Ebert Regrets Attack on Gaming

[Lawyer105]

He hasn't really apologised though, has he... he still says that "games can never be art", he's just saying that he also doesn't know very much about it.

Well gee... as if we didn't know that already. So basically, nothing's changed, and the dude is still in serious need of an enema.

 

[Ekit]

Why do people car about what Ebert thinks?

Not to be rude or anything but...

Isn't he just (another) old, senile man attacking a medium he admitted himself knows nothing about?

Why do people care about what you think?

Not to be rude or anything but...

aren't you just (another) faceless, young, inexperienced man attacking a person you clearly know very little about?

I got burned...

I will admit I know very little about him.
All I know is that he had a Review show with Gene Siskel in the 80's and 90's.

And that he had some kind of accident or something that made him smile all the time.

So why do people care about what he thinks then?

Since I know so little about him, maybe you can fill me in on this?

It's a 68 year old rambling about
"Kids of today and they're fancy technology.
We didn't need no computer games in my time or my granddad's time! We had movies to entertain our self with!
Art they call it, Pah! As if an interactive medium has any potential to be immersive or emotionally rewarding!"

Why do people take this seriously?

I can understand if people are upset since he doesn't come with any valid arguments or constructive criticism.

But he is just trolling!

Don't feed the troll!

 

[Danallighieri]

Much respects to the guy, it takes plums to own up to when you're wrong

 

[ggamer2]

Fair enough. I find his comclusion satisfactory, I'm going to quote him many times.

 

[oktalist]

First thing is probably to say that we won.

I need to ask because I am confused, what exactly have 'we' won?

The complete set of Roger Ebert action figures! With posable thumbs! I can't wait for mine.

[sub]Roger Ebert and Roger Ebert's chins sold separately. Offer not valid in Ohio or Michigan. Terms and conditions apply. If symptoms persist, consult your physician.[/sub]

 

[AWAR]

It's ridiculous, there are absurd things that are considered art (random painting on a piece of paper for instance) saying that videogames aren't art is just stupid.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

No, there's a difference here. He's saying that he regrets the statement because it was made in ignorance, not because it was wrong. Because he doesn't know whether or not it was wrong.

Exactly. If we take this part:

"I concluded without a definition that satisfied me."

It's not so much ignorance that he's apologising for but arrogance based on presumption. He claimed that games were not and never could be art but snookered himself by only supplying examples of what he considered art rather than giving a working definition of art under which he was making his judgements. That jammed him in a few logical inconsistencies, which is fine for opinion pieces but not when you're actually trying to speak with some authority.

Or it could be his way of saying "I surrender, you shitflinging monkeys."

 

[Jark212]

Art is subjective. No one can claim that something is or is not art, just that it is art to them. This argument should never have existed in the first place.

Why can't more people be like you???

It go's the same with beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

 

[Blimey]

Ebert gave the A-Team two thumbs down. So screw that old man.

That's because it sucked. But irrelevant post is irrelevant.


OT: I think he actually took the rare high-road, and admitted he was wrong. Kudos to him for doing that, I think more people should take responsibility for the things they say.

 

[Seventh Actuality]

Hats off to Ebert, really, for neither caving in to pressure nor being drawn into a two-side fight where he sticks in the mud for the sake of it, but simply realising his own limitations as a commentator on this. Proof that Ebert is an actual decent guy rather than someone who tries to make a brand of himself.

 

[Bourne]

I agree with him about 90%. There have been maybe 5 games in the history of humanity I would consider anywhere near art (Shadow of the Colossus, Killer 7, Okami to name a few). I also don't think he should be afraid of voicing his opinion when "video gamers" whine about it; if the people playing on Xbox Live represent video gamers, than I think it should be the life mission of everyone else to make their lives a living hell, the whiney twats.

Also, I read in a movie review by him once that video games will not be art "in our lifetime", which is very different than "never".

 

[Archemetis]

So he's sorry that he's not sorry?
(at least, that's what I got from it)

Seems a tad redundant...

 

[Mr Thin]

Why do people car about what Ebert thinks?

Not to be rude or anything but...

Isn't he just (another) old, senile man attacking a medium he admitted himself knows nothing about?

Why do people care about what you think?

Not to be rude or anything but...

aren't you just (another) faceless, young, inexperienced man attacking a person you clearly know very little about?

-snip-

People care about what he thinks because he's smart. He is (this is generally agreed upon) one of the best film reviewers currently existing, perhaps ever. Our very own Yahtzee thinks very highly of him, and I believe he mentioned in an interview or article somewhere that he wanted to be the video game version of Ebert. Bottom line, you want a solid opinion on a film, you go to Roger Ebert.

That's not saying he's always right; that's impossible when reviewing films, everyone has different tastes. to summarize my opinion of his opinion, I like all the movies he likes, though there are plenty I like that he doesn't. Kick-Ass, for example.

Also, he's not just 'some 68 year old senile'. This is a man who gave Superbad 3.5 out of 4 stars. He's very knowledgeable and damn, does he ever have experience with film. He was offering intelligent reviews decades before you or I were even born.

The problem here is that he spoke about video games, something he confessed - in the same article, no less - to knowing practically nothing about.

I think the people who raged at his opinion can be largely broken up into two main groups: idiots, who just rage because they're ignorant; and those who were upset by his statement because they respected his opinion.

It's never nice to have the opinion of someone you respect directly conflict with yours, and if you're a nerd, like so many of us are, it can be easy to take it to heart.

 

[Bourne]

So he's sorry that he's not sorry?
(at least, that's what I got from it)

Seems a tad redundant...

He doesn't apologize for his own opinion, which isn't wrong, and anyone who thinks an opinion can be wrong is an IDIOT, he merely apologizes for voicing it while being misinformed on the subject.

I don't know hell; I've never been to hell, I don't know anyone from hell, and I haven't read any brochures from hell, so I am misinformed on the subject of hell. It is my opinion, however, that hell must be an unpleasant place. Am I wrong? Right? Well, first, I have to define unpleasant, which is subjective, and anyone who tells me unless I define unpleasant I can't comment needs to go cliff diving without a parachute, and second, my opinion belongs to me, and no one else is going to take it just because they don't like it and want to ***** about a blog posting.

Seriously, way to show the man what mature, independent, thought-provoking adults the video game industry is composed of. Acting like 10 year olds until you pummel the man into submission with complaints. He is probably more convinced now than ever that video games are not and will not ever be art, something with which I agree.

 

[Vortigar]

This statement says exactly nothing.

I don't read any humility in this, nor is he taking the moral high-road.

His opinion hasn't changed, he says so. He merely states that there's no way to adequatly defend the opinion.

He doesn't regret the attack on gaming. The only thing he regrets is not having the sense to keep his mouth shut on this one.

 

[hyperdrachen]

Ya know I might take this for a PR response but really I don't see that he really gains anything from it. What I find most remarkable is he admits his main problem and then admits refusal to correct it. He is ignorant of video games, and believes no current game qualifies as art.He refuses to participate in the experiments to verify that fact. His ignorance is acceptable. No one is obligated to participate in "video games" nor should they be. His holding an opinion in willful ignorance is wrong, him admitting it doesn't fix that. But at least he's straightforward...

Why are people saying that this apology doesn't make you feel better? You know what you need to do? Go fuck yourself. Why did it upset you so much in the first place? He's not the first old guy to disparage video games. Get the fuck over it. Unless you are
A)A game designer
and
B) Consider yourself an artist

you have no right to demand an apology. Do you demand an apology from everyone who has an opinion that's different from yours? If so you're a dick and I'm guessing not much fun at a party.

I don't care for your post. I expect an apology. I don't go to parties.

In all seriousness I doubt the mans words had any real wieght on... anything. I mean it got the internets chattering but that doesn't really mean shit. I doubt game studios started laying people off because Ebert dubbed them unworthy. Still everyones got an opinion you're and gonna hear it on the internet. If ebert can use his bandwith to declare games non-art as a blanket statement, johnny interweb can use his to declare ebert an arrogant jackass. Both are vague ass claims made on, in ebert's case, no information, and in johnny's case, very little.

I do think people label themselves too much. That's why they get so pissed about shit they shouldn't care about. Ebert says games are not art, he's saying I'm a loser wasting my time with not art! People do this same crap with thier nationality, race, age... orientation to Twilight... It's all crap. I play games, that's what gamer means. I don't belong to some abstract culture that I demand you respect.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

"I don't know what they can learn about another human being that way, no matter how much they learn about Human Nature. I don't know if they can be inspired to transcend themselves."

Don't know about you guys, but I've been moved by video game characters far more often than I have by a character in a movie. And with a video game (let's say Mass Effect, because I'm officially a BioWare whore), you've actually got time to delve into the psyches of people, see the reasoning and emotion behind their actions and words. I've never watched a movie where I could politely interrogate the people that interest me most.

You know how you can watch a movie, find one of the characters to be thoroughly average, but then the director makes a statement after its release regarding the intent of that one character? Like telling us what their real motivation is, or something else that adds much-needed depth to a character with a lot of wasted potential. It suddenly makes them awesome so you have to go re-watch it. Video games can nail that on the first time through, if the developers care enough to put it in and you care enough to find out. Plunging into the depths of someone's mind mid-way through a game allows you to enjoy them as the devs intended for the latter half of the game, meaning their actions and deeds, good or bad, will have a far greater impact on you the first time around.

 

[Tdc2182]

Hell, I havent seen a video game that has come close to art yet. I have seen some well designed games, and some pretty crazy graphics, but never anything resembling art.

Edit: Okay, maybe Shadow of the Collosus came close.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Ebert is the man.

So what if he doesn't like videogames? His reviews still kick ass,...even his Kick Ass review.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED