Rogert Ebert Apologizes for Game Discrimination

[ryanjm]

Mass Effect 1 and 2 are art. The storyline is better than 99% of movies, and the graphics of 2 are many times awe-inspiring.

 

[f-14]

"_cubase_ 07/02/2010 4:07 AM Hide -0+
Being a film-goer I respect Roger Ebert a lot, as a reviewer. It's good to see that as a gamer as well, he finally respects the gaming world in return.
"

siskle and ebert..anybody with half a brain new the only good movies worth watching were the ones these guys gave 2 thumbs down at. anything thumbs up was like watching titanic or titanic after the four hundred thousandth time. you should see the rating these retards gave first few star wars and star trek movies.

my FPS i call my live targets eberts, the dead ones siskles "eberts at your 7 9 and 12 o'clocks. siskel down"
);D

 

[The-Darkening]

Try Deus Ex or Mafia.

Or I will say movies are not art because I saw "Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2" :/

 

[Maxor127]

Isn't this apology from like 4 years ago? Anyways... who cares about his opinion? Pitiful seeing people actually get offended.

 

[HappyBB]

He's so full of shxt in his comments.

 

[stingstang]

If he didn't think myst was art, then there's something wrong with him. That entire game was a picture 'literally' of art.

 

[Guest]

Wait a second, what?!

He played Myst... and didn't see it as art? A game pretty much entirely composed of beautifully rendered art work (way, way ahead of its time).

Some people should just be banned from speaking - period. What a tool.

 

[maigo]

Most MOVIES aren't art

 

[hrafnthor]

Who is Roger Ebert (and who cares what he thinks)?

 

[hrafnthor]

Who is Roger Ebert (and who cares what he thinks)?

 

[killerclick]

Who cares whether games are art or not. They can consider games whatever they want and I'll still play games if they're fun.

 

[killerclick]

Although it can be argued that games aren't art because they require participation. Is there any art form that requires active participation, skills and decision making?

 

[xsamitt]

What i find out about this .....That;s one of the biggest reasons I bother with games at all...Is because it is art on so many levels.Even a blind man could understand this.From the actual art in the game to the way it;s designed level wise,and so on.

It the same thing when you tell some people you play games on a PC ...they think one is immature.It is no different than any other game really.Like if you go to watch a game....of hockey.or baseball etc,you are watching other play.Which to me would be god awful boring if I can't be involved but just watching someone play A GAME.

This is such a silly comment really because games are really the movie you get to be in in a kind of round about way.

We all can't be paid to sit on our asses Like Ebert for a living.
Perhaps Ebert should play Q-bert to rid himself of the stress.

 

[booseek]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]Although it can be argued that games aren't art because they require participation. Is there any art form that requires active participation, skills and decision making?[/citation]

Maybe not. But I don't see what prohibits games from creating such a category within "Art." When the first humans did not have the cognitive practice of putting three-dimensional images to rock or earth, and they just made sculptures instead (the more direct form of object-making), could not some caveman say "This is not art. Is there any art form that is two-dimensional?" The point is that the term becomes more inclusive as times goes on, as the activities of humans become more and more wide-ranging. Did you know that sculpture was considered the lowliest form of art in the Renaissance, akin to laborers and below the artisans?

The argument for games as art do not necessarily rely on their cinematic/literary aspects. To a movie or literary critic who reviews a game with such expectations, I can see how the greatest game storyline/cinematic sequences will fail to deliver compared to the greatest game. Mass Effect 2, if viewed in pure cinematics, has nothing on a great sci-fi film. What you all should be talking about is the gameplay itself. A game can be great without a story, a story can be great in a game, but its mechanics are far more important than its cinematic qualities. By "mechanics," of course, I mean that story-based choices can be included as well, but they should be relevant to the game play.

 

[xsamitt]

[citation][nom]booseek[/nom]Maybe not. But I don't see what prohibits games from creating such a category within "Art." When the first humans did not have the cognitive practice of putting three-dimensional images to rock or earth, and they just made sculptures instead (the more direct form of object-making), could not some caveman say "This is not art. Is there any art form that is two-dimensional?" The point is that the term becomes more inclusive as times goes on, as the activities of humans become more and more wide-ranging. Did you know that sculpture was considered the lowliest form of art in the Renaissance, akin to laborers and below the artisans?The argument for games as art do not necessarily rely on their cinematic/literary aspects. To a movie or literary critic who reviews a game with such expectations, I can see how the greatest game storyline/cinematic sequences will fail to deliver compared to the greatest game. Mass Effect 2, if viewed in pure cinematics, has nothing on a great sci-fi film. What you all should be talking about is the gameplay itself. A game can be great without a story, a story can be great in a game, but its mechanics are far more important than its cinematic qualities. By "mechanics," of course, I mean that story-based choices can be included as well, but they should be relevant to the game play.[/citation]

To further your point and I agree with you by the way.
If a caveman craps and another takes a stick and paints with it and we are lucky enough to find it would be sold for millions as the first art ever.maybe Mr. Ebert can try to see it from hat stand point.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think they are probably "art" in a loose sense of the word. I actually looked up the defiition of art. If you use the strict definition of art as an expression of the beauty of nature, then most games are not really art in that sense, although there may be artistic scenes present, the purpose of the game is usually not to display beauty. If you use the broader definition of art as skilled execution of a task, then games or thier programers clearly fit this definition.
But does it really matter??? If you play games and enjoy them, does it matter what a critic says?? And if you dont play, then you probably dont care either.

 

[Guest]

If it's not art, why do game makers employ so many graphic artists?

 

[Guest]

This is very typical. The biggest critics of games are the people who never actually take the time to learn what they are about. I'm so sick of people making comments when they have no friggin' clue what they are even talking about.

 

[s4fun]

Games are art just like performance art is art. Art and beauty is getting the proper execution of the feint and counter, the most skillful headshot and even art in the making the most noob of mistakes, in that this just the art and beauty of the gameplay. And that is in addition to art in creation, coding, storytelling, artwork used in the content, of the game. And additionally there is art of what is spawned like mods, hacks, etc. What it boils down to is that it really is art squared ,or art folded in upon itself, which why the old timers like Ebert can't fathom it.

 

[Guest]

He's still a profoundly greater human being than the rest YOU fools.