Slashdot Mirror
Game/Movie Comparisons Raise Art Question Again
Via Game|Life, an article on the Variety site that sees something rather novel: a film writer defending games. Unhappy reviews of the film 300 sometimes cite the film's 'game-like' nature as a measure of it's poor quality, and Variety writer Ben Fritz calls those authors out on their poor grasp of modern media. Ron Gilbert, at the Grumpy Gamer site, has a few words of commentary on this issue. Coincidentally Gamasutra chose today to post a discussion of games as art which begins with the phrase "here we go again".
I don't recall the last game I played where all the duded wore Leather speedos...
...just make you want to slap a guy. "It looks too much like a game" so what? It sure looks to me like its selling and I thought it was an awsome movie when I finally got to see it(it was sold out all weekend).
Back to the point though, what aversion do these people have against video games? Is it because they were fun? Is it because they didn't get to play them when they were little? Or maybe its because whole teams of artists of different kinds actually work together to make something that a normal person would look at more than once.
I just don't get it, a baby could take a crap in a diaper and these people would call it art, but if that diaper moves when you push a button...
one that can be solved with a spear through their neck.
FTA:300 is a vacuous film filled with bad dialog, stiff acting, a pointless one-dimensional plot and interchangeable characters that hardly deserve to be named in the script. The film barely has a first act and does nothing but drive to a preposterous conclusion led along by a sequence of ridiculous events. The Visuals are nothing more than technical masturbation. Simply put, 300 is the best damn film I've seen all year. I haven't had this much fun watching a movie in a long time. It's nice to see Hollywood is finally striving to be more likes games.
Ok, so in short, gamers as he sees it are only interested in the technical masturbation portion of what games are. IF that's true, then consoles that emphasize game play wouldn't be doing as well as a certain little industry darling that does is. But even if that's only about -gameplay- (as Wii games don't exactly have the best acting/plot), some of the most loved games out there have some incredible characters and/or plot. (textual or otherwise).
He totally misses the point, this movie was one for people who are looking for eye candy and visuals, not plot or well developed characters and script. There are games like this as well. For example, the difference between the Monkey Island series (amusing, somewhat witty script) and Doom 3. Implying that all games in the popular market in somewhat recent memory are terrible in terms of things that a typical movie-goer would find important only demonstrates an ignorance of what the over-21 year old gamer market really is looking for.
The movie "300" is not even comparable to making a movie in game like Quake 2. That would be different and quite ugly. One guy did a Quake 2 movie in talk show format that ended with everyone shooting rocket launchers at each other. Someone did the Monty Python's killer rabbit scene in Unreal. Critcs are just stupid.
Instead of using "game-like" in a deragatory manner you could say "Uwe Boll-Like"
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
..has nothing to do with it being based on a game. It's based on a comic book (rather mediocre one imho) and it does a great job bringing the pictures and the story to life. Thus it succeeds in its aim and the people mentioned had obviously no idea what they were talking about. Spider-man is also a good example of a movie in which you could freeze at almost any frame and have a beautiful picture that could have been just like that in the comic book - that's skill, that's art!
That being said it seems "300" itself gets misunderstood by quite a few people, ostensibly because it has no accurate disclaimer at the beginning and most people are ignorant about the story and Greek/Persian history in general. It should be clear from viewing the first few scenes, that it is hardly a realistic depiction, but rather a fantastic (obviously biased) and embellished story told by a proud Spartan war veteran. The comic-like style is actually essential in pointing out this very fact.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
I believe that games would do better to become more 'movie-esque' than vice versa. It seems to me that there aren't many games that feature characteristics more closely associated with film or even literature, such as good characterisation or plot. Most mainstream games are all about plopping you straight into the action with little regard to back-story and expect you to be satisfied 1607 dead stormtroopers later. The oft-repeated mantra, common on Slashdot, that 'games should be fun' seems disingenuous to me. I mean, if the gamers among us want the industry to be legitimised as a 'proper art form' and move beyond the nerd kids in the bedroom stigma, why does there seem to be such a lack of 'adult' (not necessarily in the boobs and gore sense) titles, of intellectual titles, in the local game shop? Do we say that 'films should be fun'? Yes, while many are indeed fun, there are also many that are shocking, dark, depressing, thought-provoking. Where are the 'head scratcher' games - the ones you try and figure out with your friends at the pub like after the movie theatre? Where are the games in black and white?
Yes, there are obvious differences in format; movies are non-interactive and last a couple of hours, games are naturally controllable and generally last at least ten hours. I'd like to see more of a fusion between the two art forms. I'd like a game that was short by game standards, but was beautifully written, had a tight storyline and was populated by intelligent, deep and interesting characters. I'd like to see games where you have to put some thought into what you are doing and the decisions you make. I'd like a game where you hardly fire your gun. I want a game to make me cry.
I'm not saying that such games aren't to be found or that there should be no shallow, time-waster games. It just seems an under-represented niche.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
If the artist can intentionally provoke a specific emotional reaction in the viewer, it is art. The end.
+0 Meh
Video games are mostly an entertainment medium at the moment, but I think we'll see more and more people agreeing that there's art somewhere in there.
I often liken early (and even modern) video games to movies where moustachioed villains tie women to railroad tracks while our stalwart hero struggle to rescue her (woo!). That's entertainment, not art. However, movies later had their more respectable Citizen Kanes and Seven Samurais, as I hope we'll have for video games. Not all movies are art (we still have our summer blockbuster action flicks), though we do have artistic "films." Similarly, we'll have video games meant for entertainment, with a handful specifically pitched as art. Call 'em "interactive media."
A side-thought I had is that while most video games rely on making the player feel gratification for their actions ("Hooray, I won!"), an "artistic" video game would be one that didn't rely on this as its primary reward mechanism ("I just finished playing The Illiad, and I detested every minute of it. It was great!"). But I'm just talking out of my rump there, and may be way off.
_____________
Indie Superstar - A video webcast on indie video games!
We're indie. We're working on our 14th game.
In the Gamasutra article, there was mention of the fact that many people who dismiss video games as an artistic medium do so on the basis they are interactive. Tim Schafer countered with the argument that plays with audience participation are then not art by the same argument. However, it the counter could be even more broad than that. Anyone who has taken a public speaking or communication class, not to mention a literature class would be taught that in any communication, there is no message unless there is both a transmitter and a receiver. Not to mention that there are a whole slew of literary criticism techniques based on who the reader is, in what context they are reading, and their interpretation of the work. Without anyone to see it and be affected by it, the Mona Lisa would just be some paint on a board that happens to look like a woman. And if someone can play Duck Hunt and be deeply moved by the tragedy of the duck's futile attempt at freedom and hurt by the dog's belittlement, well then by golly, that's art. (At least to them)
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deeply or not at all."
You people are seriously daft.
In case connecting the dots are too difficult:
No matter how well a game is made, if it attempts a realistic style, it will contain obnoxious subtle details that stick out like a sore thumb.
If a movie uses this same style, the same damn thing happens. Personally, I enjoyed the movie, but I was a bit pissed off at a few points where CGI was used quite poorly (The fight scene with the two seperated spartans where the camera is rotating around them was particularly shitty).
I think there tends to be a confusion regarding whether or not something qualifies as art. Just because something is artistic doesn't mean it's art. Just because something exudes style doesn't mean it's art. It's the same reason design isn't really art.
People like to refer to Shadow of Colossus as an example of art. It presents a novel concept, has a unique storyline twist and is certainly artistic in it's art style. But it isn't really art. Why wouldn't God of War, for example, be considered art. That game has plenty of style. It has a story that's arguably more immersive, even if it's a bit contrived.
To me, something can only qualify as art if the primary motivation behind the creative process was to create art. Certainly there are special conditions, for example when we look back on the work of ancient civilizations. But I think in that case we're so removed from the culture that work is being viewed out of its original context, with a sense of detachment. In that case we're free to create our own impressions.
However, with nearly all games and movies what is the overriding motivation for creation? Money, perhaps to tell a story, to provide an entertaining experience. The creation of art isn't the driving force. Artistic concepts and creative design are simply a part of that process.
There are the rare occasion where a movie or game could become art in it's own right. But that's due to the artistic passion behind the creative process but more importantly to the fact that the subject or presentation is so compelling it's transcended the medium. But that's exceedingly rare. It's not something that can be made to happen. I can think of one game that may qualify, Out of this World.
Interestingly, although the story for that game was interesting. I think it was a number of other factors that make it qualify as art. There seems to be this notion, however, that somehow for a game or movie to qualify as art it requires a deep, complex story. There are art movies out there that consist of nothing but random images. Hell, there is art out there based on little more than mathematical computations.
Perhaps some people believe that if games are taken more seriously they can attract a higher caliber of writers. The problem is that from a business standpoint it's irrelevant. The most important aspect of any game is gameplay. Second to that is probably immersion which is why graphics and audio are important. Story may enhance the game, but it isn't really important because in most cases once gameplay and story can't really coexist. Gameplay has to be interrupted to tell the story. Probably the only exception is adventure games, and to a lesser extent RPGs. Unfortunately not many developers seem interested in creating adventure games.
That's an important point. A quality story can sell a movie, and can sell a book even more effectively. A good story might help a game, but it isn't really crucial. So why would developers bother spending money that could be invested elsewhere. And the reality is that there really aren't that many good writers. Like anything else, the best ones are likely to go where the money is and where there's a greater chance of prominence. So inevitably, many game stories come off as amateurish.
That's all irrelevant anyway. Games are an important part of culture. Games serve their own function and I don't think what works for movies or books will ever work as effectively in games. It's a different medium with a completely different kind of involvement on the part of the person being entertained.
I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but 300 is based on a graphic novel. Which in turn was based on a movie. Which in turn was based on embellished stories regarding a historical event. It's not that the movie is game-like at all. It's that it's a stylized, simplified comic-book like story.
I mean, bar none...300 had to be the BEST obviously-filmed-in-front-of-a-greenscreen movie EVER! The move harkens back to the by-gone days of movies like "Attack of the Clones" with the historical accuracy of Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbor".
This will open doors for more obviously-filmed-in-front-of-greenscreen movies, which the world needs more of.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
"What "300" does share with most videogames are the digital effects that created the backgrounds, action sequences and, yes, blood. But it's fundamentally wrong to suggest that "300" structurally resembles a game."
And he is fundamentally wrong.
Having played a videogame or two, I know the VG structure when I see it, and 300, the movie, structurally resembles a game.
VGs work like this. You are the hero. You are fearless. You have just enough backstory to get into the action. And then there's action action action action action, and occasionally a cut scene so that you feel like you're watching something of depth, and more action.
Now, you could say that -all- movies are like this, but you'd be horribly wrong. Braveheart, for all of its action, has just an inordinate amount of time when people are just flat out talking. But what is more condemning for 300 is the way that the action happens.
In VG terminology, the foes that you have to dispatch come in a series of rounds called "Waves". I don't know when it started, but one of the oldest games I can think of is Galaga. Ever play it? You're the space ship, and then a bunch of blue ships come, and you wipe them out, they are easy. Then some red ships, they are a little harder, maybe you die once or twice. And then some red and yellow ships, that do crazy stuff like try to suck you in... the "Mini-boss" if you will. Wave after wave until it is just too much for you to handle, game over.
That is 300.
Backstory: You are a killing machine. Someone comes asking for your servitude, so you kill him. Now you have to fight his army.
A Non-Player-Character comes to you with vital information, do you a) ignore or b) listen? a? Really? Are you sure about that? Hmm....
Timer Round: You have two minutes to build a wall before the enemy gets here....start.
1st Wave: Soldiers with shields that were made of wicker. Wicker, though stylish, and excellent for baskets and chairs, is not known for its spear repelling capability. (no Spartan deaths, mode: easy)
2nd Wave: Arrows!! (no deaths, mode: easy)
3rd: Then soldiers on horses. (no deaths, mode: easy)
4th: Elephants! (press B rapidly to push them to the cliffs)
5th: Rhino! (tip: throw the spear and hit it in its weakpoint just above the head)
Then (I believe) it was time for a mini boss -- the big bald guy (some deaths: mode: medium)
CUTSCENE: You get to meet the main boss (xerxes) (sometimes in VGs you meet the main boss just to "know your enemy" before you actually fight him)
6th: Immortals. (some deaths, mode: medium)
CutScene: Back in Sparta I. "Will the queen be able to save the day?"
Then you press the B-button ("Use your Allies!") and the Arkadians jump out of the bushes, and they kill some people will your troops get their energy back.
Cutscene: Back in Sparta II. "Nope."
Alas, the NPC that you ignored earlier betrayed you, so now you are fighting immortals on both sides, AND the main boss (skill level: impossible, total death).
Game Over.
I think that the real issue isn't so much that video games are art. Any dimwit can argue that anything created is art. Usually the only requirement is some kind of human interaction. We don't say that a mountain view is 'Art' because it wasn't created by a human (or arguably, an animal of some kind... but that's another discussion)
The real question here is whether Video Games belong to a much more exclusive category known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_culture High Culture.
Movies have only very recently made this list, popping up within only the last hundred years. I fully expect "Interactive Computer Simulations" to join them in the very near future - maybe 30 - 70 years or so.
(As posted to my blog)
A couple of weeks ago, I bought Psychonauts for the PS2, conviced by NoobToob, and the fact that it's written by Tim Schäfer (man, did I love Day of the Tentacle) that it's going to be a great game with clever humour. So I started it up with great anticipation, and was soon disappointed. While it delivered on the humour front, as a game, it was a pain in the ass to play, due to unbearable loading times and frequent framedrops and slowdowns.
Now, what does this have to do with our subject? Well, it got me thinking about how I nearly always finish movies or books I start. No matter how boring and pompous, sitting through a movie is never really tedious. There are lots of movies where shitty execution covers an otherwise solid concept, and I'm sure everyone's read books that are poorly written yet have messages that are definitely worth absorbing.
But if it's a game, and even one that shows so much promise for its writing as does the first couple of levels in Psychonauts, if I have to waste 20-30 seconds each time I go from one place to another looking at a boring "loading..." screen, sooner rather than later I'm going to say "fuck that shit" and just not care what witty humour awaits in the next room.
And this is not the same as whining about superficial stuff like graphics. Take Shadow of the Colossus, for instance. After I've finished this truly marvelous game, I've read on a lot of sites how horrible its graphics and textures are by today's standards. But when I was playing it, I was so overwhelmed by the experience, as opposed to the sensation, that even at this point I still can't look at screenshots and not be awed.
Guikachu: Resource editor for PalmOS developers
When photography first began to emerge in the 19th century some artists criticized it as not being a true form of art. Critics said it could never compare to oil painting or sculptures.
.. to quote TV critic Charlie Brooker is that 'It's okay for film buffs to chunter away about that bit of camera work or this evocation of the measles scene or for food buffs to detail their year long quest for the perfect balsamic vinegar. But anyone who discusses videogames in any detail whatsoever is automatically branded a sad spoddy nerdo geek virgin with the cultural sensibilities of a spoon.'
I think the biggest problem most people have when interpreting art is they allow too broad of a definition. I hear the "if movies can be considered art then so can games" argument all the time and I'm just not convinced. Most movies are bad movies which aren't artistic in the least bit. Even good movies often lack artistically. Like games, most movies are mere entertainment.
The biggest confusion I see among Slashdot readers when this issue is brought up is that people don't understand the difference between the visual arts and others. People often cite the special effects of a movie or the graphics in a game and they believe these impressive visuals must be artistic. But what makes a movie artistic is the STORY. Movies are an advancement of theater, and the critical criteria hardly changes from one to the other. The visual arts, such as painting or photography, seek to communicate some idea through the eyes. For a movie to be a visual art the meaning would have to be shown rather than told, which is rarely the case (usually movies do both, but dialog moves things along usually reveals the meaning). Anyway, for games to be considered art one would have to look at the story, not the graphics.
Sorry, but Super Mario Bros. and Halo don't cut it. They are just entertainment. Metal Gear Solid, on the other hand, examines and questions the human condition, and each iteration in the series comes to different conclusions based on the characters and the plot they are involved in. Shadow of the Colossus, similiarly, is artistic because it examines what humans are willing to sacrafice or destroy for greed and love, which are ironically one in the same. I would only consider a small percentage of movies on the market as art, but even less games are deserving of the title.
I challenge anyone who knows what they're talking about (as in, have taken art history, and art philosophy courses)
...the list is literally infinite.)
to define art.
There are dozens of great philosophers from Danto, Dickie, Tolstoy, etc. who have tried to define it -- and failed.
The art world has done everything it can to break down boundaries of what can be called "Art" and the reality
is that NOTHING (yes, nothing) that exists today cannot be considered an artistic medium or statement.
(That includes bodily fluids, lights, video, noise, dance, interactive media,
But the bigger point is that "Art" is no more a measure of merit than "Fiction", or "Drama". It doesn't take a
curator or art dealer to tell you that "Most art is amateurish and atrociously bad". (After all if there are
elite artists, there must be many more non-elite artists. So if most art is bad, then why would we
compare anything to art? Are we asking: "Are video games mostly bad?"
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )