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.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Er, he's paid for his "humble opinion," it's implied whenever you read one of his reviews. That's what criticism is. Looking for facts? Check that wiki you were talking about for a 90% chance for objective truth.
Also, the day a good writer like Ebert uses internet slang acronyms in an article he's paid by the word for is the day I lose hope in all professional writing.
It's fine for him to review the movie; he's a movie reviewer, you can't expect him to know from games. But he's never played the game, he's never watched a video of the game, he hasn't even read the damn Wiki article— but he's passing judgement on the game.
That's not an opinion or an honest mistake, that's pretentious dickery.
Or maybe he was on a deadline and didn't really have time to be investing time and effort learning and interpreting a new subject he has little investment in. Ebert is a good reviewer, but the Hitman review wasn't exactly a slam-dunk in terms of overall quality (Penny Arcade forumites' problems with it aside). I don't assume that Ebert was purposefully trying to rain on your parade (and, again... hello? He gave it a good overall review (3/4), telling people to take interest in the movie and the franchise... how is that bad, again?). There are other explanations besides "pretentious dickery," though I will admit that pretentious dickery is one of the potential explanations for this supposed anger towards a review.
My judgement of art is based largely on the perceived skill required to make the work. Paint thrown on a canvas? A three-year-old could do that (and many have!); not art. A game in which all the pieces fit together seamlessly and every action I take plays out as if that was what the designers intended for me to do? That's art. Hell, a well written program can be art. Skill has a beauty of its own.
You sound like the kind of guy that is amazed by his own tennis shoes.
I'm not quite sure what that means.
"Wow, the designers of this game made it where I can jump over this wall and save the princess! How do they do that? This is art."
"Wow, the children in Korea put this leather together in such a way that I can wear it on my feet and walk around! How do they do that? This is art."
"Wow, the Matrix had Neo flying around going, 'Whoosh whoosh!' and beating up computers! How do they do that? This is art."
"Wow, my phonebook is so thick and heavy, and the words in it seem to go on forever but remain in a strange order! How do they do that? This is art."
I'm not quite sure what you're going for here. You should actually state your point instead of throwing out wild analogies that don't communicate anything to anyone.
People who live constantly amazed by the simplest things in the world are the most impressive kind of people ever.
My judgement of art is based largely on the perceived skill required to make the work. Paint thrown on a canvas? A three-year-old could do that (and many have!); not art. A game in which all the pieces fit together seamlessly and every action I take plays out as if that was what the designers intended for me to do? That's art. Hell, a well written program can be art. Skill has a beauty of its own.
You sound like the kind of guy that is amazed by his own tennis shoes.
I'm not quite sure what that means.
"Wow, the designers of this game made it where I can jump over this wall and save the princess! How do they do that? This is art."
"Wow, the children in Korea put this leather together in such a way that I can wear it on my feet and walk around! How do they do that? This is art."
"Wow, the Matrix had Neo flying around going, 'Whoosh whoosh!' and beating up computers! How do they do that? This is art."
"Wow, my phonebook is so thick and heavy, and the words in it seem to go on forever but remain in a strange order! How do they do that? This is art."
I'm not quite sure what you're going for here. You should actually state your point instead of throwing out wild analogies that don't communicate anything to anyone.
People who live constantly amazed by the simplest things in the world are the most impressive kind of people ever.
That's great. Let's give everything a 10/10 for those people.
Er, he's paid for his "humble opinion," it's implied whenever you read one of his reviews. That's what criticism is. Looking for facts? Check that wiki you were talking about for a 90% chance for objective truth.
Also, the day a good writer like Ebert uses internet slang acronyms in an article he's paid by the word for is the day I lose hope in all professional writing.
If you disagree with my interpretation of the quote, make sure you say how. Otherwise it looks like you just ignored it and that's no fun.
It's fine for him to review the movie; he's a movie reviewer, you can't expect him to know from games. But he's never played the game, he's never watched a video of the game, he hasn't even read the damn Wiki article— but he's passing judgement on the game.
That's not an opinion or an honest mistake, that's pretentious dickery.
Or maybe he was on a deadline and didn't really have time to be investing time and effort learning and interpreting a new subject he has little investment in. Ebert is a good reviewer, but the Hitman review wasn't exactly a slam-dunk in terms of overall quality (Penny Arcade forumites' problems with it aside). I don't assume that Ebert was purposefully trying to rain on your parade (and, again... hello? He gave it a good overall review (3/4), telling people to take interest in the movie and the franchise... how is that bad, again?). There are other explanations besides "pretentious dickery," though I will admit that pretentious dickery is one of the potential explanations for this supposed anger towards a review.
The bad is in that quote I quoted, you know, the one you didn't read, where he makes ignorant assumptions about something he knows nothing about and which could be dispelled with a thirty second wiki.
I could care less about the review for the movie. I'm not going to see it, it looks like crap. The point is that I don't post a fact on a subject I am not conversant with to an anonymous forum without checking it. I certainly wouldn't submit it for national syndication.
Edit: Well, to be fair, I am a tad pissed at the movie itself, and that might be leaking over. But my point is still valid.
Adrien on
0
PharezonStruggle is an illusion.Victory is in the Qun.Registered Userregular
edited November 2007
Assassin's Creed and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. should both be played my Ebert
Assassin's Creed and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. should both be played my Ebert
Did Assassin's Creed have particularly compelling characters and narrative? I haven't played it, but most everything I've heard about it mostly deals with the visuals and not so much with the story.
Assassin's Creed and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. should both be played my Ebert
Did Assassin's Creed have particularly compelling characters and narrative? I haven't played it, but most everything I've heard about it mostly deals with the visuals and not so much with the story.
You don't have to have compelling characters or a narrative to be artistic. Paintings/drawings and poetry generally have neither. I think the only thing needed for a work to have "artistic merit" is for it to evoke a feeling in the viewer, or for it to convey a certain theme/comment on humanity (which need not be specific - poetry would indicate that a work can convey wildly different messages to a reader depending on a reader's experience, not all of these necessarily foreseen or intended by the author, and still be considered artistic).
Videogames (interactive media?) are, like the film and the comic book, a combination of prior media, with the added twist of actively involving the viewer. Critics used to dismiss film as simply "moving pictures" (later with sound), not greater than the sum of its parts...until critics realized that there were techniques and effects very specific to the format, such as cutting to convey movement, the passage of time, etc. Comic books were the same way until critics discovered and discussed comic-specific methods that are so ingrained that you hardly ever even notice them (read Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics, which discusses iconic art and closure, among other things).
Video games, to be sure, can convey feelings and messages. That's all they need to do to be artistic. They may or may not be a good art form for telling narrative, but they don't have to be. The sooner we get away from discussing video games it terms of its constituative parts - i.e. movie, picture, music, narrative, player interaction - and start talking about it in terms of its form-specific ways of being "artistic," the sooner developers and critics alike will be able to move along on this discussion of artistic merit.
SotC, once again, doesn't really have complicated characters or a compelling/new narrative. But it has tremendous atmosphere that involves you with the character/story, and conveys powerful feelings and themes to those who play it. That's art.
My judgement of art is based largely on the perceived skill required to make the work. Paint thrown on a canvas? A three-year-old could do that (and many have!); not art. A game in which all the pieces fit together seamlessly and every action I take plays out as if that was what the designers intended for me to do? That's art. Hell, a well written program can be art. Skill has a beauty of its own.
You sound like the kind of guy that is amazed by his own tennis shoes.
I'm not quite sure what that means.
"Wow, the designers of this game made it where I can jump over this wall and save the princess! How do they do that? This is art."
"Wow, the children in Korea put this leather together in such a way that I can wear it on my feet and walk around! How do they do that? This is art."
"Wow, the Matrix had Neo flying around going, 'Whoosh whoosh!' and beating up computers! How do they do that? This is art."
"Wow, my phonebook is so thick and heavy, and the words in it seem to go on forever but remain in a strange order! How do they do that? This is art."
I do not think that the position you suggest at all follows from what I said, but in case I was unclear; requiring skill to make something does not make it art in my estimation. Requiring unusual skill is necessary but may not be sufficient. Also an ignorance of how it was done detracts from the enjoyment of the work rather than increasing my opinion of it.
You don't have to have compelling characters or a narrative to be artistic. Paintings/drawings and poetry generally have neither. I think the only thing needed for a work to have "artistic merit" is for it to evoke a feeling in the viewer, or for it to convey a certain theme/comment on humanity (which need not be specific - poetry would indicate that a work can convey wildly different messages to a reader depending on a reader's experience, not all of these necessarily foreseen or intended by the author, and still be considered artistic).
Videogames (interactive media?) are, like the film and the comic book, a combination of prior media, with the added twist of actively involving the viewer. Critics used to dismiss film as simply "moving pictures" (later with sound), not greater than the sum of its parts...until critics realized that there were techniques and effects very specific to the format, such as cutting to convey movement, the passage of time, etc. Comic books were the same way until critics discovered and discussed comic-specific methods that are so ingrained that you hardly ever even notice them (read Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics, which discusses iconic art and closure, among other things).
Video games, to be sure, can convey feelings and messages. That's all they need to do to be artistic. They may or may not be a good art form for telling narrative, but they don't have to be. The sooner we get away from discussing video games it terms of its constituative parts - i.e. movie, picture, music, narrative, player interaction - and start talking about it in terms of its form-specific ways of being "artistic," the sooner developers and critics alike will be able to move along on this discussion of artistic merit.
SotC, once again, doesn't really have complicated characters or a compelling/new narrative. But it has tremendous atmosphere that involves you with the character/story, and conveys powerful feelings and themes to those who play it. That's art.
What this guy said.
Video games are an entirely new medium. We shouldn't be trying to judge them based on the standards of non-interactive ones.
Also, while he may know nothing about video games, Ebert is still a pretty damn good film critic in my mind.
Assassin's Creed and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. should both be played my Ebert
STALKER was a good game with a good plot, but it also has a lot of flaws and simply isn't for a lot of people.
I'd rather he look at Shadow of the Colossus.
I'm not talking about the plot of STALKER. I'm talking about what STALKER does so well which is atmosphere and sense of place. You actually feel like you're trudging through this dead wasteland.
as far as video game movies go well if they keep being treated as they are now he is right they will never be art. As far as video games as art well he obviously only sees the main stream ones like Halo or GTA and in that respect I can see his point.
girlgamer23 on
0
Dr_KeenbeanDumb as a buttPlanet Express ShipRegistered Userregular
edited November 2007
Needs to play Mass Effect. I have never been so emotionally involved with any form of media ever.
Except when I almost cried at the end of MGS3. I'm not ashamed.
Assassin's Creed and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. should both be played my Ebert
Did Assassin's Creed have particularly compelling characters and narrative? I haven't played it, but most everything I've heard about it mostly deals with the visuals and not so much with the story.
the story has one of the worst plot twists in gaming history and it completly ruins the game
girlgamer23 on
0
PharezonStruggle is an illusion.Victory is in the Qun.Registered Userregular
Assassin's Creed and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. should both be played my Ebert
Did Assassin's Creed have particularly compelling characters and narrative? I haven't played it, but most everything I've heard about it mostly deals with the visuals and not so much with the story.
the story has one of the worst plot twists in gaming history and it completly ruins the game
Assassin's Creed and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. should both be played my Ebert
Did Assassin's Creed have particularly compelling characters and narrative? I haven't played it, but most everything I've heard about it mostly deals with the visuals and not so much with the story.
the story has one of the worst plot twists in gaming history and it completly ruins the game
In your opinion. :P
I like the story so far.
its completly unnesscary and a lot of the reviewers agree with me
Assassin's Creed and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. should both be played my Ebert
Did Assassin's Creed have particularly compelling characters and narrative? I haven't played it, but most everything I've heard about it mostly deals with the visuals and not so much with the story.
the story has one of the worst plot twists in gaming history and it completly ruins the game
In your opinion. :P
I like the story so far.
its completly unnesscary and a lot of the reviewers agree with me
and again it's in your opinion but reviewers are all over the map, the game story isn't that bad especially how you make it sound, it's definitely not the worst plot twists.
Lothars on
0
PharezonStruggle is an illusion.Victory is in the Qun.Registered Userregular
Assassin's Creed and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. should both be played my Ebert
Did Assassin's Creed have particularly compelling characters and narrative? I haven't played it, but most everything I've heard about it mostly deals with the visuals and not so much with the story.
the story has one of the worst plot twists in gaming history and it completly ruins the game
In your opinion. :P
I like the story so far.
its completly unnesscary and a lot of the reviewers agree with me
and again it's in your opinion but reviewers are all over the map, the game story isn't that bad especially how you make it sound, it's definitely not the worst plot twists.
I'm finding the story really interesting and intriguing. Just killed the fucked up doctor.
Assassin's Creed and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. should both be played my Ebert
Did Assassin's Creed have particularly compelling characters and narrative? I haven't played it, but most everything I've heard about it mostly deals with the visuals and not so much with the story.
You don't have to have compelling characters or a narrative to be artistic. Paintings/drawings and poetry generally have neither. I think the only thing needed for a work to have "artistic merit" is for it to evoke a feeling in the viewer, or for it to convey a certain theme/comment on humanity (which need not be specific - poetry would indicate that a work can convey wildly different messages to a reader depending on a reader's experience, not all of these necessarily foreseen or intended by the author, and still be considered artistic).
Videogames (interactive media?) are, like the film and the comic book, a combination of prior media, with the added twist of actively involving the viewer. Critics used to dismiss film as simply "moving pictures" (later with sound), not greater than the sum of its parts...until critics realized that there were techniques and effects very specific to the format, such as cutting to convey movement, the passage of time, etc. Comic books were the same way until critics discovered and discussed comic-specific methods that are so ingrained that you hardly ever even notice them (read Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics, which discusses iconic art and closure, among other things).
Video games, to be sure, can convey feelings and messages. That's all they need to do to be artistic. They may or may not be a good art form for telling narrative, but they don't have to be. The sooner we get away from discussing video games it terms of its constituative parts - i.e. movie, picture, music, narrative, player interaction - and start talking about it in terms of its form-specific ways of being "artistic," the sooner developers and critics alike will be able to move along on this discussion of artistic merit.
SotC, once again, doesn't really have complicated characters or a compelling/new narrative. But it has tremendous atmosphere that involves you with the character/story, and conveys powerful feelings and themes to those who play it. That's art.
That's all well and good, but if you're trying to convince a film critic that games can be art, you should probably find a game that does justice to both atmosphere AND story (that is, if the game attempts a story at all). You're absolutely right that you don't have to have compelling characters or a narrative to be artistic. But if you DO have characters and narrative, they had better be compelling if you want the badge. Or at least, they shouldn't be total shit. And we're still struggling with the 'not total shit' for the most part. I'm fine with creating a game without any sort of story and judging it on other criteria, but once you bring those elements in, you HAVE to judge that aspect too. You can't just ignore it and say it's not important. People have been doing that for years, and that's why the stories are worse than any other medium. And my main point was, if you're going to suggest games for a film critic to play as a "prime example" of games, you damn well better pick one that excels in all areas. Which is why I asked about AC - I haven't heard anything of note about the story, so I have no idea what kind of quality it has.
And there is a big difference between 'artistic' and 'art' in my view. You can have elements of artistic quality and not be art. Just because a game has very pretty visuals and good atmosphere doesn't make it art to me. Every component has to be given love and consideration, and in general story and characters in games are lagging way behind the visual elements. And until we can start consistently constructing games whose prose can match the rest of the package, Ebert will have ample ammo to blast the medium, as ignorant and misinformed as he is. The average game writing is about on par with most shitty film releases.
But if people don't think you need to judge narrative in a game that includes narrative, then I guess there's not much hope for it anyway.
Posts
Er, he's paid for his "humble opinion," it's implied whenever you read one of his reviews. That's what criticism is. Looking for facts? Check that wiki you were talking about for a 90% chance for objective truth.
Also, the day a good writer like Ebert uses internet slang acronyms in an article he's paid by the word for is the day I lose hope in all professional writing.
Or maybe he was on a deadline and didn't really have time to be investing time and effort learning and interpreting a new subject he has little investment in. Ebert is a good reviewer, but the Hitman review wasn't exactly a slam-dunk in terms of overall quality (Penny Arcade forumites' problems with it aside). I don't assume that Ebert was purposefully trying to rain on your parade (and, again... hello? He gave it a good overall review (3/4), telling people to take interest in the movie and the franchise... how is that bad, again?). There are other explanations besides "pretentious dickery," though I will admit that pretentious dickery is one of the potential explanations for this supposed anger towards a review.
People who live constantly amazed by the simplest things in the world are the most impressive kind of people ever.
That's great. Let's give everything a 10/10 for those people.
If you disagree with my interpretation of the quote, make sure you say how. Otherwise it looks like you just ignored it and that's no fun.
The bad is in that quote I quoted, you know, the one you didn't read, where he makes ignorant assumptions about something he knows nothing about and which could be dispelled with a thirty second wiki.
I could care less about the review for the movie. I'm not going to see it, it looks like crap. The point is that I don't post a fact on a subject I am not conversant with to an anonymous forum without checking it. I certainly wouldn't submit it for national syndication.
Edit: Well, to be fair, I am a tad pissed at the movie itself, and that might be leaking over. But my point is still valid.
You don't have to have compelling characters or a narrative to be artistic. Paintings/drawings and poetry generally have neither. I think the only thing needed for a work to have "artistic merit" is for it to evoke a feeling in the viewer, or for it to convey a certain theme/comment on humanity (which need not be specific - poetry would indicate that a work can convey wildly different messages to a reader depending on a reader's experience, not all of these necessarily foreseen or intended by the author, and still be considered artistic).
Videogames (interactive media?) are, like the film and the comic book, a combination of prior media, with the added twist of actively involving the viewer. Critics used to dismiss film as simply "moving pictures" (later with sound), not greater than the sum of its parts...until critics realized that there were techniques and effects very specific to the format, such as cutting to convey movement, the passage of time, etc. Comic books were the same way until critics discovered and discussed comic-specific methods that are so ingrained that you hardly ever even notice them (read Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics, which discusses iconic art and closure, among other things).
Video games, to be sure, can convey feelings and messages. That's all they need to do to be artistic. They may or may not be a good art form for telling narrative, but they don't have to be. The sooner we get away from discussing video games it terms of its constituative parts - i.e. movie, picture, music, narrative, player interaction - and start talking about it in terms of its form-specific ways of being "artistic," the sooner developers and critics alike will be able to move along on this discussion of artistic merit.
SotC, once again, doesn't really have complicated characters or a compelling/new narrative. But it has tremendous atmosphere that involves you with the character/story, and conveys powerful feelings and themes to those who play it. That's art.
I do not think that the position you suggest at all follows from what I said, but in case I was unclear; requiring skill to make something does not make it art in my estimation. Requiring unusual skill is necessary but may not be sufficient. Also an ignorance of how it was done detracts from the enjoyment of the work rather than increasing my opinion of it.
0431-6094-6446-7088
What this guy said.
Video games are an entirely new medium. We shouldn't be trying to judge them based on the standards of non-interactive ones.
Also, while he may know nothing about video games, Ebert is still a pretty damn good film critic in my mind.
STALKER was a good game with a good plot, but it also has a lot of flaws and simply isn't for a lot of people.
I'd rather he look at Shadow of the Colossus.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I'm not talking about the plot of STALKER. I'm talking about what STALKER does so well which is atmosphere and sense of place. You actually feel like you're trudging through this dead wasteland.
Except when I almost cried at the end of MGS3. I'm not ashamed.
3DS: 1650-8480-6786
Switch: SW-0653-8208-4705
the story has one of the worst plot twists in gaming history and it completly ruins the game
In your opinion. :P
I like the story so far.
its completly unnesscary and a lot of the reviewers agree with me
and again it's in your opinion but reviewers are all over the map, the game story isn't that bad especially how you make it sound, it's definitely not the worst plot twists.
I'm finding the story really interesting and intriguing. Just killed the fucked up doctor.
And there is a big difference between 'artistic' and 'art' in my view. You can have elements of artistic quality and not be art. Just because a game has very pretty visuals and good atmosphere doesn't make it art to me. Every component has to be given love and consideration, and in general story and characters in games are lagging way behind the visual elements. And until we can start consistently constructing games whose prose can match the rest of the package, Ebert will have ample ammo to blast the medium, as ignorant and misinformed as he is. The average game writing is about on par with most shitty film releases.
But if people don't think you need to judge narrative in a game that includes narrative, then I guess there's not much hope for it anyway.