作者：Jeff Vogel

最近我玩了许多很棒的游戏，而现在我想要对电子游戏作为艺术的状态进行半年一次的咆哮。

我是Roget Ebert的死忠粉，当他去世时我真的非常难过。但是在一些让人讨厌的圈子中，每次提到他的名字都会伴随着愤怒与怨恨。当然我并不在这些圈子中。

在他生命的最后阶段，他告诉了我们一个并不想要听到的真相。以下是他在2005年写下的一段话：

“据我所知，不管是电子游戏领域内部还是外部，都没有人能够像伟大的剧作家，诗人，电影制片人，小说家和作曲家那样引用游戏的价值。”

他表示，电子游戏中从未诞生过能够说是优秀艺术的作品，他也看不到它们是否有这能耐。这在2005年的时候是再合理不过了。我们甚至很少走到那条路上。但是有些讨厌鬼却只表露出无尽的愤恨。

（古老的格言：现实是残酷的。这就是真理。）

我想这里存在的问题是，没有一点定义了我们的术语。他只是使用了一个不同的词汇，不同的标准。一个严格的标准。作为电子游戏的粉丝的我们通常不会去批判我们所玩的游戏，这便是问题的关键部分。

但是我明白他的意思。上述引用投下了个考验。而现在我们能够面对这一考验了。

（免责声明：如果你只想要从电子游戏中获得行动并以此分散自己的注意力，那么《Candy Crush Saga》和《战地4》风格的游戏便是你的最佳选择。你也不会对本文感兴趣。）

但是为什么你要现在提起它，即当所有人都不愿谈及此事时

这是个好问题。毕竟在他死之前，Ebert表示他非常讨厌整件事并希望永远都不会提到它。

但我认为现在是将其再次翻出来的最佳时机，因为游戏正在不断地变好。几乎每天都会出现一些出色且具有创造性的新游戏：基于全新方式去阐述电子游戏故事的游戏（真正利用了这一媒体）。真正触碰情感的故事只能通过电子游戏形式传达出来。（我的例子是：《到家》，《Stanley Parable》，《最后生还者》以及《Papers, Please》）

很遗憾的是，Ebert已经去世了，所以在接下来的文章中我不会再提到他。我们不需要担心如何留给他好印象，因为我们永远都不会做到这点。他并不是艺术真理的仲裁者，他也从未这样称呼过自己，那些盲目迷恋他的观点的讨厌鬼们让他感到了厌烦。

相反地，我们应该为自己设置一个较高的标准，然后去满足这些标准。我希望电子游戏就是一件优秀的艺术。

但这意味着什么呢？当它真正到达这一标准时我们又怎么会辨认出它？

什么元素能够创造出一件完美的作品？

我非常尊敬的一位戏剧教授曾经讲授了一堂有关完美的艺术品与优秀的艺术品之间的区别的课，当我活得越久时，我便能够从中看到更多真理。

完美的艺术品就是完美，没有任何瑕疵。它带有目标和故事，它能够基于最有效且最熟练的方式去传达这些内容。当你着眼于它时，你找不到任何需要修改的地方。这真的非常棒。

他列举了《大鼻子情圣》为例子。我觉得《Casablanca》，《夺宝奇兵》以及我玩过的独立游戏《到家》都是完美的作品。

完美并不意味着你就必须喜欢他。每个人的口味不同。这只能意味着这件作品以最成功的方式实现了目标。这真的是很难做到的事。

我们一直都能看到一些完美的电子游戏，但是它们却不一定优秀，因为它们以完美的方式实现的目标通常是基于较低的水平。它将我们带到了年轻的艺术形式从未触及的领域：伟大。

完美vs.深度

完美并不意味着伟大。这主要是源于深度的问题。

就像《夺宝奇兵》。我看过这部电影无数次。它真的非常出色。但是不管我什么时候观看它，所获得的体验都是相同的。Indy躲避滚动的巨石，这是让人激动的时刻。他亲吻了Marian，这是甜蜜的时刻。Nazi的脸融化了，这是可怕的时刻。这真的是让人愉快的观影体验，但除此之外并没有其它体验了。

当你在玩《到家》并坚持到最后时，你便算完成了它。你可以在游戏中花费两个小时呈现出自己的所有东西，包括所有的歌曲，所有的秘密，然后你就完成了游戏。隔天回到游戏中，角色可能会基于同样的方式撞击你。从现在开始的五年后也是如此。虽然那时候可能会染上一点怀旧的色彩，但最关键的体验还是学习。虽然这是一个好故事，但却仅此而已。

不过有时候这就足够了。并非所有的东西都必须是伟大的，但也存在例外。

什么元素能够创造出一件伟大的作品？

它不会是完美的。伟大的作品很少是完美的。它们总是太过复杂。

创造出一件伟大作品的元素是意义的隐密性，富有深度以及不确定性，基于这种具体方法能够得到最好的检测：你可以每隔几年返回它，那时候它对你的意义也将发生彻底的改变。

我很擅长玩《哈姆雷特》。我至少会每隔五年玩一次。每当我这么做时，它都会基于不同的方式挑战我。有些看起来很聪明的角色现在却显得很蠢。之前我从未注意到的一些部分突然让我受挫。我将能够更好地理解有些人是如何以某种方式行动的。

这便是何为伟大的作品的含义。你永远不会完全看清楚它。每当你觉得自己能够理解它时，再过几年这种理解又会出现变化。

伟大的作品总是很稀少。你只能在任何世纪中获得许多强大且持久的艺术品。这也是为什么许多作品这么古老。这并不是那种你一旦拥有便能够肆意浪费的内容。

这是最主观的东西。我知道有许多很聪明的人讨厌《哈姆雷特》。其它作品也会基于这种方式去影响他们。例如《教父》，《佩珀中士的寂寞之心俱乐部乐队》（游戏邦注：英国摇滚乐队披头士于1967年发行第八张专辑），《戴珍珠耳环的少女》（十七世纪荷兰画家扬·弗美尔的作品），《Ulysses》，《无尽的玩笑》以及《草叶集》等。

我们需要花时间去寻找伟大的作品

这是非常主观的。我在上面所列出的一些作品通常都被称为伟大的作品，但有些却是我不能认同的。另一方面，我认为Billy Joel演唱的《The Stranger》是一件真正的杰作，相信我，还有很多人并不同意我的这一观点。

我们所有的人都有过寻找伟大作品的过程，一开始这是一件个人事宜，之后我们将自己的观点带到世界上并观看任何可能出现的趋势。

如果有很多人发现一部自己认为是伟大的作品，它将被提升为“典范制作”，孩子们将会在学校中学习该作品。

伟大的作品通常都很难。它们需要花费一定的时间。这并不是停留在表面上。人们需要花费好几年的时间进行反复访问从而明确这是否是自己所追求的。决定一件作品是否优秀的方法是它能否奖励人们寻找它所付出的努力。

你没有义务去喜欢任何被称为伟大的特殊作品。然而，如果你从未喜欢任何优伟大的艺术品，那么问题可能就是出在你身上。

让我们回到电子游戏中。

为了找到对你来说真正伟大的作品，你需要面对着它好几年。你需要明确它是否对你能够产生持久的影响力，并伴随着你成长。这里的关键在于：电子游戏太年轻了，即使我们已经创造了一件真正的杰作，但是现在做出判断还为时过早。

也许我的想法是错的。也许从现在的这一代起，人们仍在玩《旅程》和《到家》的模拟副本，并来回思考它们对于自己的意义。而我却并不这么认为。我也有自己非常喜欢的一些游戏。它们非常完美。有时候，即使你在谈论一款持续十几年或几世纪的游戏，这也仍然不够。

我们让自己陷入了窘境。

当提供挑战时，玩家将对我们的作品做出判断。《花》，《时空幻境》，《传送门》，《旺达与巨像》都是有趣且完美的游戏。但是就只有这样吗？是否是一些能够伴随着玩家一辈子，并不断提供新的情感与意义的内容？

你是在开玩笑吗？

《花》很有趣，很出色，能让玩家放松。我想，在敲了一两次锣后，一切都变得很奇妙。但是你是否会提供给那些在《李尔王》和《甜蜜生活》中度过青葱岁月的人一些闪闪发光的小饰品，并期望着他们羞愧于自己的衰退？这太尴尬了！

至少这是我的想法。也许我是错得。这并不是由我所决定。

以下是一些伟大的部分

也许我是错的。我并不知道未来。我并不知道你的脑子里想着什么。可能《花》和《到家》将引起人们的共鸣，他们在50年，100年甚至1000年后仍会继续玩这些游戏。

电子游戏还很年轻。并不存在任何标准去告诉你必须喜欢怎样的游戏。是否伟大的游戏就具有能够保持你一辈子玩这款游戏的元素？我不这么认为，但毕竟我也只有一票的权利。

你也是只有一票。

我想写下这篇博文的一个原因是，我想用自己微薄的力量去推动那些值得仿效的内容，并说出原因。我不认为电子游戏已经创造出一些真正伟大的内容，但我认为这种潜力每天都在出现着。

例如《Papers, Please》便是一件艺术作品。这是通向一个不同世界的奇妙之窗，是一种不同的思考方式。非常有趣。

我敢打赌那些懒得读这些内容的人会带着怨恨与暴躁而离开，嘟囔着“Jeff  Vogel怎敢说《生化奇兵：无尽》并不是这一时代的游戏。他的游戏才糟糕呢！”

如果游戏中有些内容真的影响了你，震撼了你并感动了你，你便会不断回到游戏中。如果你在某些地方看到一些伟大的闪光点，那就去证明自己的想法。它并不一定是指整款游戏，可能只是一小部分，或者一个时刻。

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Games As Art, the Toughest Standard, and Not Having To Worry About Ebert Anymore.

By Jeff Vogel

This week, I’m gonna’ get all good and pretentious. I’ve been playing a lot of terrific games lately, and I want to engage in my tedious, semi-annual rant about the state of video games as art.

I am a lifelong fan of Roget Ebert, and I was greatly saddened when he died. And yet, in nerd circles, every mention of his name must now be marked with anger and bitterness. Not by me, but some.

Near the end of his life, he committed the greatest of crimes, the one thing no geek can ever forgive. He told us a truth we didn’t want to hear. Here is the introductory sentence (context can be found here), written in 2005, that started the whole mess:

“To my knowledge, no one in or out of the [video game] field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers.”

He said that video games had not yet produced a work of Great Art, and he did not yet see how they could. Which, in 2005, was pretty darn reasonable. We had barely even set out on the path. But nerds, being, as they are, a tense collective of eternally exposed raw nerves, reacted with limitless rage. Which is how we know he really struck that nerve.

(The old aphorism: The truth hurts. That’s how you know it’s the truth.)

The problem here, I think, is simply one of not yet having defined our terms. He was just using a different vocabulary, a different standard. A tough standard. We video game fans tend to be systematically uncritical of the products we play, which is a key part of the problem.

But I get what he meant. How can I not? The quote above threw down the gauntlet. Only now are we starting to be able to pick it up.

(Disclaimer that you should read: If you only want action and distraction from your video games, Candy Crush Saga and Battlefield 4 style, there is nothing wrong with that. This just might not be a conversation you care about. We’re still allowed to have it, though.)

But Why Would You Bring It Up Now, When Everyone Was Sick To Death Of Talking About It

Good question. After all, before he died, Ebert wrote that he was sick of the whole thing and wished he’d never brought it up.

But I think this is a perfect time to start hashing it out again, because games are getting better so quickly. Fantastic, innovative titles are coming out almost every day: Games that approach video game storytelling in fresh ways that really take advantage of the medium. Really good, emotionally involving stories that could only be properly told in video game form. (My examples: Gone Home. Stanley Parable. The Last of Us. Papers, Please.)

Ebert is, sadly, dead, and I won’t mention him again in this piece. We don’t have to care about impressing him, and we never should have, anyway. He wasn’t the final arbitrator of art truth, he never claimed to be, and the way nerds fetishized his opinion bothered him.

Instead, we should set higher standards for ourselves and then meet them. I dream of a video game that is a piece of Great Art.

But what does that mean? And how will we recognize it when it arrives?

What Makes a Work Perfect?

A theatre professor I really respected once lectured a class I was in about the distinction between a Perfect piece of art and a Great one, and, the longer I live, the more truth I see in it.

A Perfect piece of art is, just that, perfect. Without flaw. It has a goal, a story to tell, and it does so in the most efficient and skilled way possible. You look at it, and you can’t see a thing you’d fix. It’s just really good.

He gave the example of the play Cyrano de Bergerac. I’d suggest Casablanca. Raiders of the Lost Ark. I just played the indie game Gone Home, and it was Perfect. Loved it. Have a lot more to say about it some time.

Being Perfect doesn’t mean you have to like it. Tastes differ. It means that the work achieved its goals in the most successful way possible. It’s really hard to do.

Perfect video games come out all the time, but they aren’t Great, because the goals they achieve perfectly are so terribly low. And that brings us to the place our young art form has never reached: Greatness.

Perfection Versus Depth

Perfect doesn’t mean Great. Thinking otherwise is a common mistake, but a key one. Here’s why. It’s a matter of depth.

Consider Raiders of the Lost Ark. I’ve watched that movie a million times. It’s terrific. However, whenever I watch it, it’s the exact same experience. Indy runs from the rolling boulder, and it’s exciting. He kisses Marian, and it’s sweet. The Nazi’s face melts, and it’s awesome. Done. It’s immensely enjoyable, but there’s nothing else there.

When you play Gone Home to the end, you’re done with it. You can spend two hours giving everything in that game full and proper consideration, all the songs, all the secrets, and then you’re done. Return to it tomorrow, and the characters probably hit you the same way. Same with five years from now. It might be tinged with a bit of nostalgia, but there will be nothing more to learn. It’s a good story, but a simple one.

And that is enough. Not everything has to be Great, but the distinction exists.

What Makes a Work Great?

It’s not perfection. Great works are rarely Perfect. They’re too complex.

What makes a work Great is a mystery, a depth, an ambiguity of meaning, that is best detected in this concrete way: You can return to it every few years, and it’s meaning to you can entirely change.

I am a fiend for Hamlet. I try to see that play at least every five years. Every time I do, it hits me differently. Someone who seemed sensible now seems like a jerk. Parts I never noticed before suddenly slay me. I’ll have a better understanding of how someone acts the way he or she does.

This is what a work being Great means. You never truly get all of it. You never will. Every time you’re sure you Understand it, give it a few years and that certainty will slip away.

Great work is rare. You can only get so many powerful, enduring pieces of art in any given century. That’s why so much of it is so old. It’s not the sort of thing that, once you have it, you let go to waste.

It is the most subjective thing there is. I know lots of smart, sensible people who hate Hamlet. Other works affect them that way. Maybe The Godfather. Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Heart’s Club Band. The Girl With a Pearl Earring. (The painting, not the book, of course.) Ulysses. Infinite Jest. Leaves Of Grass.

And It Takes Time To Find the Great Ones

It’s completely subjective. I listed several works just above that are commonly hailed as Great, and there’s one of them I can’t stand. On the other hand, I consider The Stranger by Billy Joel to be a true masterpiece, and believe me, there are plenty of people who would disagree with me vigorously about that.

The process of finding Greatness happens inside all of us, a quiet personal thing, and then we bring our opinions out to the world and see if any trends emerge.

If enough people find a work Great for them, it eventually gets elevated into The Canon and kids are forced to suffer through it in school.

Great works are usually difficult. They take time. It’s not all on the surface. It may take those repeat visits over the years to get what they’re going for. What makes them Great is the way they, for some many people, reward the effort.

You are not obligated to like any particular work that has been christened Great. In fact, I guarantee there will be many that do nothing for you. However, if you never like ANY Great work of art, it is possible that the problem is you.

But Back to Video Games.

To find a work that has Greatness in it for you, you need to live with it for years. You need to see if it has that lasting effect on you, that it grows up with you. Key point here: Video games are young enough that, even if we have produced a true masterpiece, it’s too early to know.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe, generations from now, people will still play emulated copies of Journey and Gone Home and go back and forth about what it means to them. I really, super don’t think so. There are games I enjoyed very much. They’re Perfect. Sometimes, when you’re talking about a work enduring for decades or centuries, that’s not enough.

God. We Embarrassed Ourselves.

When the challenge was given, we gamers gave our pitiful examples of works to be judged. Flower. Braid. Portal. Shadow of the Colossus. Fun, worthy games, all Perfect. But more than that? Something that can stay with you for a lifetime, constantly offering new emotions and new meaning?

Are you kidding me?

Hey, Flower is … Well, it’s kind of fun. It’s pretty. Relaxing. I imagine, after a bong hit or two, it’s fantastic. But would you go up to people who cut their teeth on King Lear and La Dolce Vita, offer them that glittery trinket, and expect them to slump away shamed? Embarrassing!

At least, that’s what I think. I also might be wrong. It’s not up to me.

Here’s the Great Part

Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know the future. I don’t know what’s in your head. It is possible that Flower and Gone Home might strike a chord in peoples’ heads, and they will still be played in fifty, a hundred, a thousand years.

Video games are young. There is no canon, no room of musty old dudes with tenure saying what you are obligated to love. Are there games that are Great, that have what it takes to keep you engaged through a lifetime? I don’t think so, but I only get one vote.

You get one too.

One of the reasons I enjoy writing this blog is that I get to use my little voice to push forward things that are worth emulating, and say why. I don’t think video games have produced anything truly Great, but I see the potential coming forward more and more every day.

Papers, Please, for example, is a work of art. It’s a fantastic window into a different world, a foreign way of thinking. It’s even fun.

I bet a lot of people who bother to read this will come away from it feeling angry and cranky. “How dare Jeff Vogel say Bioshock: Infinite isn’t a game for the ages. What a dick! And his games suck anyway!”

So fight. There’s a comments section below, and a lot of industry people, actual game makers, read this blog. I hear from them in private all the time. As I never tire of saying, the art form is new.

If something in a game really affected you, shook you, moved you, and you keep going back to it, say it below. If you see a little glimmer of Greatness somewhere, make your case. It doesn’t have to be a whole game, just one section, one moment. If you want to join the argument, you can do it in a constructive way. Try not to be an asshole.

We don’t have a grown-up art form yet, but we’re getting there. And it’s pretty fun to watch.(source:blogspot)