Game Devs on Ebert's Put-Downs

Gamsutra has a writeup of a recent Austin Game Developers meeting. Damion Schubert, Allen Varney, and Scott Jennings took the stage to discuss games as art and Roger Ebert's opinions. From the article: "McShaffry then asked the panel to consider whether Ebert was picking on youth culture in general, and assuming technology wasn't an issue, whether popular games like Grand Theft Auto would be played 500 years from now, like the works of Shakespeare are enjoyed today? Jennings didn't want to speculate that far into the future, but he admitted to still playing and liking the Final Fantasy games released for the Super Nintendo."

Comments

Gonna say "No"

[RyoShin]

There's a fundamental difference between Shakespear and GTA: one was on paper, one is digital.

Five hundered years from now, we don't know what the technology will be like. Maybe they'll be calling "Quantum Computing" old and busted. Maybe they'll revert to Zip drives. Will the Playstation 128 be able to play Playstation 2 games? Will Sony even exist?

But there will always be paper.

Well, until we deforest the entire planet, but at that point I doubt playing video games from a half dozen generations back will be on our minds. So, while the concept may remain (assuming we don't have a Demolition Man-like future), the game will likely not be played except by the handful of "hardcore" hobbiests who procure working-condition units of the PS4. Don't rule out it being taught in game design classes, though.

Mario is an entire other matter.

Re:Gonna say "No"

[tukkayoot]

Plus there's the fact that Shakespeare wrote at a time when work would still enter the public domain, instead of being locked up in perpetual copyright.

Re:Gonna say "No"

[Petrushka]

But there will always be paper.

Random dude 1000 years ago: "But there will always be parchment."

Random dude 2000 years ago: "But there will always be papyrus."

Random dude 3000 years ago: "But there will always be clay tablets."

Hmmm.

Re:Gonna say "No"

[Ben Newman]

Actually you had to worry about that a lot. The First Folio was published after Shakespear's death by a group of his friends to help combat just that, and to cut down on the business of bad copies of his manuscripts being made. These things were great, imagine Hamlet re-written by the folks that make those howlingly bad subtitle for pirated chinese DVDs and you'll get the idea. Of course Will himself freely listed plots, characters and whole lines from his contemporaries, so who to say who would have benifited more from elizabethian copyright protection.

Re:Gonna say "No"

[Rob T Firefly]

There are many more fundamental differences between Shakespeare and GTA. GTA is a finished product, and apart from minor upgrades in performance like when you play a PS1 game on the PS2, it will look the same 100 years from now as it does when we play it today.

Shakespeare's works are only scripts and stage directions, requiring countless other artists and performers to flesh out the material into a finished product. Something like that evolves rapidly over time and in countless directions thanks to the talents of the people currently involved.

What Shakespeare on saw Hamlet's opening night may have been nothing like a recent performance by the Royal Shakespeare Company, the film version with Mel Gibson, the bunch of guys in jeans and t-shirts with Brooklyn accents who performed it in Central Park, or the mental imagery of the story experienced by someone reading the play out of a book. Those wildly different concepts were all Hamlet, but anyone playing "Vice City" now or in a ROM downloaded from future version of theunderdogs.org will hear the exact same music and voices, and see the same graphics.

Re:Gonna say "No"

[C0rinthian]

This is true, but the means to copy something then were not as widespread as it is now. You want to copy a Shakespeare play back then? Hopefully you're literate, which wasn't exactly the norm... How about ripping off Mozart? Well, you better be able to play as well as he can, considering there is no such thing as 'recording'.

In this day and age, exact duplicates of a work are insanely easy to mass produce. That is the biggest difference between the past and the present.

Re:Gonna say "No"

[Skynyrd]

Cervantes wrote Don Quixote, then an imposter wrote a sequel (really).
To keep it from happening again, Cervantes wrote part III and killed him.

Oh yeah, baby. A pointless degree in Spanish Lit finally pays dividends on Slashdot!!!!

Re:Gonna say "No"

[westlake]

Plus there's the fact that Shakespeare wrote at a time when work would still enter the public domain, instead of being locked up in perpetual copyright.

Shakespeare's plays were the prime assets of his theatrical company.

He was part owner of the Globe theater, remember, and he functioned under a patronage system that settled teritorial disputes privately.

Shakespeare's plays were never published in his lifetime.

The idea that plays could be read for pleasure, that English drama was something more than disposable popular entertainment scarcely exists before the death of Shakespeare.

Re:Gonna say "No"

[1u3hr]

"But there will always be clay tablets."-Babalyonian Historian 5000B,

Almost literally true (3000 BC, but who's counting).

Tablets ... Vast quantities of these have been excavated in the Near East, of which about a half million are yet to be read. It is estimated that 99 percent of the Babylonian tablets have yet to be dug. The oldest ones go back to 3000 B.C. They are practically imperishable; fire only hardens them more.

Get back to me on how good your CDR backup is after 5000 years.

Honest-to-God question

[LeonGeeste]

would be played 500 years from now, like the works of Shakespeare are enjoyed today?

Are Shakespeare's works seriously "enjoyed" today? How many people who have to study his works today in school enjoy doing it vs. playing GTA? And what's the deal with the "500 year standard", it's circular and self-fulfilling. We read/view performances of Shakespeare 500 years later, because they're so great, as evidenced by how people still read/view it 500 years later! Go us!

How many people, as a fraction of the population, go to Shakespeare plays *purely* for the joy of seeing it, irrespective of the buzz behind them? How will that compare to the fraction who plays Rockstar games 500 years from now?

(And it's more like 400, but whatever.)

Re:Honest-to-God question

[NorbrookC]

Are Shakespeare's works seriously "enjoyed" today?

Yes. Next question?

How many people who have to study his works today in school enjoy doing it vs. playing GTA?

I recall having to study many things in school that I didn't enjoy versus playing any game. Including Shakespeare. Interestingly, after I'd gotten several years out of school, I came to appreciate his works much better, and yes, enjoy them.

And what's the deal with the "500 year standard", it's circular and self-fulfilling. We read/view performances of Shakespeare 500 years later, because they're so great, as evidenced by how people still read/view it 500 years later! Go us!

No, it's not that they're 500 years old, it's that they're great works that speak to common themes in the human condition. Just as Don Quixote is still read and enjoyed, even though it's almost as old. Even as Beowulf is read and enjoyed, even though it's far older. The Odyssey, the Iliad. They're great stories, which deal with human conflicts and actions that are still going on. The themes carry on throughout the generations. That's what makes them great. We read them because they're great, they aren't great because we still read them.

Re:Have to agree the answer is No

[XenoRyet]

You can watch a movie based on Shakespear's works today. Same work in a different form. I suspect that will be the case with games, new forms, same ideas.

However, as to which game? Not GTA, not Final Fantasy. It'll be Tetris. That game will never go away, it's made the transition to every new platform that has come out since it's conception, and it will contiue to do so indefinitaly. Tetris' combination of simplicity and addictivness will give it staying power well into the time where GTA's game mechanic looks antiquated and silly.

Ebert is wrong

[Kohath]

Ultima 4

Also, there are lots of good games. Even if you don't agree that Ultima 4 was a classic, there WILL be classics.

Video games have been around for 40 years or so. Saying there won't be any profoundly classic games at this point is like saying there would never be classic literature 40 years after writing was first invented.

Also "making ourselves more cultured, civilized, and empathetic" is self-righteous and pretentious. Way to congradulate yourself, Ebert. Your entertainment doesn't just entertain, it makes you better than the rest of us. Bravo.

Ebert? What does he know about video games?

[Red Flayer]

Not to be crass, but Ebert can suck it.

He mentions that video games are typically just a waste of time; I would posit that movies are just as much a waste of time. It's like asking a classical music critic to judge whether or not a certain modern sculpture is art -- don't ask a movie critic about video games.

I've had plenty of "oh wow" moments in video games. I've also been affected emotionally in video games (which, I'm sure, was intended by the designers). I've also been stimulated to think critically about a topic by video games. All these things indicate that video games *can* be art.

Yes, there are artless videogames, just as there are artless movies and artless novels. There is also "bad" art out there, in every media. I believe that as video games continue to be developed, very many more of them will be intended as art pieces, and will succeed in being considered art.

/My 2 cents, at least as valid as Ebert's when discussing video games.

Also, keep in mind that the movie industry is losing $$ to the videogame industry -- video games are eating away at film's cultural mindshare. Ebert, as a part of that industry, has a professional interest in promoting movies over video games.

"Film and games are so OBVIOUSLY different!"

[Jacius]

Five hundered years from now, we don't know what the technology will be like.

I wonder if Mr. Ebert expects expects films to be viewable in their original media in 500 years. What with periodically-changing film sizes and speeds, and now digital video codecs, Ebert's own favorite art form doesn't seem particularly "eternal" either. In fact, just like video games, the only ways to appreciate old films are to 1) preserve the associated film player, or 2) convert the film to the new format. Sure, you could bust open the film reel, hold it up to a light, and look at it frame by frame, but that goes against the artist's intended viewing scenario, something Ebert considers extremely important.

Perhaps Ebert realizes all this, but thinks that the contents of the film (if not the physical medium) is safe from the ravages of time. After all, there are works 100 years old which can be enjoyed by film buffs even to this day! ... And yet, the vast majority of people are not interested in these classic films, preferring instead the lastest and greatest blockbuster hits. Just like classic video games, only a relatively small group of people regularly enjoy classic films, this small group having a "deeper appreciation" for the art form. The general public just wants to see more explosions and/or more melodramatic love stories, and are not impressed by the efforts of the early film masters, whose works are quite dull by contemporary standards.

Mr. Ebert might notice other points where video games are plainly different and not-at-all-identical to film:

• Most of the best-selling titles are devoid of artistic statement, and simply exist to entertain audiences and make profit.
• The market is currently (and has been for most of its history) controlled by a handful of big studios, who often re-hash ideas, bring back "stars" from previous titles, and inflate prices in order to make an extra buck.
• Studios think that new titles must provide ever-increasing levels of special effects, features, and gimmicks in order to continue to attract new audiences.
• Only a small number of independent producers exist, and most indie titles fly under the radar of the general audience, with only the very occasional title getting noticed and becoming a "cult classic" or even a public sensation.

Which brings me to my point: does Ebert intentionally ignore the obvious similarities between film and video games, or is he simply too ignorant of the history of video games to see them in the first place?