Search
-
Re: Roger Ebert On Why Video Games Can Never Be Art
WAIT HE DOSNT? Oh shit thats nuts. I would have never guessed his cheese prefrences from the interviews he has given but this is really eye opening. So fascinating. On a serious note he makes the assumption that games are defined as art or not by those playing them. When it is not the consumer who makes it art, it is the… -
Re: Roger Ebert On Why Video Games Can Never Be Art
I believe it was Duchamp who defined art as something the Artist begins and the Viewer finishes. Trying to develop a perfect definition for art is a fools' errand, but I think Ebert couldn't be more wrong in his opinions on the subject. applying Duchamp's definition, games are absolutely a medium through which art could be… -
Re: Roger Ebert On Why Video Games Can Never Be Art
I agree with you but he is probably looking at games from the perspective of an art critic not an artist or gamer. Art critics take something inane like "rotten fruit on canvas" and they ascribe meaning to it and the art enthusiasts praise these critics for thier astute definition of what the artwork means when really the… -
Re: Roger Ebert On Why Video Games Can Never Be Art
Where would we be without talentless blowhards trying to define "art". I think he's turned being a pretentious douche into an art form... If ever there was anyone I wanted to punch in the tutle neck its this guy. He routinely misses the point of a lot of popcorn movies and expects everything to have a deeper moral meaning.… -
Re: Roger Ebert On Why Video Games Can Never Be Art
What a numpty... "One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome" So he defines art as something you cant win... Not even in a raffle! I have a whole arguement against what he's saying in my head. But i cant be bothered...so i'll just say What a… -
Re: Roger Ebert On Why Video Games Can Never Be Art
Generally, art can be categorized by the way it is experienced, right? You look at a painting, hear a song, watch a movie, eat a sandwich, drive a car, and so on. The question is, how does one define the experience of a videogame in such a way that it could be considered art? One could argue, I suppose, that what the… -
Re: Roger Ebert On Why Video Games Can Never Be Art
Pretty interesting read, yeah, it's about his opinion on the subject, but I figured most of his writing was (I don't often read Ebert's reviews). However I will say I was intrigued by this part "Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never… -
Re: Roger Ebert On Why Video Games Can Never Be Art
I guess its somewhat the same in a few games. Not all games do you play yourself. Planescape Torment, you play a well defined character although you have choices, if you understand the story and whom the scarred one is them, then you sort of become one with the character, making the choices he would make as if you were… -
Re: Roger Ebert On Why Video Games Can Never Be Art
I somewhat agree with the guy; that is, on the statement that games are not art and it will take them a long time to reach that status. However, his notion that games cannot become art based on their major principles is ridiculous. Games are not an art form not because any restrictions or goals are imposed on the player,… -
Re: Roger Ebert On Why Video Games Can Never Be Art
This discussion is probably in the realms of things that get lost in the translation and differences in definitions. Although I am aware that it is a lame excuse, I am not a native English speaker; hence I might interpret certain terms slightly differently. For instance, in my native language (Polish) "art" has a…
17 results