Comment Re:Reality Setback (Score 1) 149
Ok, Pixars Toy Story... CGI Right? That was art. ID's Doom 3... CGI Right? That isnt art? Same deal... Games are as much art as movies under these principals
That's like saying The Devil in Miss Jones is art on the same level as La Dolce Vita or Empire Strikes Back just because all of them are shot on film. The argument doesn't hold water. I think that what Ebert is getting at (which has been flagrantly ignored by a number of the respondents) is the fact that, thus far, videogames are, by and large, strictly entertainment. They can be visually stunning, but then again, so was The Phantom Menace when it came out; I don't think anyone's going to refer to that one as 'art' under the definition that Ebert is reaching for.
To clarify that defnition, 'art' goes beyond just 'pretty movie, I likey,' or anything that's ever been painted, composed, written, or shot on film. No one will claim that this comment is 'art', and so why would Postal get such treatment? Art, real art, has to touch people in a way that provides meaning, not just entertainment. Using Doom 3 as an example, I don't think the game really ever hits an emotional chord, with the exception of the fear of an Imp jumping out at you. It's not art, it's just entertainment. Now, I would say that you can make a case for ICO, Xenosaga, and Final Fantasy VII as being 'art' in Ebert's definition, but I think the fact is that he hasn't played these games, and probably has never heard of them.
So, rather than lashing out and calling the guy names, try to understand for a moment what he's saying: "To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers." I think he's setting the bar a little high for a medium that's just beginning its fourth decade, but he's right: There hasn't been a game yet that lives up to Shakespeare, Yeats, Scorsese, Steinbeck, or Mozart. Had he not set the bar that high, I think it would be easy for us to counter the argument on his own terms.
That's like saying The Devil in Miss Jones is art on the same level as La Dolce Vita or Empire Strikes Back just because all of them are shot on film. The argument doesn't hold water. I think that what Ebert is getting at (which has been flagrantly ignored by a number of the respondents) is the fact that, thus far, videogames are, by and large, strictly entertainment. They can be visually stunning, but then again, so was The Phantom Menace when it came out; I don't think anyone's going to refer to that one as 'art' under the definition that Ebert is reaching for.
To clarify that defnition, 'art' goes beyond just 'pretty movie, I likey,' or anything that's ever been painted, composed, written, or shot on film. No one will claim that this comment is 'art', and so why would Postal get such treatment? Art, real art, has to touch people in a way that provides meaning, not just entertainment. Using Doom 3 as an example, I don't think the game really ever hits an emotional chord, with the exception of the fear of an Imp jumping out at you. It's not art, it's just entertainment. Now, I would say that you can make a case for ICO, Xenosaga, and Final Fantasy VII as being 'art' in Ebert's definition, but I think the fact is that he hasn't played these games, and probably has never heard of them.
So, rather than lashing out and calling the guy names, try to understand for a moment what he's saying: "To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers." I think he's setting the bar a little high for a medium that's just beginning its fourth decade, but he's right: There hasn't been a game yet that lives up to Shakespeare, Yeats, Scorsese, Steinbeck, or Mozart. Had he not set the bar that high, I think it would be easy for us to counter the argument on his own terms.
