The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
New comic for Tuesday April 20, 2010
Posts
Well, that's what I'm asking. Why are people so riled up over something so trivial? And I'm still not convinced he's influencing dumb people. People generally are already decided on an issue like this, and whether they agree with Ebert or not is really independent of how cogent his argument is but simply whether it dovetails with their preconceptions.
well, when someone says something you like can never possess a quality that you feel it strongly embodies, you don't speak up to disagree? we're arguing about it because we care about it, otherwise what's the point of anybody saying anything
I don't think "people probably already made up their minds anyway" is a reason to let somebody off the hook for disseminating an awful opinion.
People are riled up because an influential figure is trying to dismiss an entire medium as bankrupt of potential meaning. Doesn't seem all that trivial to me.
I was intentionally vague about whether all those performers were working in concert because again, it comes back to the viewer's experience. If the viewer experiences something moving about the whole thing and considers what they just experienced to be art, whether the different performers intended to be presenting a unified piece or not is irrelevant. Obviously in a situation where those performers are all on a stage performing a play or an opera, the audience is much more likely to experience it as art. But that's just a matter of degrees, not absolutes. The defining characteristic is still how the audience experiences it.
So fuck that guy.
well, yeah
but you're not going to change anyone's mind by arguing with people on the internet
But yeah, cancer jokes really illustrate the level of development of a segment of the readership here.
On the other hand, Roger Ebert is an intelligent guy who gave a considered opinion on video games. I read his blog regularly and have watched his show and read his reviews for decades.
I won't mention the the intellectual dynamic present at your finer video game comic sites.
Some non sequitur types may say that such comments mean that I'm not a "fan" of Penny Arcade. Well, maybe I'm not but such comments certainly aren't the reason. In any event, I'm certainly disappointed with Mike and Jerry's bizarre rants against not just Ebert's thesis but also ad hominum crap.
But as for "fandom", I don't know. I have read the Penny Arcade comics regularly for years. Do I find them funny? Well, sometimes. More often, I don't get it. A lot I don't find funny. Occassionally, something hillarious will be produced. Whatever the ratio of good to "meh" comics, I still read regularly.
Of course, I'm also an avid reader of the Pluggers and that sucks every day. Does merely reading a comic on a regular basis make one a "fan"? If it does, I'm a fan of both the Pluggers and Penny Arcade. If not, it's a more complicated issue.
On the other hand, I can confidently say that I am a fan of Roger Ebert. He's a smart guy, his reviews are well reasoned and come from a learned perspective, and I find the opinions expressed on his blog likewise rational and well-reasoned. I also enjoy his blog entries about old time Chicago. Reminds me of my own youth in the suburbs of Chicago although Ebert has a fair number of years on me.
still feels good to sit in the echo chamber yellin'
there is also the question of whether or not what these people are doing is actually art
many would argue that it lacks the depth required of "art"
I don't think you'll get banned for not liking something G&T put out.
I think Jerry can be overly venomous at times, today being an example, and that whole debacle with JJGO being another.
That said, Ebert isn't very open-minded about this whole thing.
there is literally nothing in this post that contributes to this argument in any meaningful way
so, uh, congratulations i guess?
You wouldn't think so. But I was banned because I didn't think that Jerry and Mike were among the 50 most awesome dudes in the universe.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?p=14298043#post14298043
duly noted
Damn.
You broke the glorious edict
sounds good to me
Gabe, why you gotta whip that out?
Now you've turned this thing into a dick-measuring content.
that seems like the 100 people whose names we've heard the most in the last two years
You are the worst storyteller.
BLADOW is my new favorite word, thank you
not sure where people are getting that he says they'll never be art
he said that they may be art sometime in the future, but just not in our lifetime
the title of the article is "video games can never be art"
reading is an art
www.sunderguild.com
for someone to tell someone else that something is or isn't art is idiotic. it's art to some of you. it's not art to some of you. accept that and move on.
rah rah ah ah ah ah roma roma maaaa ga ga ooh la la
not art
yes it most certainly is, especially when you move past the headline and into the first paragraph.
"Perhaps it is foolish of me to say 'never,' because never, as Rick Wakeman informs us, is a long, long time. Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form."
to Lady Gaga, everything is art
and nothing is art
wow
so it starts asinine and just gets worse from there, eh
he's basically trolling you