I want Roger Ebert to keep his nose out of my medium. He is a man on the outside, looking in, and passing judgment on a medium with which he has no experience. I don't care if he has the worst or best things to say about games, because the fact of the matter is, he doesn't know what's up and what's down with them. I wouldn't ask a music critic to judge a painting, and I wouldn't expect a man who has spent his life critiquing visual storytelling to have any kind of understanding of a a form of art which does not even need to carry a story (read: puzzle games, arcade games, etc.). I just want him to go away. Enjoy his retirement. Go to Hawaii. Just quit judging my games.
To be honest, if I was told to play through all the games for the next 50 years... I'd shoot myself instead of knitting.
Remember, he reviews movies. Good or bad, they tend to last about 100 minutes. A game, good or bad, takes at least 5 or 6 hours more, if not totalling to 100 hours. Imagine playing through the Army Men series in that time. From start to finish.
I'd prefer not to consider Ebert as an antagonist considering my profound respect for his work, but snide comments like this make it rather difficult.
I have fundamental difficulties with the "art" argument in itself, but I'll leave the brunt of those for the next "games aren't art" newsflash. I will, however, suggest that games and films aren't entirely dissimilar fields at the moment - the former has aspirations of becoming the latter, and as such will continue to suffer from enjoyable, but intellectually vapid AAA releases. I suppose the real question is whether or not a piece is invariably art simply because of the medium itself or if it can be proclaimed as art only by its own merits.
I think you could make the argument that movies are more "commerce" than games, therefore most movies aren't art either. After all, I don't think you see many games being cut simply to fit into an hour and 45-minute time frame. Plus, how many movies have had endings or other content altered simply to please audiences or studios.
Ebert and (I feel like including him) Andy Rooney need to pull whatever ancient stick they used to draw cave paintings with out of their asses and get with the times.
@RageKage: Don't Rooney hate unless you ever wondered what it'd feel like to get a boot up your anus... which I believe happens to be his next report. :p I like Andy Rooney. You need that bit of levity after 56 minutes of Africa genocide, children raping, etc.
12/13/08
12/12/08
Remember, he reviews movies. Good or bad, they tend to last about 100 minutes.
A game, good or bad, takes at least 5 or 6 hours more, if not totalling to 100 hours. Imagine playing through the Army Men series in that time. From start to finish.
Yeah, knitting sounds pretty good then.
12/12/08
Look at it!
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
I have fundamental difficulties with the "art" argument in itself, but I'll leave the brunt of those for the next "games aren't art" newsflash. I will, however, suggest that games and films aren't entirely dissimilar fields at the moment - the former has aspirations of becoming the latter, and as such will continue to suffer from enjoyable, but intellectually vapid AAA releases. I suppose the real question is whether or not a piece is invariably art simply because of the medium itself or if it can be proclaimed as art only by its own merits.
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
We will do it too, so dont get your panties in a bunch.
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
THE WATER COOLER EBERT, LISTEN FOR THE WHISPERS!!!
12/12/08
Old, out of touch man doesn't "get" video games!
12/12/08
Someone set up us the bomb!!
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08
12/12/08