Roger Ebert still maintains that video games can't be art.
- Thread starter Timbydude
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The sport isn't. The game isn't.lukemdizzle said:
The throwing of the ball to the team members is not art. The shooting of the corpser in GoW 2 is not art.
The stadium can be art. The music, the packaging, the cgi movies, can be art.
But the sport isn't, nor is the game.
Did he just insinuate that Batman and Robin is better than Kickass? [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19970620/REVIEWS/706200301/1023]MiracleOfSound said:
nobody is suggesting playing a game is art, making one is. you missed the point by a milecuddly_tomato said:
One of my favorite parts of this is when he says that games which effectively convey mood or a story cease to strictly meet the definition of a game.
So let me get this straight: Games can become art, but if they become art they cease to be games? Dude, f&*k you.
So let me get this straight: Games can become art, but if they become art they cease to be games? Dude, f&*k you.
He has not played video games.
Might as well take sex tips from a virgin.
If all he can be bothered to do is take a cursory look from the sidelines - seemingly at A SINGLE SEMINAR - then that is just as bad as critiquing a movie you have not seen but merely heard other people talk about it.
"This game flower... doe you win points?"
Palm -> Face.
Looking at each individual part rather than the WHOLE which is FAR greater than the sum of its parts.
He is a fucking moron, not because he doesn't know anything about video games, that's just plain old ignorance. He is a moron because he talks like some fucking expert on shit he knows almost nothing about.
Might as well take sex tips from a virgin.
If all he can be bothered to do is take a cursory look from the sidelines - seemingly at A SINGLE SEMINAR - then that is just as bad as critiquing a movie you have not seen but merely heard other people talk about it.
"This game flower... doe you win points?"
Palm -> Face.
Looking at each individual part rather than the WHOLE which is FAR greater than the sum of its parts.
He is a fucking moron, not because he doesn't know anything about video games, that's just plain old ignorance. He is a moron because he talks like some fucking expert on shit he knows almost nothing about.
From an outside perspective of this argument I'd have to say Cuddly Tomato seems to be holding the upper hand; you're basically just saying "you're wrong because you don't understand art..." even though art as a whole cannot be defined...lukemdizzle said:
Force him to play bioshock, then tell me that it isnt better that than half the "art" out there
That is even worse. Making the game is art now?lukemdizzle said:
So when the bulldozers, diggers, work men with their pants below their bum-crack and their yellow hard-hats, scaffholding, and all the other stuff assembled to build the stadium they were performing art.
No. I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
People are saying the game itself is art. Unless the sport is art, the game is not art.
environments in a game can be symbolic of a story, and they can have subjective implications and meanings. liberty city, silent hill, and rapture are good examples of this. You don't see it as much in games as you do in paintings which is unfortunate but game environments can include subjective themes. some paintings have no symbolic themes, just tones of mood which is common in game environments.D_987 said:
Jesus this is like arguing with a brick wall. those people are under the direction of the artist who designed a building. one person can't build a building. your examples are can't be more off. the final product of a video game is art. sports arnt a fully designed world with a story. they in noooo way equal each othercuddly_tomato said:
I would consider any creative endeavor to be a work of art. Everything that exists is inherently subjective, admitting of multiple interpretations, so that doesn't work as a definition of anything even though a lot of people like to define art like that. Why can't we just say pretty much everything people make is art and then debate whether or not it sucks?
Individual aspects of a game hold art definitely. There is the artwork of the creatures, structures, meshes, etc all within a game. There are the environments. There is the music. There is the story and the voice acting (rarely).Xzi said:
But throwing it all in a vat then pumping out something the other side which is an amalgamation of these elements doesn't create art, because what you have now is a competitive (even single player you have to beat the machine) interactive activity.
The only "game" I *might* be willing to budge for would be something like Flower [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_%28video_game%29] on the PS3.