Roger Ebert, an industry-respected film critic, has shocked the gaming community for the second time in 2010; He’s cried “uncle.”

In a surprising turn of events, Ebert posted a brand new blog entry stating that his position on video games was one of ignorance and bullheadedness.

I should not have written that entry without being more familiar with the actual experience of video games.

By now, most gamers who are able to tear themselves away from the controller are intimately familiar with Roger’s initial claim and subsequent revival that games cannot be art. A position that I felt the need to respond to in a blog entry of my own.

No one could have predicted how gigantic the inevitable backlash would be. As Ebert noted, he received and approved thousands of “mostly well-written” responses to the opposition of his own stance.

It’s more than Anna Karenina, David Copperfield and The Brothers Karamazov.

Roger goes on to speak of the fallout of this solitary entry, and how Sony, paired with Kellee Santiago (whom Ebert’s first 2010 game post was a response to) had offered the critic a chance to test his theory. Given the ok, a Playstation 3 would be provided to Ebert, along with some installed games, including “Flower”.

As of this writing, Ebert has yet to accept the invitation and admits that “I didn’t want to play a video game.”

The article wraps up, and finds Roger addressing many critical concerns by attempting to find his own definition of art. A search that, he also admits, cannot in principle exclude games, as he had initially argued.

As affected gamers everywhere collectively rejoice and begin endless chains of “I told you so”s and “suck it, Ebert!”s, it’s important to note the manner in which Roger has conceded a point. He’s acknowledged that he’s mostly ignorant to the experience of gaming (as I had hypothesized in my previous entry). He’s allowed room for other opinions outside of his own, and, most importantly, he’s listened to his critics.

Well played sir, but you still owe me 30 minutes of Passage.

Recently, Chicago-based critic Roger Ebert has revived his now-infamous claim regarding the state of video games in our artistic landscape. As a gamer who also values Ebert’s critical opinion, I feel the need to respond.

After reading Roger’s most recent support for his claims, I went back to have a look at a post from 2007, where he first defended himself. It’s clear, upon reading, that Ebert needs some serious time behind a controller before he can fully understand the argument he’s presenting to the world. How can anyone propose to judge a medium they don’t actively experience?

In the 2010 blog, Ebert cites a TED video in which Kellee Santiago (of thatgamecompany fame) attempts to sway Ebert-based opinions on games.

Here, Kellee does a great job of putting the evolution of various mediums now considered “artistic” into perspective. She is trying to tell us that, as a culture, we can learn from our mistakes and oversights. The biggest problem Roger Ebert has in critiquing this talk becomes apparent when he tries to create a separation between art and games:

One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome.

He fails to understand that video games are what players make of them, as in any form of artistic expression. It’s true that games CAN BE designed to include all of the elements and functions he has described above, yet none of them are necessary! What is necessary is the INTERACTION of the user. This is the central theme of a video game, and this is why games have endless potential as an artistic medium. They present something that no other medium directly presents. In a Web 2.0 culture, where communication & collective interaction have brought knowledge & understanding to our fingertips, video games can allow us to literally step into another person’s shoes. Ebert tries to understand what a game is through a wikipedia entry:

Wikipedia believes “Games are distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more concerned with the expression of ideas…Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction.”

It’s obvious Ebert has a clear idea of what he believes “high art” to be, but when presenting his case against video games as art, he relies on someone else’s outdated written representation. This would be akin to myself reading a review of something like “The Fall” on Roger’s page and giving the movie two thumbs down based on his words. This is also why Kellee Santiago’s synopsis of games in a presentation will never succeed in winning over critics who don’t have controllers in their hands.

We must understand how new and limitless this medium is. Only when this happens, can one begin to see why games have the potential to become vehicles for human development.

I present 2 videos to support my argument:

In the first, we see a demo of experimental gaming technology that Lionhead Studios is working on in which games can CREATE AND RESPOND to our emotions!

Here, a visualization artist demonstrates head-tracking on a home tv using the nintendo wii’s built-in technology!

On top of this, video games are beginning to extend their reach into physical therapy, as tools for stroke victims.

A challenge to Ebert. Take 30 minutes, play through and understand a game like Passage, as I have watched countless movies with your reviews in mind, and then maybe an actual debate can begin.

This is the base polygon model done in maya.  Normal maps were created for the character in Zbrush, and this is what they look like when rendered in maya:

Thanks to digital tutors for the tips in zbrush.  Painted model to follow shortly.

The project is an interactive virtools project that plays like a first person videogame. I wanted to make the whole experience to be symbolic of my college experience..having a dream and finding out how to make it a reality..or even simply the search for what I love.

Here is a link to a few slides proposing the idea before it was developed

The person in control, using an xbox 360 controller with a typical first-person setup, started out in a dark and dingy hallway..no end in sight..only doors to the left and right.

The object is simple: Walk from the beginning to the end..the hallway takes around 5 minutes to walk straight to the end from the starting point..along the way, images fly at the user trying to turn them around and confuse them and sounds entice the user to open the doors along the way and investigate. If the user walks through the door, they’ve strayed from the path to their goal and are thrown in a purgatory of sorts..

They have to crawl their way back on track following sounds and visual cues to lead them in the right direction. Once close to the end of the hall, a white light indicates they’ve almost reached their goal. When they make it to the end of the hall, they’re transported to a colorful and serene landscape full of life..

After a few moments to walk around and take in the sights and sounds, the user is transported back to the beginning of the hall…once a dream is attained life doesn’t stand still…there are other dreams to follow…always a new path to tread.

I’ve begun testing a program I’ve been tweaking which I hope will result in a fully functional 3d representation of the original super mario bros. which appeared on the NES.  I’m doing everything myself (character modelling, sound effects/scoring, interface, game setup/scripting), so it may take some time, and it’s sure taking a ton of energy, but I’m really excited about the possibilities of developing on my own terms and making something that’s really stellar.

I’ll be updating the site with progress on the game…anything from character models to background design to complete level demos, so keep your eyes peeled for new music and progress reports.