the Legacy of Kain series.

 

[KagePrototype]

I find it interesting that, when people talk about video games as art, they always discuss it in terms of visual style, or the storyline, much like when people talk about movies as art. I'm curious as to whether a video game can be considered an artistic success when you talk about interactivity; what the player is actually doing, rather than what they're looking at. It's all well and good to discuss a game's visual or narrative merits, but you hardly ever see discussions over control.

I would suspect that we don't see much of this sort of thing, because developers are limited by the input devices available to them. All games use the same control set ups, and this is because keyboards, controll pads, joysticks etc. aren't very flexible; they're more or less just buttons and analogue sticks. What a player actually does to perform tasks and make choices in games is always the same; press a certain button at a certain time. But even then, it's hard to pinpoint when a player's activities with the video game becomes artistic; mianly because we have nothing to judge it against.

All of a sudden, the Revolution and it's bizaare controller become a lot more interesting.

 

[DrDevin]

IMO silent hill2, and mgs,mgs2 surpass any movie I have ever seen. I know a lot of people do not agree with mgs2, but silent hill 2. To me the story, the character development was on par with the best of movies.
And how aboit ICO and wanda and the giant(shadow of the colossus).
Or am I missing the point here?

I agree with that. Metal Gear SOlid (the original) is one of my favourite narratives ever. Full of twists, it was great storytelling. I would recommend you play it (or twin snakes for GC it is the game game just better GFX).

I believe games cant have the same "greatness" as other art because of people not games themselves.

Can I play as a white man who kills a black man and gets away with it? (like to kill a mockingbird, well almost) or be a german who slaughters jews in the hallocaust? The game would be illegal because you "act out" racism and other horrible acts.

Also:

Do you want to play as Kane?

Do you want to play a game completely using abstract art like picasso? Your head would hurt!

All Im saying is that "great movies" are great because of the subject content and lessons they teach. They are boring to act out.

I think games should be a serious medium as they are much harder to create then movies. They require the best artists, composers and story writers to come together and cooperate. Not to mention all the technical aspects (coding alone is an art) and compatability testing artists dont have to deal with.

A picture hanging on a wall in a game requires a level designer to make the level, a modeler to create a picture frame, an artist to texture it, a coder to create the engine and tools to make all of the above, a composer to make the music to play while you look at the picture, and all the above have strick time/money and performance requirements.

To make the equivalent of TKM in a game would require massive teams of people. It is not currently feasible so there are no games on that level of genious.

Choose ingame graphics, what is easier to play and understand (which means more fun)? Realism is a lot harder then abstract in games.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Personally I think that the sheer beauty of HL2's, Thief's or Hostile Waters' gameplay can be called art, to say nothing of visual style or plot. Talking of which, those games I just mentioned have really, really good plots. While I think we can do better, I believe games are already art - especially since you can judge them on how fun and incredible they are to play which you can't do with books and films.

 

[Venmoch]

Another game that needs to be played.


Grim Fandango.

 

[mortiz]

Games are interactive and engage the player on a level far beyond what any book or movie could accomplish, therefore, games = ftw!

The only thing holding games back is the fact that they have crappy writers most of the time, Half-Life 2 and Silent Hill being exceptions. Gaming also combines many different art forms. They tell a narrative, like a book and they can convey information like a movie with cutscenes (see Metal Gear Solid).

 

[Absinthe]

oh and the reader saying that ebert wasnt familiar with the game when criticing Doom is immaterial because the movie should stand on it's own merits

Disagree.

A Lord Of The Rings adaptation, but in a futuristic setting. And there isn't a ring, but a data stick. And the hobbits are badass cyborgs with one-liners. And there is no Mordor. It all takes place in New York.
It just so happens that the film is a blast. It's fun, it's exciting, it's pleasing to the eye. But is it Lord Of The Rings? No. And it should suffer for that.

If you're going to make an adaptation of something, then it needs to be of substantial quality while paying respect to the source material.

Mr. Ebert can go curl up in a ball and dismiss the gaming medium if he wishes. Personally, I'll move into the future.

 

[gh0st]

video gaming hasent matured (or had the time to) like cinema has. and certainly not like literature has.

"visually" they can look the same. but its laughable to take half life 2 and compare it to monet, or stanley kubrick or any other great director of this time or of past. its equally laughable to compare confucious or plato to chronicles of riddick.

entertainment isnt equal. i get joy out of go karts, and i get joy out of seeing, as stern said, citizen kane. but its not the same whatsoever. in one case im literally, physically having fun. games do not change you at your core like really great cinema or literature or music or paintings can do.

its not my place to define art but in my opinion video games are not art. they never will be. i dont think they were ever meant to be. i MIGHT consider things like comic books to be art, but me blowing the head off of some zombie isnt.

movies based on books can have redeeming value, like lord of the rings or starwars. but there is NO way i will "get" anything out of a movie based upon doom. a movie based on the life of mozart? maybe that could teach me a thing or two.

imho stern is on the money.

 

[Beerdude26]

Another game that needs to be played.


Grim Fandango.

That game sold 280 copies. It's the most underrated game EVER. :|

 

[Raz]

entertainment isnt equal. i get joy out of go karts, and i get joy out of seeing, as stern said, citizen kane. but its not the same whatsoever. in one case im literally, physically having fun. games do not change you at your core like really great cinema or literature or music or paintings can do.

its not my place to define art but in my opinion video games are not art. they never will be. i dont think they were ever meant to be. i MIGHT consider things like comic books to be art, but me blowing the head off of some zombie isnt.

There may not be any games that, as you describe it, can change you at your core, but therefore assuming that there will never be seems a little shortsighted. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole discussion was held when the first movies were made. Give games a little more time to mature.

I believe games can be art, and see no reason why they couldn't be.

 

[Muffin Man]

I don't know, art as i see it is something that captures an emotion and portays it in a way that makes the person now looking at the art feel similar emotions, and not to mention enjoy themselves. Now in movies we usualy follow a character, whether through war or other conflicts, and we (or are usually intended to) grow attached to this character and feel for him/her and possibly lear something from it. Or, on a less serious not, just to laugh and be entertained. Or perhaps to basically scare the viewer shitless.

Music is mucht the same, but more basic, there are melodies, riffs, lyrics, etc that try and capture emotion and portray it into sound. The same with painting and many other forms of art and entertainment.

Now my question is why can't a game do the same thing? I mean even though we are interacting and playing through the game, can't we grow an interest in the characters, can't we laugh or be scared or feel for the characters? Just because you are interacting and of course sitting in front of a screen does that make it any less artistic? I play a few insturments and I would consider that an art, not me playing it, but it being written to be played.

I don't know, I consider games an art myself, maybe it hasnt matured to the point of literature or music or movies but it is getting there and some games do a good job.

 

[gh0st]

There may not be any games that, as you describe it, can change you at your core, but therefore assuming that there will never be seems a little shortsighted. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole discussion was held when the first movies were made. Give games a little more time to mature.

I believe games can be art, and see no reason why it couldn't be.

games are interactive. thats the fundamental difference between games and movies and books. one gets out of a video game what they put into it. im sure someone really got a lot of inspiration from half life but i think most people dont. games are meant to be played, not studied or annotated or absorbed or to write dissertations on. i dont admire the artfulness of games as a run through the alleyways blowing shit up and hacking people apart. how can you call that art? shit i play video games to get AWAY from art.

to go back to my go kart analogy, they are fun and tight looking but there is so rarely any substance to them.

how can you compare starry starry night, probably the most beautiful gob of ink ever put to paper to

honestly thats literally the difference.

 

[Sulkdodds]

No it's not. One is the art and one is a person who's looking at art,

The problem is, of course, that when say movies first started they were pretty indepedant. As they became a bigger and bigger business, with commercial interests taking over, the medium matured so that even with much of the mindless pap that was churned out you still got the awesome. Games, in many ways (it could be argued), have skipped a vital part of their evolution and gone straight to the 'multi-million dollar industry' without quite achieving their artistic potential. Yet.

 

[Absinthe]

It's ignorant to assert the gaming medium is unable to "move" people like film and books can.

You say that games are meant to be played as opposed to annotated and studied. You essentially claim that games exist for entertainment purposes. How is film any different? Or reading, for that matter? I'm sure you can find plenty of people who say movies exist only as an enjoyable pastime, but I'm sure you'd find that absurd.

Gaming is still new. So while it may not have produced any analogue to Citizen Kane (a film I couldn't care one lick about), to dismiss it at this point is premature. The fact that such interactive entertainment has the ability to inspire any feeling from its audience is evidence enough of its ability to achieve "greatness" comparable to that of good literature and cinema. And it doesn't make Roger Ebert's rationale as any less inane. It's his job to review movies and in the case of adaptations I would hope he'd take the time to acquaint himself with the source material regardless of how tepid or subpar it may be. If it's not a good "use of his time", then **** him.

ADDED: Doom just happens to be the unfortunate case in question here. I would agree that any adaptation of it would probably hold little more than entertainment value. But don't stretch that across the entire medium.

 

[Sparta]

I will have to agree, games are inferior to books and movies/films.

Never had as much fun playing a game as i had the first time i read The Da Vinci Code. And i've watched the same movies over and over again more times than i've played the same games over and over again. Even if it wasn't the full game and merely a single level.

 

[gh0st]

No it's not. One is the art and one is a person who's looking at art,

The problem is, of course, that when say movies first started they were pretty indepedant. As they became a bigger and bigger business, with commercial interests taking over, the medium matured so that even with much of the mindless pap that was churned out you still got the awesome. Games, in many ways (it could be argued), have skipped a vital part of their evolution and gone straight to the 'multi-million dollar industry' without quite achieving their artistic potential. Yet.

oh no doubt. i think games can have many of the traits of film or literature but they can never be compared to them... games do NOT have a director directing, or humans acting.

how can you care about a video game character like you care about a real person acting? a 3d model with a skin on it is not inspiring to me. sure games can be artFUL. they can look very nice, with very talented ARTists building very amazing worlds but there is never someone in charge, someone directing the action and setting the scene. its a bunch of player interactions that are effectively meaningless.

You say that games are meant to be played as opposed to annotated and studied. You essentially claim that games exist for entertainment purposes. How is film any different? Or reading, for that matter? I'm sure you can find plenty of people who say movies exist only as an enjoyable pastime, but I'm sure you'd find that absurd.

yes games exist solely for entertainment purposes. we go to the movies for entertainment. i dont go to the theaters to study a movie i go to have a good time. you dont study gordan freeman in school. you do study artistotle. you dont study the doom marine. you study film. why? WHY is it that so many institutions of higher learning would reject (in the vast majority of cases) studying video games? because any academic paper written on the great value of pacman would be laughed off the face of the earth.

"well.. i uh have this great reaction to this yellow blob eating these ****ing blocks and chomping on fruit".

"and wow this collection of polygons just died next to me. poor guy, i really feel bad for him *blasts another nazi* oh i felt bad for him too." see how retarded that sounds?

Gaming is still new. So while it may not have produced any analogue to Citizen Kane (a film I couldn't care one lick about), to dismiss it at this point is premature. The fact that such interactive entertainment has the ability to inspire any feeling from its audience is evidence enough of its ability to achieve "greatness" comparable to that of good literature and cinema. And it doesn't make Roger Ebert's rationale as any less inane.

the fact that you dont "care one lick" about one of the greatest films ever just points out how artistically clueless you are. i ima gine half the people here would consider a piece of shit flung on the wall great art.

here's a challenge. compare any game to beowulf or the odyssey or the republic. seriously compare the two.

 

[Absinthe]

Da Vinci Code was tripe.

 

[DeusExMachina]

There's plenty of games that have the same style of books and movies. Silent Hill 2, MGS series (especially MGS2 and MGS3), Planescape, Deus Ex, etc. They have compelling narratives. They have themes, symbolism, metaphors, allegories, all that jazz. I believe video games are already an art form.

 

[Raz]

i dont admire the artfulness of games as a run through the alleyways blowing shit up and hacking people apart. how can you call that art? shit i play video games to get AWAY from art.

Yes, but one could also say the same thing about movies. Here's how:

'I don't admire the artfulness of movies as I watch someone blowing shit up and hacking people apart. How can you call that art?'

The fact is that you have to make the distinction between different types games as you do between movies. Just like not all games are mindless twitch-fests not all movies are artistic masterpieces, in fact most of them aren't.

And what do your pictures prove? Fat people can't watch paintings and thus painting is a legitimate artform?

 

[Absinthe]

oh no doubt. i think games can have many of the traits of film or literature but they can never be compared to them... games do NOT have a director directing, or humans acting.

An equivalent to the director would be the lead designer.
An equivalent to the actors would be the characters.

how can you care about a video game character like you care about a real person acting? a 3d model with a skin on it is not inspiring to me. sure games can be artFUL. they can look very nice, with very talented ARTists building very amazing worlds but there is never someone in charge, someone directing the action and setting the scene. its a bunch of player interactions that are effectively meaningless.

How can you care about a person pretending to be somebody else? A pointless line of questioning not worth pursuing. As for player interactions being meaningless, I'd argue that it's no more meaningless than sitting down and watching events unfold without your interaction. Perhaps less so.

yes games exist solely for entertainment purposes. we go to the movies for entertainment. i dont go to the theaters to study a movie i go to have a good time. you dont study gordan freeman in school. you do study artistotle. you dont study the doom marine. you study film. why? WHY is it that so many institutions of higher learning would reject (in the vast majority of cases) studying video games? because any academic paper written on the great value of pacman would be laughed off the face of the earth.

You have once again ignored the context of history and you've proven yourself to be a hypocrite. You make some big deal about Citizen Kane and then brush off cinema as mere entertainment, but then have the gall to declare gaming as an inferior medium? What? What ****ing doublethink are you working with?

Do you think higher education was bustling with film school when it was first introduced?