Hacker News Reader

Comment by michael_dorfman | Hacker News Reader

But that's not the argument that he is making.

He's saying that video games are games, and that games are not artforms. You don't have to play hockey, or watch hockey games, to say that a hockey match is not a work of art.

Ebert seems to be saying that the artistic elements in a video game (the text, the graphics, etc.) are subsidiary to the over-riding purpose, which is game-play. So, while Braid may contain beautiful images, the primary purpose of those images is to further the game scenario; similarly, where the graceful moves of a Michael Jordan dunk may resemble choreography, and contain a certain beauty, his primary purpose was to put the ball through the hoop, not artistic expression.

View on HN

I hear the argument and it is sound.

I'd like to mention though, that when I finished through Braid I ended up with the feeling that it's primary goal was not to make me look at pretty images or listen to some music or even to make me read the puny bits of story. I don't think it's purpose was for me to finish it either.

The gameplay was original and highly enjoyable, but that might not have been the point still. It sure pulls you through the game, but the graphics and the music and the story contribute to that aspect in their own right.

I ended up thinking that the game's purpose was to communicate a feeling, a certain moment frozen in time when you realize for the first time that you've made a mistake, that what you have come to believe about the world is false or backward, and you're, in essence, a devastating force. This is the moment when you want to take it all back, to have made different choices.

And I think I'm not alone in feeling that. I also happen to think that these moments of direct communication are what art is about, and that they might be achieved with simpler means – a song, perhaps, or a poem.

Ebert hasn't had any exposure to this kind of experiences, it seems to me.

I hear the argument and it is sound.

I believe it isn't. I appreciate Michael's summary because it shows where Ebert's blind spot is. (I think you get it though.) Games allow you to be pulled into stories better, or at least differently, than movies. More like novels than movies as you find yourself putting more into the story than you're given, or as in Bioshock you adopt the character as yourself and wonder what do I really think about Ryan? He seems okay to me, but I'm not sure about Atlas. The story is about as artistic as a sequel to Atlas Shrugged could be.

Then there is the idea some games contain art. Donkey Kong 2 isn't a game I would claim to be art, but Stickerbrush Symphony is one of the finest levels in any game I've played. The experience of bouncing from barrel to barrel with this beautiful music and environment... I'm not talented enough a writer to explain. The music and scene are the lines in those cave paintings.

Ebert's hung up on the word game and can't see those moments frozen in time. And without playing the games and giving himself over to them he won't be able to. The over riding purpose isn't the game play, it's those moments in time where you don't just understand the story, but you believe it.

I think both Ebert and the TEDxUSC lady are wrong.

Video games are the medium, and they contain many many pieces of art (these individual moments). The movie projector isn't art either, the canvas isn't art either. To say the game will never be art is moot, the art is already there, and it is it not the game itself.

I know exactly what you mean about DK. Awesome awesome games with a ton of art in them for sure.

Yes, I think it's a matter of demarcation.

A chess set can be art, but a chess set isn't a game, it's just a tool used to play a game. Chess is the game, but it's just a set of rules; it may be a great game but it's not "art" in any useful sense.

A computer game is both the set of rules and the tool you use to play it, which I think is where Ebert might be getting confused. There are a few exceptions; Nethack could be considered a game which is just a set of rules independent of the particular implementation you use to play it.

Comparing a hockey match to a computer game is comparing apples to ninjas. The proper comparisons are: a hockey match to a particular run-through of a computer game, in which neither is art, in the same way that a particular instance of someone looking at the Mona Lisa is not art; and the game of hockey itself, to a computer game. Hockey is not art, nor is it meant to be, and neither is Medal of Honor, but that most certainly does not mean that games in general are not capable of being artistic.

Hockey and computer games aren't particular comparable because no one is trying to make a new type of hockey every year to push the boundaries of what hockey can be. Hockey is a single instance of a game, and a (mostly) static one. The computer game industry is continually updating itself with several notions of design, some of which have artistic merit.

I also think that professional sports are a red herring as a comparison, because I doubt that multiplayer games have as much potential to be artistic. The artistic games tend to be tightly scripted and non-competitive, something that doesn't jive well with introducing a player-adversary. Unless you want to be one of those avant-garde artistes making a statement about how we objectify each other or something.

One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.

Ebert tries to set up definitions in a way such that games and art are mutually exclusive. That is, that the difference between art and games in the interactivity, the ability to affect the art itself. I disagree. Much like a tree falling in the woods, can a piece of art that is not seen, or not heard, or not read, or not watched, be considered an art? Therefore, it is necessary to concede at least the minimal level of interaction, between that of the person and the art. Then, why does further interaction, that of the participant being able to effect the world presented by the game, remove a game's ability to be art?

Second, the point has been made that the participant's interaction with the game is not that of one who wants to interact with it as 'art'. Well, if I were to use any famous painting, say, the Mona Lisa, as toilet paper, does that make it not art? (Well, maybe after I've made use of it...)

To conclude, here are some games that I consider to be art. There are the various art games that indie producers have made. Jason Rohrer has made many such games - in particular Passage and Gravitation. (I also saw Sleep is Death on the front page of HN a few days ago). No points, no rules, maybe an objective, so perhaps Ebert wouldn't consider those to be games. 'The Path' is another such art game, though again perhaps Ebert might not consider it to be a game. There are various RPGs that are particularly story intensive. In fact, a common complaint seems to be that there's too much cinematics and story and not enough gameplay. Finally, I consider the game 'Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time' to be art. Maybe not its sequels though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com