How many times have we had this argument? When Roger Ebert, famed film critic, said that games were an inferior form of Art, compared to film and literature, the Internet exploded. On every forum there was a flame war defending or damning Ebert. The subject has very nearly been beaten to death. Recently, Clive Barker (writer-director of Hellraiser, designer of Jericho) gave a speech at the Hollywood and Games Summit about how games need to be accepted as Art, mentioning Ebert throughout. His speech was posted on GameIndustry.biz, and when Ebert read it, he chose to write a response of his own.

Ebert starts his response by saying that he was mistaken; "Anything can be art," but quickly adds "What I should have said is that games could not be high art, as I understand it." Irony is wrapped around his response like shrink-wrap. If Ebert traveled back in time 100 years, he would find himself on the flipside of his argument. He would find himself in a time where film was considered to be a cheap substitute for those who couldn't afford real theatre. The upper-****theatre critics would be looking down their nose at films, saying that they could never be high art. Of course, in the present movies are much more popular than theatre, and no believes that they're inferior. No one denies film's potential to be considered high art. Defined in the most concise terms, High Art is great art, something intellectually, emotionally and culturally meaningful. This is not a textbook definition, but a fair definition.

Ebert doesn't pretend to be a gamer, but says that he understands game by definition. Based on "the vast majority of games", Ebert defines games as "involving (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in 'Myst', and (3) player control of the outcome". Fair enough; to varying degrees he is right. However, he said these attributes make games more comparable to sports than Art, though personally I've yet to see a sport with a plotline. He believes that these attributes "don't have much to do with art", but that's not really fair. Not all art forms share the same attributes; music is vastly different than writing, which is vastly different from filming, and acting is vastly different from all of them. Acting is not so different from gaming, however. Gaming is more than a visual experience; it is also a performance. Actors may choose how to perform a play however they want, but they must progress the plot to reach the end. Players may have some choices when they play a game, but in most games they must adhere to the author's intent to progress. Then again, not all Art intends to tell a story, or represent something. Think how many paintings and sculptures that we appreciate for their realism? Many games seek no further than to simulate reality, though they retain the elements of performance.

Ebert does a tremendous job of sounding witty in response to Barkers' comments, even suggests that Clive has "Spoken with the maturity of an honest and articulate 4-year old" at one point, but does manage to poke holes in some of the horror novelist's logic, though just as often doesn't flesh out his own logic or make a strong point. In his post on the Chicago-Sun Times website, Ebert broke up Barker's comments into chunks and replied to them individually. I've extended the dialogue with my own responses to his responses.

Barker: "It's evident that Ebert had a prejudiced vision of what the medium is, or more importantly what it can be."

Ebert: The word "prejudiced" often translates as "disagrees with me." I might suggest that gamers have a prejudiced view of their medium, and particularly what it can be. Games may not be Shakespeare quite yet, but I have the prejudice that they never will be, and some gamers are prejudiced that they will.

Me: Speaking of articulate four year olds, this "Well you're prejudiced too!" reply doesn't address the real point at hand: We shouldn't be prejudice at all. All critics and reviewers have an opinion, that is their role, but we have the obligation to be fair and without prejudice. That's what gives our opinions value.

Barker: "It used to worry me that the New York Times never reviewed my books. But the point is that people like the books. Books aren't about reviewers. Games aren't about reviewers. They are about players."

Ebert: "A reviewer is a reader, a viewer or a player with an opinion about what he or she has viewed, read or played. Whether that opinion is valid is up to his audience, books, games and all forms of created experience are about themselves; the real question is, do we as their consumers become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, philosophical (and so on) by experiencing them? Something may be excellent as itself, and yet be ultimately worthless. A bowel movement, for example."

Me: I get the impression that Ebert thinks that we cannot "become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, [or] philosophical" from video games, which is of course untrue. These attributes have nothing to do with the artistic form; they're all related to the artistic content. Some video games lack these attributes, while others serve as shining examples. How many games has Ebert played, and which ones? Can we even accept Ebert as "gaming literate"? After all, someone who has only seen Uwe Boll movies in his life might say that all movies are terrible; but we don't value their opinion because they don't have the breadth to speak objectively about all movies.

Barker: "We should be stretching the imaginations of our players and ourselves. Let's invent a world where the player gets to go through every emotional journey available. That is art. Offering that to people is art."
Ebert: "If you can go through "every emotional journey available," doesn't that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices. If next time, I have Romeo and Juliet go through the story naked and standing on their hands, would that be way cool, or what?"

Me: I can see why he might think that going through the whole gamut of emotional journeys might devalue them all, but I don't agree. Perhaps in a two or three hours movie it would be hard to fully develop each emotional journey, but most games go well beyond 2 to 3 hours. Some go well beyond thirty hours, and very little offer a "smorgasbord" of choices. Some games are open-ended, allowing the player a dynamic experience, but more games are linear, with the only power you have on the plot is whether or not you progress through the game. Half-life 2, for example, gives you very little choice besides which gun to use. There is one direction to go (forward). The conclusion is just as inevitable as (spoiler alert) Romeo and Juliet's death.

These quotations that I've responded to are simply the choice pickings; there are more on his original post. There are a lot of snarky lines that seem to contradict Barker, but completely absent from his article is a compelling reason that games cannot be high art.
Games are art, and even Ebert will admit that now. I fail to see how the form of the art would limit the value of it. All forms of art have the potential of being great; as a rule some pieces of art in any given form will be bad, while other pieces will be great. Any good film critic would admit that not ALL movies deserve to be called high art. Likewise, there not might be many games that deserve their status as high art, but that doesn't rob them the potential of doing so. If Ebert truly does think this, well, let's just say that a prejudice critic is of no value at all.

www.gamersblock.net

PS3. 360. Wii. Most will agree they are three very unique systems. In years past this would be looked upon as a plus for gamers everywhere. Since the days of the NES, we as gamers have had many options to burn free time. SNES vs Genesis. Game Boy vs Game Gear. PSX vs Saturn vs N64. PS2 vs Xbox vs Gamecube. Not to mention the countless other entrants into the framework (3DO anyone?) With this latest console war, we could be staring a golden age of gaming right in the face. And on behalf on myself and true gamers everywhere, we plan to embrace it fully.

However, the Nintendo/Sega rivalry spawned a new breed of gamer. A gamer who would not only pledge their allegiance to one specific console, but would also do everything in their god given power to convince any other gamer within reach to do the same. The name "fanboy" was the term of choice to describe such a gamer, but they were simply a nuisance in those days. My how things have changed. With the explosion of the internet, "fanboyism" has indeed reached a level of insane heights. I walked into Best Buy one afternoon and witnessed something I thought I would never see. A customer was interested in purchasing a PS3 and inquired about the availability. So he asks an employee if any are available and is rudely told, "you don't want one." After explaining to the employee that he has thought about the purchase for 2 months and decided it is the next gen system for him, he was then told, "PS3 is a system for spoiled rich kids and tech junkies who want something to show off at their next get-together."

Rich kids, this one's for you.

2 things struck me as odd about that comment. The first was that the employee was doing the opposite of what his job description says he should. The second was that I had either heard or read some variation of that comment about 7 times in the past 4 days. To choose choice over fanboyism is to invite ridicule into your life nowadays, especially on the internet. Dont believe? Log on to any gaming site and say that Gears Of War is the most overrated game of 06. Let me know how it goes. We as gamers should be well informed about the products we plan to purchase, but we should never be influenced. Seems some people didnt get the memo though. As for our friend at Best Buy? He left without the PS3 he so badly wanted and settled for 2 new PS2 games (Fight Night Round 3 and NBA 07 The Life.) I asked the guy if he knew those games were available for PS3 and he replied, "Yeah, but the guy at the counter says PS3 is a waste and he's the expert." No my friend, he is not the expert. He's the fanboy.

In my experience, there are 3 different types of fanboys. First, you have the in your face type. These gamers will attempt to verbally destroy anyone who doesnt share their opinion on anything gaming related. Their profanity laced tirades have ran many a gamer away from countless internet boards. They will defend their system of choice to the death and use the slightest misstep to expose the competition. The second type is the subtle fanboy. They pick and choose their battles wisely, only stating their opinion when it will either put their favorite system in a good light or show the competition in a negative way. They tend to not go overboard with their arguments though, and will occasionally admit that the competition isnt as bad as they say. The final type is the fanboy in denial. This fanboy will claim no allegiances, but their opinions will say otherwise. This is the type of person who would call Halo overrated, but still admit it is better than Resistance. They will occasionally claim to like a game made for the competition, but it's usually a game everyone likes anyway. Close examination of their comments will reveal where their heart lies, but they aren't troublesome for the most part. The latter two types aren't hard to deal with in most cases, but the first is a problem all its own.

Ever wanted to see life through a fanboy's eyes? Here you go.

A week after the Best Buy trip, I found myself back at the very same Best Buy ready to purchase my own PS3. Like the other gentleman, I too had put a lot of time and research into my decision. I wanted to confront the employee from my last visit and see how he would handle someone who wouldnt back down. So after a couple of minutes of searching, I found him in the Xbox 360 section. The PS3's were lined up on the floor this time, so there was no need to ask if any were available. So I politely asked him what games he would recommend I purchase with the system. As I predicted, he started one of his rants describing the inferiority of the PS3. Here is a slimmed down version of the conversation that took place between him and I.

Jerzee: Excuse me, could you recommend a couple of games I could buy along with my PS3?
Employee: You sure you want a PS3?
J: Yes, I'm sure I want a PS3. I just wanted your opinion on the games.
E: Well honestly there aren't any games worth your money. You would be better off with a 360.
J: And why is that?
E: Because it has Gears Of War.
J: I dont want to play Gears Of War.
E: Well you must be a Sony fanboy, no offense. Only a Sony fanboy wouldn't want to play Gears.

No offense taken buddy. Only a 360 fanboy would make a statement like that. The truth is I love Gears, and I have played all the Gears I could ever want at my brother's house. So I have no need to buy a 360 and play it some more. Notice he never mentioned ANY of the other great games 360 has for purchase. Not to mention the online service which is top notch. If the conversation didn't last so long I would have posted the whole thing. But let's just say I proved how much of a true gamer I was by the time I left the store with my PS3. I ended up buying Madden 07, Resistance, and NBA2K7 that day as well. I couldnt help but think about my last visit as I walked out with my new system. Maybe I should have talked him into it. Or maybe it was best I left him alone. One thing is for sure though, a real gamer will always have a choice. Fanboys be damned. Until next time, game hard and live easy!


Jerzee
Email - jerzeeballa@gamersblock.net
Forum Name - JerzeeBalla
www.gamersblock.net

The Nintendo Wii is selling like crazy and doesn't seem to be losing momentum. Will the Wii end up being like the NES? Everyone had an NES; even people that didn't play video games as a real hobby got on board back in the day. The original Nintendo Entertainment System sold over 60 Million units world wide(1) . The Wii seems to be carrying on the NES tradition. Will the Wii last or will the luster fade?

There are claims that the Wii is just a fad and sales will fade. It has been said that the motion-sensitive controls are too gimmicky and "hardcore gamers" will lose interest with this method of play. I have personally enjoyed playing the Wii, and love the creative stance that Nintendo has taken. I want new experiences and, so far, Nintendo has delivered.

Nintendo has something else in its arsenal that Sony and Microsoft don't: A massive library of old games. Nintendo boasts a library of 1,000, and many of them, possibly all, will eventually be available for download through the Wii Virtual console. There are also Super Nintendo, N64, Turbo Grafix, and Genesis titles that keep being added.


The library for the nostalgic gamer is in place, and the exclusive titles for the Wii are coming as well. But, for the sake of discussing the future of the Wii, we need to return to the past and compare some of the accessories of the NES and the Wii. The NES and the Wii have several things in common. The NES had a light gun called the Light Zapper, which was used for games like Gumshoe and Duckhunt. Now, the Wii has introduced the Zapper and the possibility of the Duck Hunt sequel. There was the NES Power Pad, which you ran on, that supported titles such as World Track Meet and Stadium Events, and, now, the Wii has a new peripheral called the Wii Balance Board that will roll out with the game Wii Fit. Just in case you forgot, there was the NES Max controller, which had a different x control design than the original NES game controller, and it worked wonderfully with R.C. Pro AM. The Wii has a ****c ****controller available for the Virtual Console Games called the Wii ****c Controller. There are a ton of other accessories for the NES and the Wii that I left out but these have striking resemblances.

Nintendo looks to become the leader of the Next Gen Console War. Whether or not the sales of the Wii are towards hardcore gamers or trendy folks that only want to buy what happens to be hot will be shown through time. I imagine Nintendo wants to make as much money as possible, since they are, after all, a business, so they are going to have to appeal to the masses. Sales of the Wii have passed the PS3 and they are right on Microsoft's tail. It's still early in the race, and no clear victor can be named, but if I we're going to bet, I would go Wii, Wii, Wii all the way to the Bank!

http://gamersblock.net/index.php?a=view&id=137

Bradley Trousdale

thedrexel@gmail.com