The Philosophy, Art, and Social Influence of games
Hatta
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 4030
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 8:33 pm

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by Hatta Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:10 pm

MrPopo wrote:I do have to agree with Ebert's point as to "Why does it matter if it's art?"


That's a great position to fall back to when you can't win the argument that it's not art.
We are prepared to live in the plain and die in the plain!
User avatar
jfe2
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 2350
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:02 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by jfe2 Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:13 pm

I usually enjoy reading Ebert's reviews, but he seems a bit bitter lately. I guess its understandable considering the hell he has been through though.
wilsona26
16-bit
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk, VA

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by wilsona26 Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:22 pm

I bet the first cave paintings werent considered art either. Some neanderthal turd probably grunted and proceeded to piss on the wall to wash it off. We also have to remember that he is someone from a couple of generations ago. He got his first glimpse of gaming with an atari. The media has evolved alot since i was a child imagining the adventure hero when it was in fact a square. We as gamers, retro or not, must always view these kinds of articles and opinions from the perspective they are derived from. My father loved pac-man and super mario bros. But try to get him into anything that isnt simple knee jerk reflex, or simple one screen levels, and he doesnt have fun anymore. Too many times as of late have I seen peoople's comments on "hardcore" gaming. We are fools if we believe in any company, group, system, or person will cater to us specifically. When atari was all the rage, you were "hardcore" if you loved arcade titles. NES was the "hardcore" for platformers many of todays best remembered franchises grew up on. Sega was always where the "mature hardcore" gamer went for their blood kodes, and such. Playstation was when polygonal games gained favor in the eyes of the hardcore. Before then, starfox was awesome, but there was plenty of 2d games that were just as fun to satisfy our craving for a great experience. The ps2 had all the variety in the world moreso than snes, which I would vote counts as being more hardcore. People love all kinds of games. Some people could actually be termed as hardcore casual gamers. If people catered to the hardcore minority, we would have more system failures like the dreamcast. That was everything in a videogame system any of us ever wanted. Look what happened. After the few million of us purchased it, the thing fell flat on its face. People talk about the wii and its kiddie games. Let me tell you fellas, and maybe a lady if there is any, we played some pretty big turds back in the day that we all know we thought were just beyond compare. Someone today would probably wonder why anyone would ever buy that junk. As for Mr. Ebert's article, he is just a voice from a generation past. No biggie. The world he grew up in and saw develop will be forever altered to the state that he understands it. Same with him and gaming. Its just like my dad saying buying that new lunar psp collector's edition was a retarded idea. Different strokes for different folks. We as a dignified community as compared with other forums, and websites need to remember these things and make sure we see things from other perspectives and ideals. Otherwise we might as well put on the blinders and wait until my grandkids call me a dumb fucktard who never knew what a good game was until it bit me in the ass, compared to him and his "hardcore" buddies idea of great gaming. :P Im drunk so i typed alot.
User avatar
MrPopo
Moderator
 
Posts: 22993
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:01 pm
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by MrPopo Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:29 pm

Hatta wrote:
MrPopo wrote:I do have to agree with Ebert's point as to "Why does it matter if it's art?"


That's a great position to fall back to when you can't win the argument that it's not art.

No, seriously. Why does it matter if it's art or not?
Image
Games Beaten: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
User avatar
bladerunner
64-bit
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:11 pm

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by bladerunner Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:38 pm

MrPopo wrote:Hatta wrote:
MrPopo wrote:
I do have to agree with Ebert's point as to "Why does it matter if it's art?"


That's a great position to fall back to when you can't win the argument that it's not art.

No, seriously. Why does it matter if it's art or not?


I read this article earlier today, and I agree with Ebert that it doesn't matter. And seriously, who cares what Ebert thinks. I can enjoy my games and he can enjoy reviewing movies. We are all happy.

This all springs from the fact that everyone needs to be validated today. That is why we have all this debate over a variety of hot button issues, which we don't need to talk about here. But basically this all stems from the fact that people have lost their critical eye. Judge for yourself. If you enjoy it, then it is good. If you deem it art, then it is. When it comes down to it, it is all about your perspective. Don't box yourself in and demand for your interests, views, etc. to be validated by others. Be comfortable knowing you love video games for what they are or for whatever they are to you. That is why it doesn't matter to me if games are art, especially if they aren't art to someone else.
User avatar
Octopod
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 2654
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:44 am

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by Octopod Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:50 pm

I used to frequent a Star Trek Forum. Prior to the new Trek movies release a lot of the Trekkie's on this board were really worked up about how if the movies did good that maybe their friends and family would understand their hobby. I shit you not. It was mind baffling to me that they needed this validation. I am a huge Trek nerd but I do not give a rats ass what anyone I know thinks about Star Trek, I just could not understand this frame of mind.

I hated the new movie and made it known and was actually banned from said forum for talking against the film. When I, and others, would state our opinions on that fucking travesty of a film people would bring the whole argument up again that the movie did well and now maybe people would understand their love of all things Trek. All I could think is how sad it must be to be such a loser that you need people to think that Star Trek is ok to make it alright for you. Sort of ironic really when you think about it. If they just didn't care about what others thought they would come of as more "normal" or what have you than they do by hoping for some sort of validation which just reeks of socially awkward geek.

Now I do not think the video games as art thing is as bad as all that but what Ebert said kind of reminded me of that. Sorry for the long off topic post. :D
User avatar
MrPopo
Moderator
 
Posts: 22993
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:01 pm
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by MrPopo Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:59 pm

Octopod wrote:I used to frequent a Star Trek Forum. Prior to the new Trek movies release a lot of the Trekkie's on this board were really worked up about how if the movies did good that maybe their friends and family would understand their hobby. I shit you not. It was mind baffling to me that they needed this validation. I am a huge Trek nerd but I do not give a rats ass what anyone I know thinks about Star Trek, I just could not understand this frame of mind.

It can start to grate against you when everyone around you sees what you do as pointless or a waste of time. So I can perfectly understand the wacky Trekkies (btw, Star Wars is better). However, I don't see this as necessary for video games. Gaming is becoming more and more mainstream every day; I've played many a game of Mario Kart against my bosses, and one of them has been introduced to things such as Halo through his kids.

I think one of the big things that helps is that games are more movie-like, both in terms of graphical fidelity as well as presentation of a plot. NES-era games require a fair amount of abstraction. You didn't know why Mario was jumping on dudes, you just knew you had to go from left to right. And the graphics, while they had a certain charm, are just not as engaging to someone who has spent 40 years watching movies and TV. Additionally, today games are easier; a playthrough of Halo is much easier than a playthrough of SMB with no warps (hell, a playthrough with warps isn't trivial). I feel gaming is getting to the same level of cultural acceptance as following a sports team. You might not be into the sport, but it's pretty well acknowledged as a way for people to pass the time. And people get into it in different degress. So now the real challenge us gamers have is not to defend our hobby, but rather to defend our level of involvement. And that's no different than any hobby. I'm going to spend a few thousand on an arcade cab, while a coworker will spend the same amount on a camera lens.
Image
Games Beaten: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
Hatta
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 4030
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 8:33 pm

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by Hatta Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:02 pm

Why does it matter that it's not art? If Ebert really felt that it didn't matter whether or not video games were art, he would stop writing columns in the Chicago Sun-Times about how they are not.

Edit: ok, I'm being a bit glib here. To answer you seriously, the more games are accepted as art, the more they will be made with the intention of being art. Then they can be better art, and we can have more and better meaningful experiences through them. If all you see in games is a bunch of rules, that's all you're ever going to get out of it. I want more.
Last edited by Hatta on Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We are prepared to live in the plain and die in the plain!
User avatar
pelham123
24-bit
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:34 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by pelham123 Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:23 pm

This from the man that thinks Alex Proyas' 'Dark City' is one of the greatest films ever made. I just can't take him seriously after that.
GSZX1337 wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks it's odd that the OP's referring to his Dreamcast as a girl?

Jayson:
Well,
both let you stick things in them for amusement...
both usually end up costing you a fortune over time...
and both whine incessantly...
User avatar
Octopod
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 2654
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:44 am

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by Octopod Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:32 pm

pelham123 wrote:This from the man that thinks Alex Proyas' 'Dark City' is one of the greatest films ever made. I just can't take him seriously after that.


I know nothing about Ebert but the more I hear about him the more I like him.
Return to Games As Culture

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests