Games

Roger Ebert saying video games are not art is still haunting games

BBG News

Roger Ebert saying video games are not art is still haunting games

I’ve spent the better part of my life immersed in the world of video games, from the pixelated adventures of my childhood to the intricately crafted narratives of modern titles. As a kid growing up in the 90s, I would often escape into the magical worlds of games, exploring new lands and embarking on heroic quests.

In the year 2024, it’s been over a decade since Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times passed away. Surprisingly, three months ago, there were still heated discussions taking place in the comments section of an old blog post he wrote in 2010 on a contentious topic – whether video games can be considered art. One would expect that by now, this debate would have been resolved. However, these ongoing conversations reveal a concerning truth: Despite all the awards, mainstream acceptance, and vast financial successes, there remains an underlying insecurity within the video game industry about its artistic merit. Ebert may not have initiated this intellectual discourse, but his skeptical stance made him an integral part of a debate that continues to resonate long after his time.

Instead of labeling a controversial post as the source of Ebert’s infamous remark, we could say that Ebert initiated the debate following his critical review of “Doom” (2005). After penning down his negative thoughts on the film adaptation, Ebert received feedback from a reader. This reader argued that Ebert had misunderstood “Doom,” as it held significant value to the gaming community and altered our perspective on video games. Consequently, the movie adhered to the game’s essence, displeasing Ebert but appeasing gamers.

Roger Ebert saying video games are not art is still haunting games

Check out TopMob’s Spicy Takes Week, our celebration of fun arguments that bring a little extra heat to the table.

Ebert retorted bluntly that the film was a disappointing failure. This statement provided insight into his broader perspective on cinema. “As long as there’s an exceptional movie yet to be discovered or a thought-provoking book waiting to be read, I won’t have the time for video games,” he penned down. His dismissive comment sparked a change in topic from “Doom” the film to Ebert’s stance on gaming, which ignited passionate responses from readers who wished to champion their beloved hobby. Many of these opinions were later published on Ebert’s site.

It’s surprising to hear a teenager, named Aaron, express skepticism towards criticisms against a hugely successful gaming industry worth billions, especially when he strongly believes that games like “Halo” surpass movies and books in terms of creativity. The frequent mention of financial aspects was a common theme in these criticisms, with many questioning the credibility of Ebert, who had limited exposure to gaming. Numerous suggestions were made for games that could potentially change his perspective, such as “Shadow of the Colossus,” “Metal Gear Solid,” and the “Zelda” series. Across the internet, particularly among tech-savvy gamers, there was a wave of strong reactions. “This is one of the most elitist and absurd statements I have ever encountered,” wrote a user on NeoGAF in a thread filled with similar sentiments.

In 2005, when some argued that games weren’t deserving of criticism from top-tier analysts, the gaming industry was experiencing a significant transformation. This was the year that saw the release of groundbreaking titles such as “God of War,” “Yakuza,” and “Resident Evil 4,” which continue to shape the industry today. Satoru Iwata had recently taken charge at Nintendo and steered the company towards catering to a broader audience, including casual gamers and non-gamers. Additionally, Nintendo released the Nintendo DS, a portable console that showcased games as educational tools. Microsoft launched Xbox Live Arcade around the same time, promoting indie games that left lasting impacts on the industry. However, figures like Jack Thompson were also raising concerns about video games being linked to real-world violence. With these circumstances, audiences were more protective of games: they were on the brink of greater things but also under fire.

It’s not shocking that Ebert’s critique sparked introspection within the game industry. In response, Ron Gilbert, creator of Monkey Island, penned a blog post agreeing with Ebert’s perspective since many people couldn’t identify a game developer. He admitted to being among them and didn’t know who created “Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.” The lack of acknowledged auteurs in the gaming world makes it difficult for the industry to showcase the creative control that viewers expect when evaluating art. Essentially, art possesses a unique vision. Ebert’s comments initiated a profound conversation about the role and definition of art. It would be an extensive thesis to encapsulate all the varying viewpoints on why games are or aren’t considered art, as well as tracing the ways other mediums faced similar debates before gaining mainstream acceptance. The questions raised are as philosophical as they are endless. Does art follow rules and have winners? Is a linear structure necessary for art? Can a work of art be produced by a large team?

As a passionate gamer, I’ve come across the long-standing debate about whether video games can be considered art or not. In 2010, this topic gained significant attention when game designer Kellee Santiago from thatgamecompany gave a TED Talk defending games as art. During her 15-minute presentation, Santiago argued that games were already art because art is “deliberately arranging elements to evoke emotions or appeal to our senses.” I could relate to her perspective, but her argument took a turn when she mentioned the “great market impact” of her art games.

After the controversy over whether games should be considered art erupted, n+1 magazine weighed in and strongly disagreed. This sparked a flurry of reactions, including one from Tom Bissell, an esteemed video game critic. Bissell acknowledged that not every game is art, but argued against dismissing the medium based on its lowest examples. By this time, major publications like the New York Times had started reviewing games. However, the debate continued unabated. In 2012, IGN responded to Ebert’s stance posthumously. Game creators such as Josef Fares, renowned for successful titles like “A Way Out,” dismissed Ebert’s views as nonsensical in 2018. Lastly, Mx. Medea urged readers to disregard the opinions of external critics in 2019.

I’ve been following the passionate debates surrounding the artistic merit of video games for years now. As a renowned film critic with a vast knowledge and appreciation for cinema, I once took a stance that video games could never be considered art. However, my opinion sparked a firestorm of controversy in the gaming community, with responses numbering more than those found in some of the longest novels like “The Brothers Karamazov.”

Despite the passage of time, up until 2024, this query continues to pique people’s interest, as attested by this Reddit discussion featuring over a hundred comments.

In more simplified terms, “Journalists, critics, and scholars frequently mention Ebert when discussing games and art, often using him as a point of reference or contrast, even if his specific ideas aren’t the focus. According to Felan Parker, who completed a Ph.D. on this topic in 2018, this indicates that Ebert’s definitions and debates from over a decade ago continue to influence the ongoing conversation, for good or for bad.”

Modern media outlets such as Rolling Stone and Variety now give video games significant coverage. The Grammys have a category for video game scores, and museums like the Smithsonian and the Van Gogh Museum have integrated video games into their exhibits using Nintendo 3DS and Pokémon cards, respectively. The Louvre even uses the Nintendo 3DS for its digital guide. With such mainstream acceptance, especially in post-pandemic times, it seems undeniable that video games deserve recognition. Therefore, why does the controversy surrounding Roger Ebert’s views on video games still persist?

Roger Ebert saying video games are not art is still haunting games

Deep within the industry, there may be an ongoing struggle to acknowledge its true value. Success and popularity don’t equate to respect or recognition as art. The Game Awards, which aspires to be the gaming equivalent of the Oscars, might prioritize showcasing pre-order trailers over honoring creators and their craft. Many awards go untelevised, while speeches are often truncated in favor of promoting the next big thing. If this perspective seems dismissive, consider the case of Hideo Kojima. Regarded as a visionary auteur, Kojima is frequently cited to prove that video games merit the label “art.” Despite his prominence within The Game Awards and being named one of its founders, efforts to legitimize the event continue.

Kojima might be expected to strongly advocate for games being considered art. However, contrary to this assumption, he shares Ebert’s viewpoint on the matter.

In his statement from 2006, Kojima expressed his disagreement with Ebert’s viewpoint regarding video games as art. He explained, “For me, video games aren’t considered art.” Delving deeper into his perspective, he continued, “Art originates from the artist; it emanates or radiates the artist’s creativity and emotions. If just one person among a hundred is moved by that creation, then indeed, it qualifies as art.”

As a devoted gamer, I believe it’s essential for developers to cater to the diverse experiences and preferences of each player. A game isn’t just designed for one person; instead, it should aim to please the hundred unique individuals who engage with it. It’s more about providing an engaging service than creating a work of art.

Ebert, it’s worth mentioning, didn’t dislike all games. He was actually fond of “The Cosmology of Kyoto,” an adventure game with flexible gameplay allowing players to discover ancient Japan. Even if he hadn’t felt this way, the heated debates and unease surrounding Ebert serve as a last hurdle between games and art. Art elicits – and significantly embraces – criticism for its true essence: a mark of esteem. Constructive criticism, distinct from positive criticism, doesn’t jeopardize its subject. Ebert’s legendary status is not attributed to his strong views but rather his grasp of the critic’s role. An audience accustomed to media that caters excessively to their enjoyment might struggle to grasp these concepts.

An unexamined life lacks value, according to Ebert’s perspective. He emphasized that being right or wrong is not what truly matters. Instead, it’s essential to comprehend why we hold specific opinions and trace their origins among all our beliefs. This way, we can assist others in forming their own perspectives. There isn’t a definitive correct answer; only the proper method exists.

Read More

2024-07-15 18:19

Previous post Xavier Woods should get a “KofiMania” of his own
Next post Three intriguing true crime docs to watch on Hulu (including Mastermind: To Think Like a Killer)