Roger Ebert Was Addicted to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

[Owyn_Merrilin]

snip

Seriously man, Therumancer is right. If a piece of "art" has a message so vague that it could mean whatever you want it to, it may as well have no message at all. 1984, for example, has a clear message, and it gets it across in a way that nobody can be confused about what it is. Are you going to say that it's not art because it actually does its job? As for Shakespeare and the multiple interpretations of a single line, chances are that most of those were intentional puns, and both meanings were intended. If you really think that art has to be vague to be art, thank you, because you're a part of the reason I had to dissect novels in highschool and explain what, say, a random plant, which was just a plant to anybody who actually believed in authorial intent, symbolized.

 

[D_987]

If a piece of "art" has a message so vague that it could mean whatever you want it to, it may as well have no message at all.

I think you better re-read my post again...that's not the point being made at all, the point is there has to be some form of artistic interpretation, you're just taking it to the extreme to change the meaning of my comment to suit your own point.

1984, for example, has a clear message, and it gets it across in a way that nobody can be confused about what it is. Are you going to say that it's not art because it actually does its job?

1984 is a bad example, whilst the core theme is obvious there're a lot of smaller, less obvious themes and ideas within specific lines. This isn't the case with something like Mass Effect.

As for Shakespeare and the multiple interpretations of a single line, chances are that most of those were intentional puns, and both meanings were intended.

That's...one of the more moronic comments posted in the thread to say the least, though a nice attempt to just explain away a concept without any proof or understanding of the point. Every comment by Shakespeare that has multiple interpretations was "just a pun"? Really?

If you really think that art has to be vague to be art, thank you, because you're a part of the reason I had to dissect novels in highschool and explain what, say, a random plant, which was just a plant to anybody who actually believed in authorial intent, symbolized.

See above comment, you're wrong, and you're making foolish excuses to back up your argument.

 

[dragonburner]

Why do we need his opinion on video games to mirror ours? I don't sit down to play GT5 and say, "Wow, I am wasting my time because Robert Ebert told me I am."

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Why does everyone care what Rob Ebert thinks about games anyway.
Sure he's a Veteran in the realm of movies, but the fuss surrounding his opinion on games just seems like trivial insecurity.

I remember once someone who responded to the subject said, that most gamers are insecure about games being art. There's a bit of doubt in the back of our minds and when someone with a name says its not art, we become defensive... wich only backs them up.

 

[Ashcrexl]

curse that game! it has done more damage than i could possibly have imagined, more than anyone could have possibly imagined!

Why does everyone care what Rob Ebert thinks about games anyway.
Sure he's a Veteran in the realm of movies, but the fuss surrounding his opinion on games just seems like trivial insecurity.

I remember once someone who responded to the subject said, that most gamers are insecure about games being art. There's a bit of doubt in the back of our minds and when someone with a name says its not art, we become defensive... wich only backs them up.

also, this is not true. roger ebert is an insanely influential man. imagine if obama had never played a video game (this might actually be true) suddenly declared, in a state of the union address, that video games are not art and will never be art. do you think the resulting outcry will be simply because gamers are insecure? we know what precisely what games are and that is why we defend it.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

On the subject of TMNT - personally I never got past level 3. (Level 4 being the infamous technodrome.) I never got why people hated the dam swimming level, it wasn't THAT bad.

Damn, I might've got out-scored by Roger Ebert. That hurts, dude.

 

[Turtleboy1017]

what about Prince of Persia(2008) or Final Fantasy XIII or Metal Gear Solid 4?

No chance...

Prince of Persia had some nice graphics, but what kind of artistic statement in there within the game? None.

I can tell you're just trying to annoy me with the FFXIII comment =P, but like PoP, it has nice presentation, but no substance - what artistic message has been conveyed within that game?

As for MGS4...there's a message there, but it's not an artistic one, there's no interpretation, no subtlety - much like Mass Effect it has all the artistic value of any blockbuster film - which is to say, very little.

snip

Here is my argument.

All art is subjective. Therefore there is no inherently or predetermined "good" or "bad" versions of art.

That is all.

 

[Jonci]

I had to use a Game Genie to beat the first TMNT game, and even then it wasn't a guarentee because there was that lava stage that you could get frozen on if you used the invisibility cheat.

 

[Jonci]

Yeah, he might as well have bought Battletoads. No one could like video games if those were the first games they played.

Oh man that game was evil. First stage: tons of fun. Second stage: butt-rape. Third stage: What third stage?! I can't get past the secnod stage!

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Perferably Mass effect. Can you honestly say that game isn´t art in some way?

Defiantly, Mass Effect is "art" is the same way any Hollywood blockbuster is art. The usual candidates for "Games are art" are games like Shadow of the Colossus, The Path, Flower and The Void.

And doesn't Ebert not like Sci-Fi?

Maybe I'm confusing him with someone else...

Ebert loves sci-fi, in fact he is moderately nerdy about it. Dark City is one of his favourite films.

I'm not sure he would like Mass Effect though. I would rather he tried Portal.

Huh. I wonder who I'm confusing him with?

Thanks, anyway.

 

[D_987]

Here is my argument.

All art is subjective. Therefore there is no inherently or predetermined "good" or "bad" versions of art.

That is all.

I disagree - strongly. If there's no message, no artistic attempt to create something the player will interpret. Then the game isn't art, it's a piece of entertaining software like all other games. Your argument is just the lazy way of dismissing debate regarding this area.

 

[ralfy]

Works of art can also serve to entertain. In a way, the entertainment received is the message of the work. Of course, some works do more than entertain.

Given that, video games can be seen as works of art, together with Hollywood movies, comic books, etc. Whether or not a particular work of art is worth viewing, reading, or listening to is another matter.

 

[bulldogftw]

"Hey Ebert do you want to try demon's souls?"