malstrom seems to have a very conservative/elitist/narrow and in my opinion very sad definition of culture/art

ofcourse entertainment and culture aren't strictly separated like he proposes, actually they are very much intertwined

When did he say that culture and entertainment where separate? He's saying that culture is something that people use to rise above the percieved soullessness of commerce and politics.

I was seriously unimpressed with what Malstrom wrote. The last part, with the probably not, but x. He got it backwards, it should be AND not but.

Really intresting as always!
And would you please kantor explain to us how he was wrong instead of just saying that he's a nintendo fanboy.

He does have a point. "High culture" itself is a farce as it ignores the purpose of entertainment products, namely, to sell themselves. We praise innovative games like LBP, Bioshock and No More Heroes becuase they are immersed in "gamer culture" when we should be prasing wii fit, wii sports and the sims because they manage to succeed at their ultimate purpose.

After all is said and done "art" is subjective to everyone and no one has a unified idea of what "art" is therefore, it does not exist.

I don't think Malstrom was really commenting on the actual value of the works produced in the pursuit of "Culture" as much as he was talking about the elitest posers who espouse its virtues ... There are tons of people in the world who (like me) enjoy going to art galleries, plays or concerts because we enjoy the experience and don't see this as being a more important than television, movies or a sporting event and I don't think that Malstrom was refering to these people. At the same time, there are people who go to these events and talk about how unfortunate it is that something like American Idol is so popular when it doesn't have the value of the play (which could be a puppet-show with full frontal puppet nudity).

I admit I didn't bother to read all that bullshit in the original post. I just skimmed for a mention of the 360 or PS3 as I would be shocked if he didn't have something ridiculous to say about them. Of course he didn't fail to deliver yet again as you'll see.

Malstrom wrote:

”Nintendo only wants to make money! [Inserts a Scrooge Mcduck picture and thinks it is clever]” That Nintendo’s only desire is ‘commercial’, to ‘make money’. I’m amazed people don’t think Sony and Microsoft have ‘commercial’ desires. There are people out there who really believe the Xbox 360 or PS3 was put out there, at great cost to Microsoft and Sony, just to ‘progress’ the ‘game culture’."


What planet does Malstrom live on? Has he seriously never seen many posts and websites that have people complaining about Microsoft's business practices? Has he never seen the complaints about the cost of Xbox Live or the wireless adapter? In my experience more people believe Nintendo is more benevolent and for gamers and gaming than Microsoft is.

But don't just take my word that he's just spouting nonsense. Lets have a show of hands. Who here thinks Microsoft doesn't have commercial desires? Yeah I thought so.

Heh, I like how he dropped Athenian culture (by my definiton, culture definitelly includes politics and law, as they are part of human society - and who reads Plato without knowing of his political motives?) in there... It serves no real purpose in the article, but it makes people think he is sophisticated - just like the ones he complain about. How ironic.

Anyway, Malstrom apparently argues that modern entertainment has lost it's purpose, being more concerned with reaching and maintaining a status of "art" than offering actual entertainment. It seems he considers this to be a unnatural thing. I think the opposite is true - creativity is part of human nature, and has always existed for it's own sake. Pointless from a practical point of view, it is of great importance on a social plane. Commercialism, however, is not natural at all.

That said, it doesn't make either of them more or less "correct." I think he has a point, to be honest - artistry for artistry's sake is always a waste of time, as far as I care - but he seems to forget that it is the work of "art" that drives inovation, creativity and, ultimately, market growth. In my opinion, Nintendo doesn't make games that are less "art" than any other developer, and he says nothing that makes me think differently. His opinion that games are (or should be) nothing more than "whimsical fun" is equally unfounded.

Also, it is puzzling that he seems to reduce those who appreciate art to mindless puppets in the hands of corporate and social structures - just as they do with the average "uncultured" population. Is he as bad as he says they are? I do not believe he is right about this, either. For myself, I appreciate art, but only when I enjoy it and find it worthwhile. Using his examples, I think Star Wars is pretty crap, but I like 300 and don't care what others think. There are no objective values in art.

I find this article almost insulting to my sensibilities.

The jist of the message here is that games should not be viewed as art, or as a medium capable of mind expanding creations. While it is true the majority of the human population is quite unsophisticated and unappreciative of "art" or high culture, that does not necessarily mean that there isn't a group of people/consumers who do not appreciate something with a little more meat.

You proclaim that I am unlikely to enjoy the movies most movie critics rate high or the books most book critics rate high -however you are sorely mistaken. I watch movies, read books, listen to music and play games that I can take something away from -knowledge, reflection, something to expand my mental horizons. I do not play or watch movies for fun, while that may be a pleasantry, my focus is on the artistic substance of the product and I buy based on what I believe will provide me with a mind expanding experience.

Developers making high culture games aren't doing it for folks like me, they're doing it because THEY themselves are like me. They enjoy challanging their intellects and wish to create games/films,etc that they believe may shape/expanding the mind of other people.  Jonathan Blow doesn't give a crap whether his game sells a million units or not, he explicitly stated that his goal is to provide a game that will expand people mnds/thinking and make the concept of artistic games more acceptable to the general populace.

Games/movies that garner high sales will always be the main driving force of any capatlist industry, however to discredit the existence of people/developers and a market that does indeed want more from their games and movies and music is doing a disservice to us all. Just as fun/escapist entertainment has it's place so should artistic products that defy the pressures of the make money machine.

Why do people listen to this guy?