Video games can never be art - Page 2

**Winnebagel** · 04-19-2010, 01:44 PM

I would respond to Roger Ebert by saying this, "anyone who wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls should never be a critic or someone who can qualify what art is or isn't".

Critics suck any way, but for some pontificating pompous old wind bag to completely discredit a genre as not being art (just because he says so) sounds more like someone who wants to start a controvesy to get attention himself since he has become mostly irrelevant in a world mostly without the need for critics. Fie on thee Ebert! Fie on thee!

**Dudebro** · 04-19-2010, 10:41 PM

Let's not completely dismiss him for this moronic rant. He's actually a pretty smart guy and he's had some good points in the past. I know I really loved his opinion about nudity in movies. He feels that the uptight society we live in needs to change and showing a nude body in a movie for adults should not be seen as dirty or perverse. I think it's great for someone of his notoriety to come out in defense of something so natural and beautiful.
He should've just kept his mouth shut about video games though, he knows nothing in that field of entertainment.

**Winnebagel** · 05-17-2010, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudebro

Let's not completely dismiss him for this moronic rant. He's actually a pretty smart guy and he's had some good points in the past. I know I really loved his opinion about nudity in movies. He feels that the uptight society we live in needs to change and showing a nude body in a movie for adults should not be seen as dirty or perverse. I think it's great for someone of his notoriety to come out in defense of something so natural and beautiful.
He should've just kept his mouth shut about video games though, he knows nothing in that field of entertainment.

As far his stance on film content, I do agree on that.

I think my main perspective is not so much against Ebert directly as much as it is against critics in general. To me, critics represent another facet of humanity's apparent need to have other people think and form their opinions for them.

Critics are not some masterful experts whose opinions should outweigh the opinion of the everyman. Critics don't even agree with each other most of the time, so if some film is, "Critically Acclaimed" it just basically means that a bunch of paid movie watchers liked it. In my view, critics also seem to often be these erudite snobs who have no pulse on what people actually like.

I honestly trust the opinion of average people above critics. Anymore, if I want to know what people think about a film (if I haven't seen much on it), I go to places like Yahoo user reviews or something similar. I still decide if I want to see it based on trailers or story, though.

**Dudebro** · 05-17-2010, 09:51 PM

Oh don't get me wrong, I hate critics in general. I just think Ebert has a good perspective about movies since he's been doing it so long. Also he has little fear of being let go if he isn't sensational or selling out, he's Ebert for christs sake. Most no name critics(pretty much all of them) are under pressure to write a certain way so they have no actual opinion of their own, imo.

**fenrir1887** · 05-18-2010, 12:44 PM

Yeah, but Ebert probably would hardly be saying these things if he understood them from a gamer's point of view. I'll allow that Ebert is standing up for a lot more in movies.

**Winnebagel** · 05-18-2010, 01:06 PM

I would give Ebert points for being a film historian, but I still don't think critics serve any purpose as a profession.

**TrakMastaTom** · 05-18-2010, 01:52 PM

In his defense, very few games are anything close to what would qualify as "art".

**Slime Slayer** · 07-01-2010, 06:38 PM

Big boring article of Ebert saying he wishes he never said that games couldnt be art:
Okay, kids, play on my lawn - Roger Ebert's Journal

**Demon-Mask** · 07-01-2010, 09:13 PM

He says he wishes he hadn't stated that video games couldn't be art, yet he retains his position that they are not capable of becoming art for now.

I have to say that it is admirable of him to retain his original position despite how much crap he's taken for it. It is also admirable to say that there is at least potential for games to be art.

I still strongly disagree with that position, and his support for the position is meaningless, as he states that he hasn't played many games, and has no desire to. Thus meaning he is arguing on videos, screen shots, reviews and descriptions of games, not the experience itself.

If a game creates a living, breathing world, why is it not art?
Especially when a play that is uninteresting and almost mechanical in dialog and plot flow, Romeo and Juliet for example, be considered to be the standard for art, this just makes no sense.

-edit-
By 'mechanical' I mean entirely not fluid.

**Dudebro** · 07-01-2010, 09:32 PM

I'm glad he admitted his lack of knowledge on the subject but he shouldn't hold onto his uninformed opinion. He makes allowances for exceptions to his statement but he still maintains that it's correct. For that he lost some respect I had for him. Ignorance is not something he should be defending.

**Demon-Mask** · 07-01-2010, 09:34 PM

True that he should not be defending ignorance, but he gets credit for not changing his opinion to conform to the masses, something I thought he'd do when I saw the title of the article.
To make things clear, I'd assumed he'd conform, not maintain his position.

**Dudebro** · 07-01-2010, 09:37 PM

Yeah but it's not conforming to change your opinion when it's wrong and people explained it to you at length.

**Demon-Mask** · 07-01-2010, 09:41 PM

I never looked at it that way, but I realize that it is true.
It seems like a lot of the people who were posting arguments would just say "lol noob thinx games not art".

**Kong** · 07-02-2010, 08:27 AM

It sounds like he is saying he read all of the comments to his post, which were more text than 3 large books and were mostly restating the same points. Yet, he doesn't have the time to play a single game, even when someone was willing to set everything up and put a controller in his hand ready to go, for free, to play a game where you control the wind and you only have to move one button, the dpad.

He has only played 2 games in his life, both point and click and the last one was Myst.

All he said was he wished he didn't publicly state his opinion. He still thinks he is right even though he knows his opinion is based on two unusual and old games. His opinion is so grossly uneducated that it is amazing people are reading these two articles at all. Much less that they stirred up this much talk all over the Internet.

He says, Romeo and Juliet and Huckleberry Fin are examples of great art. If a story is capable of being a great example of art then how can Phantasy Star, Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana and Out of This World not be at least examples of bad art.

**Demon-Mask** · 07-02-2010, 07:34 PM

I don't even know how games with good stories told well can be even called bad art, yet a play with a horrible story told in a horrible way (Romeo and Juliet) can be classified as the greatest of art.

Also, the guy capitalizes the word art, and it just looks stupid.

**samejamesbond** · 07-02-2010, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demon-Mask

I don't even know how games with good stories told well can be even called bad art, yet a play with a horrible story told in a horrible way (Romeo and Juliet) can be classified as the greatest of art.

Also, the guy capitalizes the word art, and it just looks stupid.

He should seriously play one game with a good plot to verify himself.

Games like Final Fantasy X, Metal Gear Solid, Chrono Trigger, and Grand Theft
Auto IV all have amazing plots that could rival films.

**Dudebro** · 07-02-2010, 09:35 PM

Quote:

He says, Romeo and Juliet and Huckleberry Fin are examples of great art.

This always bugs me. People claim these literary classics are so awesome but when I read them I was so unimpressed. Romeo and Juliet is boring and so dated that it's hard to empathize with the characters. I thought Huckleberry Fin just sucked out loud. It's sad when the older generation holds on so bitterly to the old and acts so terrified of what's new and current. He's a dinosaur.

**samejamesbond** · 07-02-2010, 09:38 PM

I think Romeo and Juliet is overrated.
But I did read Hamlet and I was impressed.

**Slime Slayer** · 07-02-2010, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudebro

This always bugs me. People claim these literary classics are so awesome but when I read them I was so unimpressed. Romeo and Juliet is boring and so dated that it's hard to empathize with the characters. I thought Huckleberry Fin just sucked out loud. It's sad when the older generation holds on so bitterly to the old and acts so terrified of what's new and current. He's a dinosaur.

Hate to burst your bubble DB, but that's the basis of this site.

**Dudebro** · 07-02-2010, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevencassidy13

Hate to burst your bubble DB, but that's the basis of this site.

I hate to burst your bubble but that's only how some of you guys see it. I embrace all video games while still loving the retro ones. The only people holding on bitterly are fanboys.

**Slime Slayer** · 07-02-2010, 10:06 PM

Your point was that old books suck right?

**Demon-Mask** · 07-03-2010, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudebro

I hate to burst your bubble but that's only how some of you guys see it. I embrace all video games while still loving the retro ones. The only people holding on bitterly are fanboys.

I am with you on this, I like newer games as well as the old. No preference in age, if a good game is ten years old, then it doesn't matter, quality and age are not the same thing, not by far.
Same for new games, if it's good, it's good, regardless of the fact that it is new.
Same goes for bad games, if it is ten years old and regarded as a "classic" I'll still like it only based on if it is a good game, not because it is old and loved by many.
Same again for new games, just because it is new, doesn't mean it is good.

Games are, and always have been, art.

**Dudebro** · 07-03-2010, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevencassidy13

Your point was that old books suck right?

No, my point is I think some of them suck and have no real value artistically. He should know that he can't be objective about this in the same way I can't be objective about a sappy lovestory like R&J. He's a moron for thinking he can judge something so finally when there's so many people shouting him down. He seemingly knows and understands their points but he still clings his uninformed belief apparently out of fear. It happens to a lot people as they get older. New stuff is viewed through a negative lens and they resist any attempts to understand it or appreciate it. I just assumed he was smarter than all this. I guess I gave him too much credit.

Btw I only commented on those two books because Kong brought them up. I like plenty of books of all ages really. I just think some are over hyped for no good reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DM

Games are, and always have been, art.

I agree. I think video games have some of the best stories and music I've seen/heard/read/ect. Obviously I'm partial to games but I think there's real artistic content in them. If something is memorable and it makes you feel something it's art imo. Even if it's just the intro to Halo. To me it's an awesome piece of work. It may not be moving but it effects people. Case in point-
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLt5_ME_2_M&feature=related"]YouTube - Halo theme: Corpomix[/ame]
This video game theme song is as popular as mainstream music. How can that not be art? Eberts stance is just silly.

**samejamesbond** · 07-03-2010, 11:06 AM

He could just be arrogant.

**Demon-Mask** · 07-04-2010, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudebro

I agree. I think video games have some of the best stories and music I've seen/heard/read/ect. Obviously I'm partial to games but I think there's real artistic content in them. If something is memorable and it makes you feel something it's art imo. Even if it's just the intro to Halo. To me it's an awesome piece of work. It may not be moving but it effects people. Case in point-

The first time I played a video game, and saw it as art was Metal Gear Solid. The way things are revealed, and the power behind some of the events is amazing. The one that really got me is when, after fighting the Ninja, Snake realizes it was an old friend of his, who he'd fought with and against in the past. He finally realized that this mysterious enemy is one of his few friends, but the Ninja didn't really know who he was himself. Something about that gets to me.