Can a Movie Game Be a Work of Art?
Questions about issues in the news for students thirteen and older.
A fresh book by Tom Bissell, reviewed in last Sunday’s Book Review, makes the claim that the best movie games are as engaging as good literature, and are, on their own, “ambitious works of narrative fiction.” Do you agree? Do you think there will someday be movie games that can be compared to the best works of literature, film, music and art?
In his review, Chris Suellentrop quotes Roger Ebert, who wrote a blog post this year called “Video Games Can Never Be Art” in which he stated, “no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the good dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers.” Mr. Suellentrop proceeds:
And he’s right about that, for now. But I would gladfully accept a wager, and I imagine Tom Bissell would, too.
Bissel, a contributing editor at Harper’s Magazine who instructs fiction writing at Portland State University, cops to spending more than two hundred hours playing one game, some eighty hours another. “The elations of literary connection seem leftover and familiar,” he writes. “Today, the most consistently pleasurable pursuit in my life is playing movie games.” He says this despite encountering “appalling” dialogue, despite hearing actors give line readings of “autistic miscalculation,” despite despairing over the sense that gamers and game designers have embraced “an unnecessary hostility inbetween the greatness of a game and the sophistication of things such as narrative, dialogue, dramatic motivation and characterization.”
Despite all this, the interactive nature of movie games enables moments that Bissell calls “as gripping as any fiction I have come across.” In particular, he is smitten with Grand Theft Auto IV, a game he sometimes regards as “the most colossal creative achievement of the last twenty five years” (while at other times regarding it as “misguided and a failure”).
Students: Tell us about your practices with movie games, and your opinion about their potential as works of art in their own right. Do you, too, find them addictive? Which do you think are the best in terms of how they stack up as “ambitious works of narrative fiction”? Do you agree with Mr. Bissell that there is a big generational divide on the potential of movie games?
Students thirteen and older are invited to comment below. Please use only your very first name. For privacy policy reasons, we will not publish student comments that include a last name.
Comments are no longer being accepted.
Ebert is a debbie downer. The other day, he was complaining about 3D TV, now movie games. He just needs to permanently put his name out there for any reason that he can. Movie Games, just like novels, music, movies, plays, etc. are something that entertain people and just because Ebert feels that there hasn’t been a game worthy of such merit doesn’t mean that it will not exist. Furthermore, I’m sure the very first set of musicians, writers, oral storytellers, actors, etc. weren’t exceptionally artistic across their very first twenty five years of existence.
Movie games seem to continually explore the boundaries inbetween art and mindless entertainment. In this way, they’re like movies, and the best ones are those that strike a compelling balance, like “The Dark Knight” did for cinema-goers two years ago. Grand Theft Auto IV is the equivalent of this sort of movie, and it is widely regarded as a success. But to truly find a movie game that would be more indisputably “art” it’d most likely be safer to go to the other end of the spectrum, to find a game that had more artistic ambitions than it had blockbuster goals, a game that was more worried with story and visuals and music than it was with having joy throating stuff up over and over again.
Such games exist. I’d like to highlight one movie game in particular that I feel indeed was art (whatever that is.) This game was called Grim Fandango, and it was published by LucasArts back in the ’90s. It managed to tell a compelling story with clever dialogue, a good soundtrack, exceptional visuals, and a wonderfully brilliant world based around the Mexican “Land of the Dead.” It came at the very end of a multi-year boom in the genre of games known as “Escapade Games.” These games were based on working through puzzles and relating with characters to find information and lump things together, and by the time Grim Fandango came out they were of waning interest, increasingly predominated by the first-person shooters that were proving insanely popular amongst the youthfull masculine crowd that predominated the industry.
Grim Fandango truly was art. It’s a shame it’s so hard to get it to run on modern PCs, because the pre-rendered graphics have held up reasonably well, and the story is still as good as ever. It was the successful, creative, intelligent end product of a year’s worth of creative output for a team of people, and they poured their best ideas into it. It has been very regarded ever since its release, and it is absolute worth being considered if you want to get to the bottom of the question “Are Movie Games Art?”
As far as movie game history goes now, BioShock was almost a work of art. It was beautifully crafted.
Movie games have come a remarkable distance in even the last few years. Make no mistake: the purpose of a movie game, as with movies, and many other forms of media, is very first and foremost to entertain. Movie games do this in a unique way given their interactive nature, and it is this interaction that draws their audience in with such effectiveness.
There are many lousy, sub-par, and just plain bad movie games on the market – just as there are many lousy movies, television shows, and books released every year. Movie games are no different from any other medium in that respect.
But just as some movies transcend mere entertainment and budge into that hallowed territory we call “art,” there are movie games that do that as well. No, there are far fewer such games than movies right now, but please, let’s keep in mind that movie games are still a youthfull form of entertainment, and proceed to evolve every day. Some games draw you in, and they do it with more than just pretty graphics and visuals, but rather with characters, with stories, with writing. Games with truly compelling writing and characters are worth their weight in gold, and unluckily, there aren’t many of them on the market. But their number resumes to grow, especially as the advanced technology that permits programmers to create truly immersive, living, breathing worlds proliferates beyond just the wealthiest and most well-funded studios.
Take Assassin’s Creed Two, the game about a never ending war inbetween two ancient factions that have infiltrated ever level of society. The story could be taken from a Dan Brown novel – and make no mistake, Dan Brown is NOT James Joyce, no matter how popular he is – and is every bit as entrancing and attention-grabbing as “The Da Vinci Code” or “Angels & Demons”. But to have come THAT far in such a brief period of time is a remarkable achievement for the movie game industry, to have moved beyond mere pulp and into a more sophisticated sphere of storytelling, accomplish with believable characters and a world that feels so real that it seems as if you could touch it.
Or take Mass Effect, the RPG set several hundred years in the future when humanity has discovered advanced space travel and is leisurely becoming accepted as a member of the galactic community. It’s unspoiled space opera, but is at least as well written as the original Starlet Wars movies (the fresh ones don’t deserve the title “Starlet Wars”), and is shot from a cinematic perspective. The characters are believable, with real concerns, real problems, and the choices (yes, choices) made by the player will have lasting impacts on the progression of the story.
Are movie games art? I would argue yes, and I think that in the next few years we’ll see more and more sublime works in the medium, more and more games that are labors of love of their designers, made with their blood and sweat and not simply following a formula set by executives. Think of the difference inbetween Transformers and the Hurt Locker; both are activity movies, but nobody will ever argue that the Hurt Locker doesn’t at least transcend mere entertainment into something more. For every Ten, perhaps even every twenty “Transformers,” we get one “Hurt Locker.” It’s the same with games, and with every other medium.
Very first and foremost, I’d like to emphasize the fact that I am not an native English speaker.
So, speaking of movie games, everybody heard of World of Warcraft right ? I know this game has a lot of flaws, they’ been pointed out at will over the past years, but I’d like to pass over them and simply mention the thrill it has been of playing such a game.
The storytelling of WoW is mediocre at best compared to latest role-playing games, so what draws people into it, and most importantly, why the hell do they keep playing the same game after all these years ? World of Warcraft is not shaped as a total game in itself, it’s a framework for people to create their own stories. I recall when I was still a “noob” in the game, I arrived in the Barrens, a giant land total of zebras, rhinos, lions and yellow grass burnt by the sun, I was a rogue and I had to finish a quest, but I couln’t work out how to do it. Then a fellow adventurer came to the same spot as me, we determined to work together. Ultimately, we ended the quest, not by brute force (because I learned afterwards that we didn’t have the “level” to do it), but we used our mind and worked in cooperation. He grabbed the attention of the big bad orc guarding the chest and ran as quick as he possibly could while I opened the chest and took the quest object. The orc eventually caught up with my companion, but oh well, his sacrifice was worth it and it was undoubtedly joy to see !
People are naturally inclined to have emotions (any kind of emotion) when they’re interacting with their peers. And World of Warcraft shaped a wonderful universe where people can give life to their fantasies, slay dragons with their companions, be feared in deadly duels, acquire riches, explore the vast grounds of Azeroth or just suspend out with friends to take part in some stupid but joy event like a race (naked) through the Hinterlands. World of Warcraft is about the people that give to it all its flavor.
I’ve played this game for a long time, and now that I’ve abandon, these memories still kittles me sometimes, and I get nostalgic. If anything made by the arm of boys can make you feel this way, that, to me, is art.
I don’t think a movie game can be art-I think far too many of them are violent and ruinous and unhealthy. I think they create an unhealthy obsession among guys and the youthful for ruinous wargames and the such. I think that they are best avoided!
I think someone needs to sit down and play Uncharted two for Mr. Ebert. This game, more than any other I have ever seen, is as engaging as the best Hollywood has put out in latest years. I say someone should play it for him, as I doubt he has the capability to play it to completion his self. About the only knock on the game is one several movies fall prey to themselves, a longer than necessary resolution.
The fact that a game could enthrall people not even playing for 8+ hours(longer than most movies) speaks volumes for it’s entertainment factor compared to cinema.
As for Meris’ response above me, all I can say is art has never depicted violence or destruction before, right? Violence and destruction are primal coerces that are some of the most sure fire ways to grab someone’s attention. I think you are looking at only the most extreme examples of games when making your claim, almost as if one considered macabre to be the prevailing theme in the traditional art world.
In my opinion, I think so many movie games can be art. A good example would be the “Grand Theft Auto” games. Tho’ some people might say that that movie game is utterly violent and enormously mature, children still play the games. I believe that if a movie game can inspire children all the way to adults to play is pretty amazing. It inspires children, however in a bad way. It may still be called art because of the motivation of all the intense violence. Another example that makes movie games like art is the fresh life-like graphics. The graphics showcase power in movie games. for example, take a “tony hawk’s pro skater” and compare it at “tony hawk: rail”. I’m no skater but it makes me wanna attempt some skate tricks. TH:rail looks pretty awesome because of the graphics. This movie game also makes railing a lot of joy but not as joy as railing for real. Art is a fat motivator. As is movie games. But motivation can also lead to bad directions. Hope this is a good opinion for you all. -Sincerely, Jesus J. Jaimes
movie games “does” get kids addicted because of the graphics and story, mostly what you can actually do in the game. take GTA four for an example, you can do anything in there that you can’t do out in real life because well thats just cracking the law. Fallout three was good, realistic graphics and good storyline, Fallout : Las Vegas is the same but more equipment, locations, maybe a different storyline? IDK but movie games do consider as works of art because of the graphics and story the game creators made. even better when people make movie games for online use like Mabinogi : fantasy life, Combat Arms, S4 League, Drift City, Gunz, and any other games you can lightly download from the internet for free and install, online games do have a storyline if you didn’t know about that.
The games make stores abut wot hapen to dame in the pass som are and som ate at all it boren sotime
im mostly on the computer playing games but i do have the wii and netendo DSI i play free reamls on the computer mostly than my wii.
yes game are works of art because of the way they look movie games are addictive because once you get began you cant stop narrative fiction the stoyline
I think that movie games can be works of art like call of duty modern warfare two because when I play a movie game I realy like it makes me imagin what it would be like to be one of the chareters. And some games make me feel like I am in that time or in that place in the movie game. Like in modern warfare two the people who created the game must of had a good imagination to think of a world that is at war with an other country that did not even happen and that is why movie games can be compared to art because an artist sometimes need to imagein things that might not even exist and so do movie game creaters. I do think that a movie game can be addictive if it is a good movie game for example call of duty modern warfare two and call of duty modern warfare and an other game that I think is addicting is section 8. It is a game about a rebill uprising in the future and the U.S.A are battling for control of the earth. One more game tkhat I think is addicting is call of duty world at war witch is a game that takes place in world war two and I think that the online natzi bombies game is very joy and you can use a lot of the weapons used in world war two but not all of the weapons where used in world war two or even exist like a ray gun that you can use. And the story of the game is very realistic and a lot of the things that happened on that games are realy waht happened in the war includeing the invasion of berlin.
Movie games are art look at gears of war that has a lot of art the citys how they look as if it was a painting
I think movie games can be considered works of art. A superb movie game examples are Final Fantasy Ten, 10-2, 12, 13, Final Fantasy 7: Advent Children, The Kingdom Heart series. The art in these movie games are voiced through the Architecture of the buildings, the design of the monsters/foes, the designs of the vehicles, weapons, and the designs of the clothes and the features of the characters.
Silent Hill and Resident Evil- they all scare the living daylights out of you. That is a form of art in its own way- especially when a half-dead or burnt things pops out of the freezer in the kitchen.
Its a painting that permits people to explore it to the boundaries
Movie games are far from being “works of art.” A work of art is considered to be something that creates inspiration, motivation, and determination. Instead, movie games create sloth-like behavior, profound anger outbursts, brief attention span, and lack of mental stimulation.
The fact that movie games are effortless to lure someone into the virtual world only supports my argument that these games are addicting and, ultimately, leaves the mind dormant. In contrast, lumps of literature, newspapers, articles, etc… stimulate the brain by reading words that can trigger exhilarating thoughts and imagination. A good book will leave the reader with a sense of determination to read more books that can surpass the book that was just read.
I do agree that there is a “big generational divide on the potential of movie games” assuming that the “potential” is something that uses movie games as an educational setting, too. The only way to close this gap is to, very first, get children to turn away from the TVs, then, grab a book to read. If these children begin to love books, educational movie games will seem just as intriguing as the latest movie game.
I understand the blog poster’s perspective, as an artist myself I wouldn’t compare Grand Theft Auto to Jane Eyre, however I also wouldn’t compare Jane Eyre to Andre Bocceli’s singing. All art is different. Movie games are the art of an entertainment. Many games like the Final Fantasy series become art just as some music movies do. I think it’s unfair to compare movie games with different forms of art and say it will never become art. Many artists use unconventional meduims including walking people, dead animals and ripped up paper. I’m sure many people have said “Ripped up paper can’t be art!” but it has been creatively done many times and will proceed to be done. So I don’t agree with the posting.
I think that movie games are art. The reason why is that not just anyone can sit down and have the imagination to make one. movie makers are just like famouse artist. they make art but instead on people just looking at that art they are able to sit down and play it and love it. yes there are very violent movies games out there and alot of them that can corupt a childs mind but thats why they are rated according by age. people just have to obey the rules. and the reason why they rate them is because the violent games are rated r for the older people that are supposed to be more mature about things and can treat observing so much violence. so indeed it is art, but older people just have to be careful on what they let the junior kids do.
(This comment has been deleted because of profanity.)
I think that movie games can be perceived as art very lightly. I believe I can be an accurate judge of this, because I read books alot and I also love to play movie games.
To me, there is nothing like playing a game with good graphics, good dialogue, a good story and good sound. The practice can be as engaging as any movie, and much more so then many books.
To me, the game that comes closest to art form is Crimson Dead Redemption. It has good dialogue, a good story, a good musical score and excellent visuals. It can captivate you with its moments of intense activity.
I’ll admit that I am not an avid movie gamer. I pick up nintendo titles and play them through every once in a while. Are they addictive? Yes. Are they engaging and pleasant? Yes. Do I think they count as art? That’s a good question. With the latest splurge hollywood has made in making movie games into feature films, it becomes increasingly apparent that they simply have no more unique or astounding narrative than any other work of art, and in fact require added material to simply make them coherent and pleasurable.
The latest release of “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” is a prime example of how, as my friend who played the game claims, the writers took many liberties to add plot-lines and plot-twists to add more to the story. Still the movie was a frustration to him and me.
Sure, years can be poured into making the movie games: sound design, landscape design, character design, and character act, but the story is diluted. There are sub stories and mini-plots and side stories that the gamer can perform, but overall the story is compelled to span over the 80-200 hours a gamer will put into completing the game, which simply causes the story to have no real concentrate or plot.
I recently played “Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess” a game with so many levels that it took me a year to accomplish (like I said, I’m no avid gamer). The sound design was amazing, the puzzles were pleasurable, and it was overall a very joy game to play. But the story? Link was chosen by the gods to defeat the bad fellow, the bad boy has a minion who turns Links world into twilight, and the twilight princess helps Link defeat the bad boy. There was a love interest, but that didn’t effect the main story. It simply wouldn’t make for a very good film, because the story wasn’t that amazing.
If narrative quality is the only factor in making good art, then movie games will most certainly always fail. But a good movie has more than just a superb story and good acting: it’s got cinematography, set design, costumes, sound design and everything else that a movie game has, except interactivity. The future may hold a time when that interactivity becomes intertwined with the world of film simply because the world of movie games is such an ever-expanding one, and films have seemingly run out of original ideas.
Movie games can be works of art because they can inspire creativity and imagination. The game series of Final Fantasy and Fatal Framework have inspired most of my artwork and drawings. But in the end the way a movie game artistically affects a gamer is up to the gamer and the way that gamer takes in the game.