| thelalaby said: Just exactly which games did Ebert play to come up with this assumption? And I loved Avatar too, it deserved those Oscars more than the boring, incredibly inaccurate Hurt Locker :) |
I'm curious about that as well. It doesn't seem like he's played any videogames, even ones that get recommended to him. And that makes his opinion completely null and void.
If we went back in time and showed any of the classic artists the movie Transformers, and asked them if it were art (never mind explaining the whole moving pictures concept), I'm willing to bet that they would say that no, the movie was not art. People who have not experienced the whole gamut of a medium have no qualification to make a statement about whether or not that medium constitutes art.
It also seems like he cherry picks. In his original article, he states that videogames can't be art because you can win. But is that any different than the ending of a movie or book? Or what about games were when you "win," you can't help but feel that you really didn't win anything (the end of Shadow of the Colossus comes to mind).
Anyways, I'm done talking about this guy. He obviously made a blanket statement about a medium he has not fully experienced first hand, and that seems like the most idiotic thing anyone has done in this whole back-and-forth with gamers.
