Grahamhsu on 18 April 2010
| _mevildan said: I love Ebert, so I think he needs to stick to what he knows about. I mean, he is saying that it's not a game if you can't win? Can't he accept that the definition of a video game isn't set in stone and that the kind of experiences offered by games has moved beyond Pong. And... if say, something like Silent Hill isn't a game (you can't win, get points etc), then what is it? He say's it's a kind of representation of a story etc. Then does it then count as art? And by his own definition, Metal Gear Solid isn't art but Freddy Got Fingered is. Not art?: ICO Shadow of the Colossus Gran Turismo Alan Wake Uncharted 1/2 Mass Effect Art: Troll 2 Hard Rock Zombies Weasels rip my flesh Rattlers Santa Clause Conquers the Martians Puma Man Also, in terms of "art". Resident Evil = Arkanoid, since they they both score a zero. :) Peh. Ebert, YOU IS WRONGZZZ |
I don't believe Ebert believes all films are works of art. As I said before there is art involved in making a game. In the case of MGS the giant and long CGI movies can be considered art. But when it comes down to it the "GAMEPLAY" which is what makes a game a "game", there is no art at all. When I sneak by an enemy in MGS is that considered art? When the command prompt pops out and asks if I should Attack, Defend, or Magicks, is that art? What about headshotting some poor sap in MW2 art?
However when an RPG drives me to keep playing from it's story, there is art in the story, but that art itself stems from the power of storytelling and not gameplay.
