[Boriskali]

Okay, I feelt the need to spray some of my recent thoughts after being intrigued by the film critic Roger Ebert's 'Are Games Art?' discussion and feeling triggered by a response in'How important is difficulty? + Impressions on recent adventure titles'

Originally Posted by orient

Interactive storytelling isn’t a new game genre that developers have failed to successfully create. It’s simply a bi-product of games trying to tell worthy stories. A perfect example is Bioshock; a game that has it all: great gameplay, convincing world and atmosphere, intriguing characters and story. Obviously adventure games are completely different to action games so developers have to approach storytelling in alternative ways, but the principles are the same. You don’t need flashy graphics in a game to tell a good story, but you do need interactivity or you might as well make a film.

The reason games are exciting as a medium for storytelling is because they’re interactive. Simply walking from one conversation and/or cut-scene to the next is a poor excuse for a game and will never be very successful.

I'm interested in this excitement for storytelling in an interactive medium.

Roger Ebert has the opinion that there are fundamental limitation in video games (and I guess in an interactive medium) which causes video games to be inherently inferior to film and literature as it requires the artist/storyteller to give up too much authorial control. Here are some relevant articles/snippets from his site:

From Answer Man - Roger Ebert / November 27, 2005

Yours is the most civil of countless messages I have received after writing that I did indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.
I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.

Video games: The 'epic debate' - Jim Emerson / April 18, 2006

Games vs. Art: Ebert vs. Barker - Roger Ebert / July 21, 2007

Note that Roger Ebert still doesn't completely reject that video games might evolve into an art form.

From Hitman Review- Roger Ebert / November 21, 2007

The movie, directed by Xavier Gens, was inspired by a best-selling video game and serves as an excellent illustration of my conviction that video games will never become an art form -- never, at least, until they morph into something else or more.

Again, the earlier post 'How important is difficulty? + Impressions on recent adventure titles'

Originally Posted by orient

The reason games are exciting as a medium for storytelling is because they’re interactive. Simply walking from one conversation and/or cut-scene to the next is a poor excuse for a game and will never be very successful.

Right now I'm playing Dreamfall and it is pretty much like that (especially the last chapters). However, a lot of people here seem to like it, so you might call it successful (within the adventure game scene).

Personally, I think/agree that interactive movies in such form will never be very successful with a mainstream audience. They are too much like watching a movie on DVD where after every scene your DVD-player crashes and you are forced to push the eject button twice so the movie will continue: pretty annoying...

I guess you might say that interactive movies are kind of like a marriage made in hell. Movies are about observing and having an interesting intro/extrospection whereas games are about action and having an interesting simulation (role-play). However, the two can be combined as role-playing doesn't exclude observing (really interesting role-playing (unlike stuff like World of Borecraft IMHO) requires it).

In an interactive medium there is a tension between the storyteller and the player. If the storyteller wants to tell too much (usually involving excessive steering of the actions of the player's avatar), the player might feel like being locked in a golden cage (in case of an interesting and well-told story). If the player has complete freedom, the storyteller is unable to tell any sort of a story. The player makes his own story and will most likely become bored in the process (kind of like an actor trying to improvise his own Shakespeare's play on the spot).

Coming back to the Roger Ebert and his probably favorite medium 'film'. The medium of film is kind of a merger between theater and photography. This merging process resulted in two new components namely cinematography (photography with a moving camera) and film editing. Both cinematography and film editing add an extra level of expression/exploration which prevents film from becoming an inferior medium to literature.

Interactive movies are a merger of film and games (interestingly not an art form). Interactivity is the new component (ignoring theater with audience participation for the moment).

My big question is then: what does interactivity bring to the table?

- Does it add something to movies that has the potential to appeal to a mainstream public? Or not?
- Does it cause it to become an inferior medium to literature and film by simply keeping players busy causing 'a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.'? Or does it add something valuable which makes ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic?

Please share your thoughts...(except stuff like Roger Ebert/you are a snob )

[Fantasysci5]

Boriskali-what a great thread. I must say that MOST of the time, I prefer games to movies. I love detail, from the plot to the landscape to the characters. Characters are the most important to me. Movies usually rush along, and you don't get much detail. I love how interactive games let you *be* in the action. You can look at many details, and it lets you go at your own pace. Now, I must say literature might pass games because you can hear what characters are thinking and the detail is amazing. But games just suck you in (or they're supposed to...lol), and you are a part of the story. And that makes it more interesting, at least to me. I hope this makes sense, and I'm not rambling on like a mad-man.

[Sodapop2]

I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers.)

What snobbery! I'll take a good game over a book of peoms any day!

[Kazmajik]

Well, I do think that Ebert is a bit of a snob, but it's critics like him that challenge the medium to move forward, and that I respect. Games incorporate art into their very fabric, with music, drawing, painting, writing and acting being part of an encompassment that transcends his limited view of what constitutes art. There are few games that excel at all of these components, but the best of the adventure genre surely approach a subliminality that is more than a mere game and closer to an actual interactive experience as hinted at by promises of virtual reality.

By being interactive, the creation is no longer a passive experience, yet the author does retain authorial control, at least with every anticipated action. I think the medium is still in its infancy and as it matures, we'll see more and better examples that come closer to realizing the potential of this brave new storytelling.

[TezChi]

I personally prefer gaming to movies any day. Games are longer and thus more in depth, and they have interactivy which involves you in the story much more than any film can.

I feel the film industry has gone tremendously down hill in recent years, with the same old tired movies been rehased and released over and over again. Just look at todays horror movies, complete crap. Also Ive seen many modern filsm which are supposed to be emotional etc, and they hardly even bring a tear to my eye. Whereas, say, Lost Odyssey for 360, literally brought me to tears on many occasions. There is no possible way you can compare many of todays arguably subpar movies to todays econstantly improving videogames - gaming will always come out tops. Gaming continues to evolve, become more involving and tell deep, emotionally involving tales while also involving you in every single movenement and making you feel every single inch of the journey. Also I do feel that gaming is an art form and anyone who says otherwise hasnt really taken a good look at what a videogame really is.

I feel Rogert Ebert is trying to stand up for his own chosen medium, I mean he IS a film reviewer. It just seems he does not truly understand the gaming medium, or rather, he chooses not too. If he knows anything about movies (which lets hope he does, being a reviewer and all) he will notice that while gaming continues to become more and more artistic and telling the most brilliant stories - film is gradually losing its edge (dont get me wrong, there ARE great new films, but seriously...take a look at the recent releases.)

[AndreaDraco83]

I can't really compare games - I'm referring to the adventure genre, primary - to movies or books: they're different media and they've a very different range of scope.

I limit myself to three consideration:

1) In the modern theory of art, literature specifically, the recreational (sorry: I don't find a better word for the Italian "ludico") aspect of the art's fruition is something not only accepted but also celebrated. In this regard, a game doesn't differ much from a book or movie.
2) The adventure genre reminds me, on a way, of the ancient storytelling of campfire tales (a story created by an author in which any of the listeners can contribute), thus of roleplaying in its basic/non-regulated form; on the other way, the adventure genre realizes the promise of interactive fiction, 'cause it menages to create a story which can't be closed without the help of the gamer: but isn't this help similar to the effort of a reader, or a viewer? In some ways, the answer is yes: the reader/viewer/gamer can turn off the PC/close the book/exit the cinema thus leaving incomplete the story. The gamer differs from the other two 'cause, if he choose to subscribe the deal and continue through the game, he will be a lot more challenged than a reader (with the given exceptions)
3) The adventure genre makes the player think literally, imaginatively, laterally, and so on... The story is already written but it gives the impression that is not (and, in some case, it isn't), 'cause its course is left to be decided by him. If a game contemplates only one possible way to finish the story, it will still be interactive fiction 'cause the way I played the game surely differs from all other's ways; if a game contemplates multiple endings, parts of the story that can be missed, details not necessary, it is an example of interactive fiction as well, of course.

So the point is: every way to tell a story - book, movie or game; even the campfire tale - can be (must be, in my opinion) interactive, 'cause it demands that the reader/viewer/gamer not only cooperates to the storytelling, not only agrees to continue through the story, but also signifies the story with his very own point of view. So, literature, cinema, adventures are only different ways to tell a story, diverse media with the same aim.

[orient]

Well, needless to say that I disagree with Roger Ebert. To me, art in the purest sense is something that inspires, provokes thought and affects you personally in some way or another. I've played a few games that have done just that, but the one that has really stuck with me is Shenmue for Dreamcast.

I first played Shenmue seven years ago and it’s one of those once-in-a-lifetime games that seemed to happen out of pure gaming miracle. A predominantly adventure-driven, detective-like game which had the most robust 3D world ever conceived at the time. Dozens upon dozens of people to talk to, all fully voiced. Insanely detailed areas to examine and explore. A truly epic and heartfelt storyline that was simple on the surface, yet so deep, involved and meaningful if you looked a little further. Not to mention varied gameplay and one of the best soundtracks ever orchestrated. What types of adventure games get such treatment? They don’t and I’d be shocked if it ever happened again. Who would have thought that the most expensive game ever made would have no weapons or magic?

It was all of these amazing elements combined that created the unforgettably original atmosphere and experience that is Shenmue (I and II). They will stick with me forever. I won’t go into the specifics of why they’re so special to me because I could be typing for hours, but needless to say I was affected by these games. They inspire me and they definitely provoke thought.

I do half agree with Roger Ebert in that I’ve always thought that games with a predetermined main character and a predetermined fate work best. As soon as you give the player a choice to shape their own hero or choose their own destiny, game worlds usually start to fray at the edges. Due to the nature of the medium, having dynamic progression or personalities creates too much work for developers. So much work that compromises have to be made, even for the biggest of blockbuster games. Take an RPG like Fable for example. You can be good or evil and the game will be different depending on which you choose. The downfall is that, due to these alternate paths, the actual game had to be pretty short. Another great RPG example is Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Hundreds of hours of gameplay to be had, but despite the endless amount of missions that affect your character, your character’s actions don’t really affect the world in any significant way. This leaves the lingering feeling of unimportance, even though you’re supposed to be the complete opposite. That’s why I much prefer the adventure game style of telling a predetermined story. They tend to be far more compelling.

I realize that I didn’t really answer your question but I’m really quite tired

[MoriartyL]

I'm sure I've answered this question in depth several times already. and I don't have anything new to add to what I said then. So I'll just summarize and run away.

You can control the pacing and focus. You can control the course the game takes, and reflect on possibilities. You can experience what it is like to be the character. These strengths are not trivial, they create a language which is distinct from film.

[Ninja Dodo]

While games can inspire empathy and involvement through narrative in much the same way that other media can, interactivity can be meaningful in and of itself. While often (though not always) you still need those familiar devices of plot and character to give context and significance to the gameplay, interaction is inherently more powerful than observation.

There's something about inhabiting a character... If empathy is the tool of film and literature then surely *being* is the next step: putting yourself literally in another's shoes, rather than imagining it... this what only games can do and it's why they're going to be the art-form of the 21st century.

Various spoilers:

Spoiler:

When I played Starcraft it was not just Jim Raynor that was betrayed as Mengsk left Sarah Kerrigan to die at the hands of the Zerg. I felt betrayed as a player having helped this man, disgusted next during the Zerg campaign when it was revealed that you the player had unwittingly helped destroy a friend and create the "Queen of Blades"...

For every giant that falls lifelessly to the ground in Shadow of the Colossus, you do not feel glory, but guilt, doubting your actions more each time... sixteen lives to save one.

When you're flying back in the chopper over some unnamed Iraqi city in Call of Duty 4 and suddenly the bomb goes off and a brilliant flash of light is followed by a shockwave, sending you crashing into the ground, when you wake up and crawl out of the wreckage to witness the nuclear aftermath, you wonder why people still build these things...

Being actively involved makes all the difference. Even in a linear game, the actions are yours and they are all the more meaningful for it.

Wright talks about games as a learning tool, allowing you to understand complex systems through interaction, building a model of the world in your head through trial and error, understanding through action and reaction... while Jonathan Blow and others strive for meaning through gameplay, putting across an idea through game mechanics alone, speaking fondly of "art games" like Passage and The Marriage, when they're not making their own...

Certainly, there's something about interactivity.

[youfightlikeadairyfarmer]

Hopefully not too off-topic.

The movie, directed by Xavier Gens, was inspired by a best-selling video game and serves as an excellent illustration of my conviction that video games will never become an art form -- never, at least, until they morph into something else or more.

Well yeah... it's a movie of HITMAN. The main appeal of the game is how awesome choking people to death with piano wire is. Obviously Ebert's idea of video games comes from the trend of making terrible fan-service movies of action-oriented games like Hitman, Tomb Raider, Bloodrayne, House of the Dead and the upcoming suckfest Max Payne (even with an actor like Marky Mark, I predict suckage) made by directors who haven't played. Some movies, like Resident Evil, aren't done well even though the source material is good. It seems like the producers think that fans want to see a movie of the game in live action.

Don't even fucking get me started on Postal or Uwe Boll.

But what if they actually made a good movie of a game like Anachronox or Half-Life? They don't necessarily HAVE to screw it up. Look at the way comic book movies have changed recently. Back in the day producers aimed the movie at kids and basically created everything to sell action figures and hiring directors who've never read the source material. This summer I've seen the best movies of my life because people make movies that take the good stuff from the comics and then add stuff that makes good movies. The same could be done with games and should be. Maybe we could even see a cool live action Pokemon movie one day.

[Squinky]

I love the "maybe even art" part in the thread's title. It's like saying that maybe women will be equal to men someday. Hilarious.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

You can control the pacing and focus. You can control the course the game takes, and reflect on possibilities. You can experience what it is like to be the character. These strengths are not trivial, they create a language which is distinct from film.

And I love this, because it summarizes my impressions perfectly and succinctly.

[vivasawadee]

Games can have artistic merit but the true "art" of computer games is in interaction and that is still evolving.