|
|
 |
| [Apr 18, 2010, 6:26 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Thanks Joker961.
Roger Ebert's Journal - Video games can never be art.
Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care.
Do they require validation? In defending their gaming against parents, spouses, children, partners, co-workers or other critics, do they want to be able to look up from the screen and explain, "I'm studying a great form of art?" Then let them say it, if it makes them happy.
Gamasutra - A Critical Retort to Roger Ebert on Games as Art.
Yes Mister Ebert, you cannot win a film. But why would it be logical to follow by saying that since a film cannot be won you can only experience it, implying that you can only win and not experience a videogame? Mister Ebert, a videogame allows both, by virtue of its existence as a thing to be played. You cannot win without first experiencing, or else you have not been playing, and if you have not been playing then, well, you have just been watching.
Platform Nation - Ebert Is Right… For Now.
Right now, videogames can be projected to move into a state where they will mirror films creatively and financially. You’ll start to see a trend of fewer games coming out, fewer publishers taking risks, large game budgets. The independent studies will not get their say, they will be weeded out. Call of Duty, Halo, Gears; they could be just the fewer games we get. Casual gaming can’t save us. Lets guess around 100 games come out every year, and around 40 mainstream films come out every year. The number of games is going to just go downhill given the trend, and the independent studio will be at risk of failing.
Attack of the Fanboy - Does anyone really care about 3-D?
There are two types of product innovation – one that takes something that already exists and improves it, and the that other invents a technology and tries to find uses for it. James Cameron spent ten years developing a camera that could create the film he had wanted to make for years. Samsung and LG developed 3-D televisions because people seemed to like Avatar. Hmm.
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 11. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 18, 2010, 20:12 |
Kxmode |
|
|
Acleacius wrote on Apr 18, 2010, 20:00: Just using this as an example never play Harry Potter games. The whole premise is absurdest, he reviews a movie called Harry Potter calling it art, regardless of his score. Then calls a game based on the same movie story, actors, sound, setting and says it's not art. Readers would say the film isn't a work of art, and I rightly agree with them.
As an objective reviewer of film I think Ebert should have ended his article by saying not everything is art, but there is art in all forms of entertainment. In other words some films are art, some books are art, some music is art, and even some video games are art. A reasonable person could agree with that. But he doesn't reason that way. |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|