Ebert Reclassifies Games as Sports 197
You may recall last year's spirited debate touched off by film critic Roger Ebert's assertion that games are not art. He's once again touching that nerve, this time stating that he was too loose with his words. He points out that 'a soup can' can be art; what he meant to say is that games cannot be 'high art'. Says Ebert: "How do I know this? How many games have I played? I know it by the definition of the vast majority of games. They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in Myst, and (3) player control of the outcome. I don't think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports." The critic goes on to discuss comments from Clive Barker from last year, a gent who took great exception to Ebert's view.
I prefer Kojima's approach. (Score:5, Interesting)
Games are more like an art gallery. The story is art, the music is art, the graphics are art...
But the game is the package that they all come together in.
Re:Flawed argument (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Okay. (Score:5, Interesting)
I personally believe that he's wrong, but it's for more complex reasons dealing with what art is; at its core, that's what all the hubub is about, the lack of a definition of art.
Re:Flawed argument (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ebert doesn't get it, but neither do most gamer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That sounds like (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people don't seem to get it (Score:3, Interesting)
There. Get it now?
Re:Missing the point (Score:1, Interesting)