Dear Mr. Ebert
Roger Ebert wrote a blog entry saying, once again, that video games can never be art. I was frustrated, particularly because I really like Roger Ebert (is it not cool to like him? I don't know), and he's repeated this mantra several times while making it abundantly clear that he has never played a video game.
So I wrote him an email, but since I know it's likely to disappear into his massive inbox, I thought I would reprint it here for my tiny readership to peruse.
________________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Ebert
You asked in your latest blog why people who play video games are so desperate to have their medium recognized. Well, as someone whose chosen form of "art" is so widely appreciated, I don't think you can properly understand the gamers' perspective. There are lot of people -- yourself included, it seems, but I won't presume to guess -- who look down on games. Barack Obama has repeated numerous times that we need to get kids away from the video games. Most media outlets consider them kids' fare. In school, well, let's just say that video games don't help you get a girl onto the Editor and Chief's desk at the Daily Illini. So we're naturally a little bit defensive about our passion, particularly when the negative talk is coming from somebody that we admire. Most gamers also love movies, and that means that we also love you, and that's why we wish you could appreciate -- or at least make an effort to appreciate -- the other things that we love.
Reading your blog, it seems obvious that you have never played any modern video game, but more glaringly, you don't even seem to be aware of what a modern video game is. You have them pigeonholed into a competition with rules and points, a la basketball or air hockey. Well, of course those aren't works of art. But that's not what a video game is anymore, or at least most video games, and it hasn't been since pong. A video game is a piece of interactive software whose purpose is to entertain or interest the audience, in the same way that a movie is a piece of film whose purpose is to entertain or interest the audience. That's what's most galling about the whole argument -- a video game is essentially an interactive film. It lets you participate in the story.
In your blog, you say "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." I'm sorry, but you would be wrong if you said that. That's what most video games are these days -- representations of stories. My favorite game right now is Uncharted: Among Thieves, an adventure story in the Raiders of the Lost Ark Vein. You play as an rogue who climbs cliffs, woos women and dodges bullets as he races to find Marco Polo's fleet. There is betrayal, romance, and some damn fine acting, and there are no rules or points as you would define them. It sounds to me like you aren't saying Uncharted can't be art; you're saying it can't be a video game. Well, Mr. Ebert, if we're going by your definition, then there aren't any video games anymore. If all you want to do is quibble about the definition of "game," then this is a silly discussion.
We come then to your deconstruction of the games Santiago offers, which is very disappointing by your standards. I have never played two of the three games she brought up, so I won't comment on them, and I wish you had shown the same discretion. Would you review a movie you have never seen? Suppose that I had never seen a film in my life, watched the trailer for Citizen Kane, and then pronounced that cinema could never be art. Listen to Orson Welles! He's just trying to sell tickets and push his actors! He's flaunting chorus girls! It's all about money! And what about the dialogue in that trailer: "Listen, when the voters of this state and Mrs. Kane learn what I found out about Mr. Kane and a certain little blondie named Susan Alexander, he couldn't be elected dogcatcher!" That's dreadful. There's no way it could be art! I would be wrong to do that, and you are too.
Your follow-up comments betray a similar lack of effort on your part. You mention that cinema, as all art, differs crucially from games because it has a single director/auteur providing its vision. Well, as a cursory glance of Wikipedia would tell you, video games also have directors. Bruce Straley directed Uncharted: Among Thieves. Fumito Ueda, the director of Ico, is one of our legends. Cliff Bleszinski, the director of action-schlock game Gears of War, is our Michael Bay.
For all my interest in this issue, I won't presume to declare that games are art. I also won't presume to try to define art, a pointless enterprise that will never satisfy anyone. All I'm saying is that if movies can be art, then video games can also be art. This must be true, because a video game can be nothing more than an interactive movie. Anything that can be done in a film can also be done in a video game. The director controls what the player sees and what the player hears, the camera angles, the acting, and the way the light dances across the water in the top-right of the shot. The only difference is that the director can also give the player the freedom to participate in some or all of his vision -- and the way the player is allowed to participate is, itself, part of that vision. So while a video game can be an interactive film, it can also be so much more. And that's why gamers are so eager to defend them.
Sincerely,
Eric Chima
So I wrote him an email, but since I know it's likely to disappear into his massive inbox, I thought I would reprint it here for my tiny readership to peruse.
________________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Ebert
You asked in your latest blog why people who play video games are so desperate to have their medium recognized. Well, as someone whose chosen form of "art" is so widely appreciated, I don't think you can properly understand the gamers' perspective. There are lot of people -- yourself included, it seems, but I won't presume to guess -- who look down on games. Barack Obama has repeated numerous times that we need to get kids away from the video games. Most media outlets consider them kids' fare. In school, well, let's just say that video games don't help you get a girl onto the Editor and Chief's desk at the Daily Illini. So we're naturally a little bit defensive about our passion, particularly when the negative talk is coming from somebody that we admire. Most gamers also love movies, and that means that we also love you, and that's why we wish you could appreciate -- or at least make an effort to appreciate -- the other things that we love.
Reading your blog, it seems obvious that you have never played any modern video game, but more glaringly, you don't even seem to be aware of what a modern video game is. You have them pigeonholed into a competition with rules and points, a la basketball or air hockey. Well, of course those aren't works of art. But that's not what a video game is anymore, or at least most video games, and it hasn't been since pong. A video game is a piece of interactive software whose purpose is to entertain or interest the audience, in the same way that a movie is a piece of film whose purpose is to entertain or interest the audience. That's what's most galling about the whole argument -- a video game is essentially an interactive film. It lets you participate in the story.
In your blog, you say "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." I'm sorry, but you would be wrong if you said that. That's what most video games are these days -- representations of stories. My favorite game right now is Uncharted: Among Thieves, an adventure story in the Raiders of the Lost Ark Vein. You play as an rogue who climbs cliffs, woos women and dodges bullets as he races to find Marco Polo's fleet. There is betrayal, romance, and some damn fine acting, and there are no rules or points as you would define them. It sounds to me like you aren't saying Uncharted can't be art; you're saying it can't be a video game. Well, Mr. Ebert, if we're going by your definition, then there aren't any video games anymore. If all you want to do is quibble about the definition of "game," then this is a silly discussion.
We come then to your deconstruction of the games Santiago offers, which is very disappointing by your standards. I have never played two of the three games she brought up, so I won't comment on them, and I wish you had shown the same discretion. Would you review a movie you have never seen? Suppose that I had never seen a film in my life, watched the trailer for Citizen Kane, and then pronounced that cinema could never be art. Listen to Orson Welles! He's just trying to sell tickets and push his actors! He's flaunting chorus girls! It's all about money! And what about the dialogue in that trailer: "Listen, when the voters of this state and Mrs. Kane learn what I found out about Mr. Kane and a certain little blondie named Susan Alexander, he couldn't be elected dogcatcher!" That's dreadful. There's no way it could be art! I would be wrong to do that, and you are too.
Your follow-up comments betray a similar lack of effort on your part. You mention that cinema, as all art, differs crucially from games because it has a single director/auteur providing its vision. Well, as a cursory glance of Wikipedia would tell you, video games also have directors. Bruce Straley directed Uncharted: Among Thieves. Fumito Ueda, the director of Ico, is one of our legends. Cliff Bleszinski, the director of action-schlock game Gears of War, is our Michael Bay.
For all my interest in this issue, I won't presume to declare that games are art. I also won't presume to try to define art, a pointless enterprise that will never satisfy anyone. All I'm saying is that if movies can be art, then video games can also be art. This must be true, because a video game can be nothing more than an interactive movie. Anything that can be done in a film can also be done in a video game. The director controls what the player sees and what the player hears, the camera angles, the acting, and the way the light dances across the water in the top-right of the shot. The only difference is that the director can also give the player the freedom to participate in some or all of his vision -- and the way the player is allowed to participate is, itself, part of that vision. So while a video game can be an interactive film, it can also be so much more. And that's why gamers are so eager to defend them.
Sincerely,
Eric Chima