Comments on: Ebert Makes Me Pull My Hair Out

By: James

James — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:47:02 +0000

when Child of Eden comes out on kinect. Somebody should force him to play it. Judging from the trailer- that bastard will have to accept it as an act of art.

By: W.Wilson, lover of tacos

W.Wilson, lover of tacos — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 14:44:50 +0000

i believe i will refer to him as a specific feminine hygeine product one might use on a summer’s eve…

…and the bag it came in.

By: Boots33

Boots33 — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:53:47 +0000

I’ve been a gamer since I got my Atari 2600 way back in the early 80′s, so to me, there are definitive cases of “videogames as art”.

However, Mr. Ebert does make a valid point in his blog post about how having multiple, chooseable outcomes tends to invalidate each outcome. If you stick to one ending, then that ending is the culmination of an entire plot. If a game has multiple endings, I find that each ending seems to be somewhat lacking in strength and structure. I’ve always felt that writers should know how to end their stories before they write them (especially in comic books), and sometimes it just seems like writers coast their way into an ending, rather than actually flushing it out properly.

That’s what makes Shadow of the Colosuss so great. The plot never varies, the emotional attatchment to the plot is never broken or affected. You experience everything you are supposed to. It is truly an artistic work.

If the industry has to have choice in their games, then I prefer the way Bioware has done it. Their plots and endings don’t change, you just affect your perspective on the events that take place. This way, you get to see the entire story and not feel like you missed out on anything based on your choice of good or bad.

But we really shouldn’t even be arguing about this. Ken Levine made the point that the industry and its fans should stop trying to validate itself, stop waving it’s arms like little kids in the distance yelling “PICK ME, LIKE ME.” We should just enjoy our medium of choice and love it the way we do and “grow a pair,” and I agree. Nobody likes the obnoxious attention-seeker in the group, and we don’t want to become that. It’ll just make us look worse.

By: TL Howard

TL Howard — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:25:16 +0000

The most recent issue of Game Informer addressed this topic as well. They refrence several games which depending on your perpective can be concidered “Art”. Heavy Rain, Bioshock and (my favorite) Mass Effect 2 to name a few.

What gets me is that art is the expression of who a person truely is. The artist is able to allow their perception of the world (or universe) to be conveyed through so many mediums. Be that canvas or Performance or sculpture. However they are not criticized as harshly as games. Some are just concidered “bad art”. *sigh*

So what about the conceptual art books that come out when referencing a game to show us how many hours and how much talent went into designing these world we get to dwell in for hours on end? So if it’s on paper it’s concidered art but when it’s on my TV through a console it’s not? These things can change our views on so many things and impact us for years to come. they move us deeply and engage us in ways that an art gallery can’t.

Ebert no matter how many times you recant and try to backpedal you are still going to be a D-bag.

By: Brittney

Brittney — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:08:16 +0000

Right—–here’s the thing that makes this discussion never-ending. Everyone’s definition of art is different. Art can be perceived as something that excites you, motivates you, moves you. Something that makes you laugh, cry, perceive the world differently, or whatever.

For someone to argue that something is NOT art simply because the subject in question does not fit their own definition is a pointless argument.

Personally, my favorite definition of art is something I can chill on a couch with, button mash for hours upon hours and see the result on my HDTV *shrug*.

By: Walter

Walter — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:03:49 +0000

Ebert you crafty devil, you’ve once again made yourself known to a group of people who has no idea who you were in the first place. When you think of it, he is barely a gimp in the radar of criticism anymore not when all you have to do is glance at a slide bar at Rotten Tomato. Yet here we are again, and probably will be in a few months when he notices the internet is passing him by.
The poor poor dinosaur that he is. Him making statements about games is like me criticizing Steven Hawking, just because I don’t understand one of the many theory he speaks of. Get the picture?

By: Andrew Fogarty

Andrew Fogarty — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:48:05 +0000

He did the adult thing of backing away from an argument about a subject of which he is ignorant. In his words, “I was a fool for mentioning video games in the first place. I would never express an opinion on a movie I hadn’t seen.”

However, he probably should have realized this earlier.

By: Kirk Hamilton

Kirk Hamilton — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 18:23:25 +0000

I particularly enjoyed how he based large parts of the post around responding to Clive Barker (?) who he described as a “Game Auteur” (??) after filing the post with screengrabs from Jericho (???).

So it’s this at-times candid reflection peppered with quotes from Clive Barker and screenshots of various red-tinged monsters being FPSed at. Haa wtf.

Though really, I totally enjoyed his post, as I did the first two. Writing about games wouldn’t be nearly as fun without a snooty old guard there to tell us we’re wasting our time.