Roger Ebert revisits "Games can never be art" argument

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

The three games she chooses as examples [Waco Resurrection, Braid, Flower] do not raise my hopes for a video game that will deserve my attention long enough to play it. They are, I regret to say, pathetic. I repeat: "No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets."
I agree with most of his points. Quite simply, games just aren't there yet. But Ebert sure takes some really cheap shots toward the end of his post. Of course most games are driven by market viability and not expression or art. And yes, that will nearly always exclude them as being art. But there are independent games being made en masse these days that are reaching for the border of what games are, with no pressures for profit.

Have games achieved "art" yet? No, but they're only roughly 30 years old. It's an entire medium still taking its exploratory first few steps. At the same time, they're restricted from consistent progress by the weight of having to turn a profit.

He asks rhetorically at the end why people care so much, why gamers seek validation. Well, I think part of that is because unlike his cited examples, Michael Jordan and Bobby Fischer, games are continually portrayed as rudimentary and immature toys for children. It's an uphill battle for the medium, unlike something as well established and accepted as basketball or chess. It should come as no surprise then that gamers are impatient to see the industry associated with more respectable company.

A final point, Ebert has previously argued that because players give input to the game, a proper narrative can't be constructed:
"Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control."
Yet I've had moments in gaming where the game experience was far more important than making the right choice, beating the boss, or getting the most points. Often these moments were when a game properly emulated the same sequences that allow movies to tap into an emotional vein in us. The two instances that immediately come to mind for me are in Shadow of the Colossus and Xenogears. If it becomes indistinguishable from cinema, then why are games arbitrarily excluded?
 

Dar_Klink

Last Guardian when? - CyberKlink 20XX before dying
He should've played Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, or Silent Hill 2... OR FINAL FANTASY 7 :troll:

I mean seriously,there's something you can only experience by playing those games, they would never work the same as another form of entertainment.
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Dar Klink said:
He should've played Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, or Silent Hill 2... OR FINAL FANTASY 7 :troll:

I mean seriously,there's something you can only experience by playing those games, they would never work the same as another form of entertainment.
Yep, in SOTC in particular
the moment I was referring to was during the ending when you're controlling Dormin/Wander. The priest begins the process of expelling Dormin, but the game makes you run against the wind, struggling to survive, even after you've become this huge, horrible creature, and you know what you're doing is wrong. That the game makes you struggle against all that despite the inevitable outcome just blew me away. That was a gaming first, imo.
It's also reminiscent of when in MGS3, the game makes the player
participate in The Boss' death by pulling the trigger.

As you say, neither of those sequences could be replicated through cinema.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!

Wow, I'm surprised anyone is lending him any credence on this subject. I happened to read his post the night it went up, I wouldn't call it an argument, and was mostly struck by the combination of his arrogance, admitted ignorance, and hypocrisy on the subject of games and art in general. His bullying take on video games is not unlike one dismissing the artistic merits of early cinema while admittedly never having seen a film. His scornful bluster is based on second hand information, which from the first word is completely ridiculous way to judge something as subjective as ART; again, it's like if one judged the artistic merit of Schindler's List based on the quality of Ebert's writing in his review rather than the movie; meaningless. That's what should be truly galling about this, if he's going to expose a self-esteem issue regarding lovers of video games to other mediums, it's going to be through how many people he can get to humor him and kowtow to his musty old ramblings based on his name, influence, and the beautiful shapes and forms of his empty words. Don't let the name fool you, all that piece confirmed to me is that the man simply doesn't have a place at the table of this discussion, and I have serious questions regarding his motives and self-imposed ignorance on the subject...

Walter said:
As you say, neither of those sequences could be replicated through cinema.

Hmmmmm!? Don't tell Roger, he might have to follow up with an even more sickeningly pretentious effort to get his preconceived notion across.
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
グリフィス said:
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!
I think it's a given for anyone reading this to know that Ebert doesn't exactly come from the same side of the tracks as those who play games. That's part of what makes his opinion noteworthy -- he IS an outsider. Yeah, he's viewing the industry through a slanted lens. But I'd still value his opinion higher than, say, Harry Knowles.

What makes Ebert's take on this relevant? Well, some of the biggest and most successful games in the industry owe much to movies. As I said before, emulating movies is one way that games have become vastly more popular in the past decade (recent Final Fantasies, the GTA franchise and MGS in particular owe considerable amounts to their cinematic approach to games). And at this point, some movies contain elements of video games. There's some interbreeding happening. That being said, it's only natural to listen to the opinion of someone who is an authority on movies.

I don't really question his motives on writing this. The guy probably gets dozens of emails a day about games, and just wanted to give his updated stance, especially since his opinion was referenced in the speech he references throughout the post.
 
I wouldn't say that games can never be art, but it's pretty rare and hard thing to accomplish. My personal opinion is that if the artistic portions of the game are not expressed through actual gameplay, that the interactivity isn't the key part of the message or feeling that they intent to evoke, then the game isn't really art. If the artistic expression comes through cinematics exclusively, then you might as well be watching a movie. Not that a game shouldn't have a narrative, but it has to be more than "Accomplish these tasks and we'll reward you with another piece of the story."

It is kind of annoying that Ebert is extremely condescending and dismissive, but video games are definitely something that tends to be incomprehensible to people who aren't interested in them. Gamers (and developers) definitely shouldn't take his criticism personally. If it makes you reconsider the limits of the form, maybe you can make a game that is indisputably art. At the end of the day, if you enjoy the experience, that's all that really matters. Most hobbies aren't art and no one expects them to be art.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Walter said:
I think it's a given for anyone reading this to know that Ebert doesn't exactly come from the same side of the tracks as those who play games. That's part of what makes his opinion noteworthy -- he IS an outsider. Yeah, he's viewing the industry through a slanted lens. But I'd still value his opinion higher than, say, Harry Knowles.

That's exactly why I question his motives, though there's really no excuse other his own self-imposed limitations, which are in no way a boon to his perspective, and you pretty much have to question when someone who admittedly has no interest or first hand knowledge of a subject feels the need to ignorantly and forcefully share their uncultivated opinion on it.

Walter said:
What makes Ebert's take on this relevant? Well, some of the biggest and most successful games in the industry owe much to movies. As I said before, emulating movies is one way that games have become vastly more popular in the past decade (recent Final Fantasies, the GTA franchise and MGS in particular owe considerable amounts to their cinematic approach to games). And at this point, some movies contain elements of video games. There's some interbreeding happening. That being said, it's only natural to listen to the opinion of someone who is an authority on movies.

That only makes it all the more unfortunate that his take is actually completely irrelevant, considering his haughty contention that he's yet to find a game worthy of him even playing. That makes whatever he has to say merely ironic and somewhat laughable, "ho ho, oh Roger" given the parallels between games and movies these days. The unfortunate part is it won't belie his influence, which is what makes him a huge asshole in this and the worst kind of pseudo-intellectual art snob. So yeah, he's fitting in fine online in that regard, but I won't heeding his opinion on this matter any more than the other trolls.

Walter said:
I don't really question his motives on writing this. The guy probably gets dozens of emails a day about games, and just wanted to give his updated stance, especially since his opinion was referenced in the speech he references throughout the post.

As grateful as I am that he updated us on the state of his ignorant bias, I'm more bothered by the lack of integrity of what he has to say; if he truly has no interest or knowledge of games, he should merely register that fact. Rather than giving a weighty, though ultimately worthless, opinion on the matter. There's no special insight or even an argument here, he's merely repeated his unfounded contention "games can never be art" ad nauseum, complete with age old fallacies and modern cheap shots.

BTW, I usually enjoy Roger Ebert and his writing, even when I wholly disagree with him. This simply doesn't meet the standard of a disagreement, because Mr. Ebert has yet to make an argument that holds water, or even dare put himself in position to have a meaningful opinion. This isn't even about video games, as nothing of Roger Ebert is about video games either, it's an affront to integrity and art, which is where you find it, the only rule being you actually have to look. I just hope more people will call him out on that, because otherwise this shouldn't be dignified with response.
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
I guess I just think it's futile to deny Ebert's validity since I agree with most of what he says. Video games aren't there yet, the industry is shackled by the market that drives it, and there isn't a rock solid example of a video game as ART.

Regardless of his point of view, I think those points are right on.

Others may disagree, but I think if a hermit sheltered himself from watching movies his entire life, and then wrote his criticism of the medium, it should still be taken seriously because of their unique perspective -- at the very least, as a point of discussion. Which is what we're doing here.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
I think Ebert's denial of video games is what's ultimately futile, any time someone makes a "never" claim regarding something this subjective, especially out of ignorance, it shouldn't be taken very seriously. Frankly, I don't understand how someone purportedly open-minded, educated and appreciative of art can outright dismiss any medium of human expression because it happens to be new, different, and base compared to its predecessors, which is what happened to all the mediums, which by definition art transcends anyway. This might raise the issue for video games as art, but for all the wrong reasons. Then again, Ebert might be the exception that proves the rule for video games as art.


P.S. Ebert via twitter, I'm not too old to "get" video games, but I may be too well-read. Tell me this isn't just a guy trolling. =)
 
I don't quite understand you kanji person; are you trying to provoke thought. Unless I am wrong Ebert is not trying to deny or dismiss the medium as a form of human expression but as a form of art. Also he doesn't dismiss it because it's "new" but because of it's structure (structure of the actual game and the structure of the production of games).

グリフィス said:
There's no special insight or even an argument here, he's merely repeated his unfounded contention "games can never be art" ad nauseum, complete with age old fallacies and modern cheap shots.

BTW, I usually enjoy Roger Ebert and his writing, even when I wholly disagree with him. This simply doesn't meet the standard of a disagreement, because Mr. Ebert has yet to make an argument that holds water, or even dare put himself in position to have a meaningful opinion.
What age old fallacies is Ebert using in relation to video games and art.

Also a question of mine has always been: doesn't art involve learning? And if so how much can one learn about life from playing a video game. Learn in the sense of emotions and what it means to be human. I won't say I haven't learned stuff from certain scenes etc. in games but as a whole; I can't say its a medium with much progression in human thought or individual learning. It's just not there yet. It's great entertainment but I can't say I realize more about life like I could with the movie 4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days.

Roger Ebert said:
One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.
This I believe is the most important part of what Roger Ebert is saying. Maybe a game becomes art when it goes beyond game conventions. (I damn well feel Mass Effect has those types of moments :guts:)
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Damn Wally, I could almost resent you for bringing this worthless discussion here. And if there's one thing that annoys me more than debating whether video games can be considered "art" or not, it's the fact people always take Shadow of the Colossus as an example.

Quite simply, the video game medium is far too complex to be easily classified using the standards of ancient media, whose sole purpose was decorative. It's just a testimony to their less sophisticated nature.

You know, it wouldn't be hard for me to make a point about cinema not being real Art. And no one here could prove me wrong using pure reasoning and hard facts. But how futile would it be? In the end the term is quite subjective, the object of this thread is the extremely biased opinion of a man who doesn't know what he's talking about, and I don't think people should care in the first place. There sure is a lot of shitty "art" out there on the Internet. Like on deviantart. And it all fits the textbook definition of what "art" is.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Riastrathe said:
I don't quite understand you kanji person; are you trying to provoke thought. Unless I am wrong Ebert is not trying to deny or dismiss the medium as a form of human expression but as a form of art. Also he doesn't dismiss it because it's "new" but because of it's structure (structure of the actual game and the structure of the production of games).

Well, crappy name person, I didn't say he said it was because it's a new, that's just my own observation. As for his understanding of the structure of a medium he admittedly has little to no familiarity with, see below.

Riastrathe said:
What age old fallacies is Ebert using in relation to video games and art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy

That pretty much sums up his piece for me, from title to final puncuation, though there's also a list of different specific fallacies linked there that are enlightening. I've used a few myself in this thread already. =)

Riastrathe said:
Also a question of mine has always been: doesn't art involve learning? And if so how much can one learn about life from playing a video game. Learn in the sense of emotions and what it means to be human. I won't say I haven't learned stuff from certain scenes etc. in games but as a whole; I can't say its a medium with much progression in human thought or individual learning. It's just not there yet. It's great entertainment but I can't say I realize more about life like I could with the movie 4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days.

Not necessarily, no. Also, there's no limitation on conveying the same such information and knowledge in a game as in a movie. As a matter of fact, it's possible for a video game to teach and transfer information in the exact same way as a movie, a movie can even exist within a video game, but the same cannot be said of a movie replicating all the experiences of a game. Those facts in mind, I don't see any reason video games can't be art as much as movies or any other medium it shares properties with in addition to it's own unique traits (such as design qualities that could be better compared to architecture than more story based mediums).

Riastrathe said:
This I believe is the most important part of what Roger Ebert is saying. Maybe a game becomes art when it goes beyond game conventions. (I damn well feel Mass Effect has those types of moments :guts:)

Well, I think most would define a piece of art worth note as something that transcends the medium, which just makes his argument all the more nonsensical however you slice it. What Roger Ebert is really saying is he doesn't think much of video games or the people that play them, and that's about it. Unfortunately, he can't just leave it at that and has instead chosen to proudly flaunt both his ignorance or the limits of his perception (willful or not), as well as an ugly closed-minded snobbery about "Art" (other than his potentially good natured trolling, which I enjoy as much as the next man). Frankly, I find it an embarrassing overreach on his part, and I'm not going to accept it on his name just because I otherwise appreciate him and his writing, which I do, he just happens to be so unapologetically wrongheaded on this subject it confounds me. For the record, if he actually cared or was familiar with video games and weighed in with the same, though informed, opinion, I wouldn't have a problem with it. For me this is more about the principle of the thing, the integrity of debate, than games v. art.

Aazealh said:
Quite simply, the video game medium is far too complex to be easily classified using the standards of ancient media, whose sole purpose was decorative. It's just a testimony to their less sophisticated nature.

You know, it wouldn't be hard for me to make a point about cinema not being real Art. And no one here could prove me wrong using pure reasoning and hard facts. But how futile would it be? In the end the term is quite subjective, the object of this thread is the extremely biased opinion of a man who doesn't know what he's talking about, and I don't think people should care in the first place. There sure is a lot of shitty "art" out there on the Internet. Like on deviantart. And it all fits the textbook definition of what "art" is.

Bravo, couldn't say it better myself. Thank you, Aazealh.
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Aazealh said:
Damn Wally, I could almost resent you for bringing this worthless discussion here.
Worthless? I had fun typing my post (but does that make it art?). I also find it hilarious that I was the least emotionally incited by this topic, yet it was me who posted the link and drove discussion. I've got no problems talking about games all day, personally. Even if it's about someone whose position is fundamentally flawed. But if I'm alone on that, then fine.

And if there's one thing that annoys me more than debating whether video games can be considered "art" or not, it's the fact people always take Shadow of the Colossus as an example.
I'd actually say Braid is a more popular example these days. But a point of clarification, I didn't say SotC was art. I said that particular experience was something that couldn't be replicated by cinema -- making it unique. And I explained why I felt that way.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
SotC can't escape the debate, or vice versa!

Ebert via twitter said:
As the thread approaches 2,000 comments, much disagreement about whether "Shadow of the Colossus" is art.

Ebert seems to also be enjoying himself about it otherwise:
Ebert via twitter said:
Humpf! The damn kids these days, they think standing on my lawn and shouting "you're old!" is a rejoinder.

Still, disappointing that he won't shit or get off the pot with video games in general, he's really a prime candidate that should be enjoying games, much like his use of the Internet. Maybe this will force his interest...? Probably not.

Deci said:
Man... where's Siskel when you need him? :troll:

thumbdown.gif
 
X

Xem

Guest
グリフィス said:

Precisely.

The man hasn't been the same since Siskel died, and the type of criticism he's offering is out-dated. Most sadly, he's got way more important issues to deal with... such as his health. Why the fuck is he suddenly talking about video games?... And why do people really care what his view points on video games are anyway? He's a film critic. Not an art critic.

I think people should decide for themselves what is art and what isn't. And if anyone disagrees... uh, who cares? It's art.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Kellee Santiago, the subject of his article, responds:

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/04/my-response-to-roger-ebert-video-game-sceptic/ said:
My Response To Roger Ebert, Video Game Sceptic
By Kellee Santiago on April 20, 2010 at 10:00 AM

The game developer whose recent talk about video games and art was critiqued by Roger Ebert is ready to move on, but first, Kellee Santiago, president of Flower-maker ThatGameCompany has an argument to defend and an offer to make.

April 16, 2010 unexpectedly became a new watermark in my career as a game maker – Roger Ebert wrote an article about me.

Specifically, he dissected my TEDxUSC talk which I gave back in March 2009.

I do want to state that I don’t think my talk was a perfect argument. It didn’t land in the right place in the end, and Ebert’s final quote in the article, which was taken from the last section of my talk and was not about games as art, but about the responsibility we have a media-creators in the 21st century, validated my concerns that I didn’t connect the dots as cleanly as I hoped. But the TED mantra is to “give the talk of a lifetime”, so I decided to make some bold claims, take the discussion a few steps further, and hopefully engage people outside of the “choir” to come to their own conclusions. Again, Ebert’s article was extremely validating in that I at least achieved that goal.

I remember reading Siskel & Ebert movie reviews and watching their TV show as a young artist. To say that I’m flattered by Ebert’s attention to my talk and my ideas is an understatement; however, being a long-time follower of his work, I don’t think he went the full mile in this critique.

For the most part, his argument seems to wander through some extremely muddy waters of defining art. Although he even states, “But we could play all day with definitions, and find exceptions to every one”, it doesn’t stop him from dedicating 50 per cent of the entry to going back and forth on the subject. Ebert seems to lump “art”, “artistic” and “artistically crafted” all into one big ball, which I think confuses any discussion on the subject.

For instance, the only definition he offers for art in response to my own is “usually the creation of one artist”. But this doesn’t define anything except a process, and arguably two of the three examples of artistic games that I offered in my talk fit this definition: “Flower” having been created under the direction of Jenova Chen, and “Braid” having been developed solely by Jonathan Blow.

I’m assuming here he thinks films are an artistic medium, but he points to the documentary “Waco: The Rules of Engagement” as not being art, without offering up any explanation. (He also responded to a comment with “Very few films are art”.) I can certainly assume my own reasons as to why it’s not art, but if half of the discussion is on what he thinks art is and why games don’t fit that definition, clarity is important here.

But the final nail on this argument’s coffin is the point that many, many of the hundreds of commenters have already made – it doesn’t seem that Ebert has played many, if any video games. And if that’s the case, then his opinion on the subject isn’t relevant anyways. The title of my talk was “Video Games are Art – What’s Next” because I felt it was time to move past the discussion about whether games are an artistic medium.. Similarly, it’s time to move on from any need to be validated by old media enthusiasts. It’s good for dinner-party discussion and entertaining as an intellectual exercise, but it’s just not a serious debate anymore. As a rapidly growing medium, we game developers have so many other issues deserving of our attention.

Ebert asks me in the section on “Flower”, “Is the game scored? She doesn’t say. Do you win if you’re the first to find the balance between the urban and the natural? Can you control the flower? Does the game know what the ideal balance is?” Well, it only takes you 2-3 hours to find out – about the same time you’d dedicate to a film! I’d be happy to send you a PS3 with a copy of the game installed on it so we can discuss in more depth.

Art is in the eye of both the creator and the beholder. And as those two groups of people grow and change, so will the definition and perception of art.

I think she could have said more, she managed to hit on the fact that he's totally unqualified, my main beef, but in her position, I'd have felt obligated to make a stronger nuts and bolts case for why games can be art and why it's ridiculous for him to say they can never be. She only lightly shames him on that front, but the end is what's intriguing though; a strong, if predictable, move to put him in check, but he could checkmate her simply by accepting and giving her the thumb!

To be continued...
 

Scorpio

Courtesy of Grail's doodling.
My stance is pretty well summed up by the Oingo Boingo song Imposter

I think it's narrow minded to say that games are not or have not achieved the level of art. Heck, even some of the old games that offended my sensibilities in terms of visuals and sounds became things of beauty when played well. The player almost becomes an actor, executing a series of choreographed maneuvers.

Anyway, I felt his ignorance was complete when he said this:
Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.

What kind of pretentious bullshit is he even trying to say? Those are all different mediums that overlap constantly, yet games cannot be classified as art because it shares some similar traits? In that case, a movie is not art because it is a representation of a novel. A novel is not art because it is a representation of a story. A story is not art because it a representation of the spoken word. The spoken word is not art because it is a representation of the imagination. GAH. Just see my Oingo Boingo link.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Scorpio said:
Anyway, I felt his ignorance was complete when he said this:
Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.

What kind of pretentious bullshit is he even trying to say? Those are all different mediums that overlap constantly, yet games cannot be classified as art because it shares some similar traits? In that case, a movie is not art because it is a representation of a novel. A novel is not art because it is a representation of a story. A story is not art because it a representation of the spoken word. The spoken word is not art because it is a representation of the imagination. GAH. Just see my Oingo Boingo link.

First, completely unrelated, let me say I have total deja vu regarding what you said below Ebert's quote, to the point I recall reading it on the board and even discussing it with Walter. I don't think that actually happened though, moving on... =)

Second, yeah, that's one of the blatant fallacies I was talking about, your basic catch 22 (as related to circular logic or a false dilemma): games can't be art, because if they become art, they cease to be games, so games can't be art. Yeah, thanks Roger, I'm well read enough to recognize that bullshit when I see it. Hell, you can learn that growing up on the streets of SK.net. :badbone:
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Walter said:
Worthless? I had fun typing my post (but does that make it art?). I also find it hilarious that I was the least emotionally incited by this topic, yet it was me who posted the link and drove discussion. I've got no problems talking about games all day, personally. Even if it's about someone whose position is fundamentally flawed. But if I'm alone on that, then fine.

I didn't mean your post specifically but the debate itself. Sorry, it's one of the few topics that are just insufferable to me. And I do believe there's very little interest to it. People just miss the obvious in their biased bickering over the right to use a word that's got a certain prestige associated to it, but that's nevertheless freely applied to awful shit all the time without anyone caring. It's pointless nitpicking to me, and made worse by the fact almost no one arguing about it is qualified in the matter. Let an art historian speak and I might be interested.

What it comes down to is cultural acceptance. Traditionally there were five true arts: architecture, sculpture, painting, music, poetry. Notice that "poetry" isn't "literature" or "theatre". So right there and then already you can tell the modern understanding of the word is pretty much whatever people want it to be. The list of what is considered art these days of course includes theatre, and dancing, and the circus by extension, cinema obviously but also radio and TV. Not to mention comic books, the ninth art.

What criteria are these all based on? Beats me. They're almost completely subjective. But I'll tell you what: the fact some people care so much about video games being recognized as art is enough for me to believe that sooner or later it'll become acceptable to think so. That's how it works.

Walter said:
I'd actually say Braid is a more popular example these days.

Hmm, possible. I think that might annoy me even more though. :ganishka:
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Sorry Aaz, but...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07/okay_kids_play_on_my_lawn.html

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
ani_smk_mariowin.gif


Stay tuned for Ebert's next blog entry, "The Wire can't be art because it's television"! :carcus:
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Damn, and I had already forgotten about it! Well, his opinion is still uninteresting and uneducated as far as I'm concerned. What he said about the player's input in particular was comical. The interactivity in a game is no less an obstacle to the enjoyment and understanding of the work than is the very attitude and state of mind of a person looking at a painting. You can either experience it as it is meant to be or you can be uninterested and coarse.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Not to mention his failure to understand that the interactivity of games and their storytelling parameters aren't limited to either/or scenarios like saving the princess or getting a game over. It's astonishing really, and I have to believe it's simply him stubbornly holding onto his bias, because otherwise he could surely be made to understand these things theoretically in about a minute of explanation.

The end of SotC and MGS3 come to mind, blunt examples of the types of moments you can subtly perceive and experience any time you play a video game, where not only does interactivity not corrupt authorship, but intrinsically heightens empathy. Two thing he made a big deal about, but clearly "doesn't get" in terms of gaming, even though you don't have to ever play a game to understand the logic behind it.

I also disagree his age isn't a hurdle. That comes off like denial of the obvious and something else he should happily concede. My age is already a hurdle to the types of things I can enjoy, that comes with everyone's age and experience and I'm not sure what "differently evolved" is supposed to mean if not that, except more "I'm better read than you" snobbery.
 

Scorpio

Courtesy of Grail's doodling.
グリフィス said:
It's astonishing really, and I have to believe it's simply him stubbornly holding onto his bias, because otherwise he could surely be made to understand these things theoretically in about a minute of explanation.

I thought this was pretty clear when he littered his article with pictures of stereotypical bloody actions games and put videos of them at the end, without ever directly mentioning them. Despite everything he said in the article, he was still taking underhanded pot shots at games and he clearly has learned nothing and still happy to sit on his perceived mountain and look down on the "less evolved" among the human race. His words.
 
Top Bottom