3 ms·
I hear the argument and it is sound. I believe it isn't. I appreciate Michael's summary because it shows where Ebert's blind spot is. (I think you get it tho
by Radix 16y ago
I hear the argument and it is sound.
I believe it isn't. I appreciate Michael's summary because it shows where Ebert's blind spot is. (I think you get it though.) Games allow you to be pulled into stories better, or at least differently, than movies. More like novels than movies as you find yourself putting more into the story than you're given, or as in Bioshock you adopt the character as yourself and wonder what do I really think about Ryan? He seems okay to me, but I'm not sure about Atlas. The story is about as artistic as a sequel to Atlas Shrugged could be.
Then there is the idea some games contain art. Donkey Kong 2 isn't a game I would claim to be art, but Stickerbrush Symphony is one of the finest levels in any game I've played. The experience of bouncing from barrel to barrel with this beautiful music and environment... I'm not talented enough a writer to explain. The music and scene are the lines in those cave paintings.
Ebert's hung up on the word game and can't see those moments frozen in time. And without playing the games and giving himself over to them he won't be able to. The over riding purpose isn't the game play, it's those moments in time where you don't just understand the story, but you believe it.
- wdewind 16y agoI think both Ebert and the TEDxUSC lady are wrong. Video games are the medium, and they contain many many pieces of art (these individual moments). The movie projector isn't art either, the canvas isn't art either. To say the game will never be art is moot, the art is already there, and it is it not the game itself. I know exactly what you mean about DK. Awesome awesome games with a ton of art in them for sure.