tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9611352.post6695823438943085276..comments2024-02-19T19:53:01.688-08:00Comments on Cathode Tan: Zelda Is Totally Like That Guy From The OdysseyJoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04260309971152360156noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9611352.post-91964999938523303902010-04-22T08:09:01.183-07:002010-04-22T08:09:01.183-07:00I think that part of what's annoying me - his ...I think that part of what's annoying me - his first rant at least brought up some interesting points about interactivity and how it effects a creative vision. <br /><br />This last one barely makes any real sense and only serves so that he can insist on how right he is - he really, honestly is just being a troll.<br /><br />On a bigger scale, though, I think it is a bit sad we need a troll like Ebert to talk about games as art. Gamers are reactive - if Ebert says games aren't art ... we yell and kick and scream that they are.<br /><br />And then if someone complains about a gruesome scene in Modern Warfare 2 - we kick and scream that it is only a game, and don't take it seriously.Joshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260309971152360156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9611352.post-14123301549927639032010-04-22T03:11:18.351-07:002010-04-22T03:11:18.351-07:00I was going to reply to Ebert's most recent po...I was going to reply to Ebert's most recent post, but the very first comment summed it up nicely enough: "Roger, you just don't get it."<br /><br />Which is exactly right. And he doesn't NEED to get it, and he doesn't have any obligation to get it. Ebert himself has said plenty of times that the obligation of the reviewer is not to be RIGHT, but to express a personal opinion, backed up by intelligent and well-informed reasons. And that's just what he's done here. <br /><br />And in this case, well, obviously he's completely and totally wrong, but then he's the guy who gave Fight Club two thumbs down but gave three stars to the recent Clash of the Titans remake. Sometimes, all said and done, he <i>just doesn't get it</i>. <br /><br />And that's fine. We're after his opinion because it's an interesting opinion, not because it's the authoritative one.GregThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01532920274312703426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9611352.post-90740805279636778892010-04-20T10:30:07.020-07:002010-04-20T10:30:07.020-07:00Oh, I think he knows why we're concerned about...Oh, I think he knows why we're concerned about we think - I think Ebert thinks *everyone* should be concerned about what he thinks. He is the well read erudite and we are the unwashed masses. He is simply trying to impart wisdom upon the people and maybe he can't understand why we are so uppity about it, but he certainly isn't questioning about being the center of attention.<br /><br />Despite the fact really invited him to respond to Santiago in the first place. He took it upon himself as a self-appointed expert on the topic...<br /><br />But yes, the other short lesson from this episode is that if you try to define art, art likes to kick you in the ass for doing so...Joshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260309971152360156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9611352.post-56150926745172446722010-04-20T10:10:59.176-07:002010-04-20T10:10:59.176-07:00My overall sense of this whole "conversation&...My overall sense of this whole "conversation" is that it goes something like this:<br /><br />Ebert: Video games aren't art<br />Gamers: They are and here's why<br />Ebert: I don't know why you're all so concerned about what I think...<br />Gamers: You started it<br />Ebert: I'm right because I'm "well read"<br />Gamers: Whut?<br /><br />Basically he's losing his argument because he's wrong and rather than admitting he's wrong he's just running away from the argument. Any definition he could come up with to consider games to not be art would require one of the following:<br /><br />1) Limiting the definition of art to being high art. That is, games aren't art, but neither is beyond the valley of the dolls. Eventually games would then become art because they could show artistry on par with a Citizen Kane, etc<br /><br />2) Limiting the definition of art in an arbitrary fashion. This goes back to discussions of interactivity, etc. I could similarly limit art to not include film because it's moving and only still art on a wall is true art<br /><br />What's bizarre about his position is that he's saying that if you take graphics (art), music (art), story (art), and then tie all of those together you somehow don't get art. It's like the inverse of synergy I guess. If you want to judge art on the basis of an arbitrary definition of quality, okay fine, but otherwise, he's so off the mark.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03354491286935701887noreply@blogger.com