4 ms·

I'd agree if you said some book or movies... But I can't find any game (or movies) that is as immersive as a great book...

• Fargren 16y ago
  I accidentaly upvoted this, so I may as well comment. There are few really great and engaging games, but there are out there. The Longest Journey is better written than a lot of (good) movies. Eternally Us[1] actually made me shed a tear at the end, wich no book ever made me do. Games are a powerful, meaningful medium. Very immature and maybe slower at maturing than others, but I have little doubt than in time games will be as appreciated as books or movies are today. [1]http://www.bigbluecup.com/games.php?action=detail&id=1303 http://www.bigbluecup.com/games.php?action=detail&id=130...
• Groxx 16y ago
  I didn't make it clear, but I didn't intend to compare the-best to the-best and say that games win. It's too new of an art form, really, just a couple decades vs around 100 years of movies (thousands if you include plays) vs thousands for books. But more immersive than, say, most of the books you had to read in school? Most definitely. More than a fair number of "good" books? I'd say so, though yes that'd significantly reduce the pool. Better than the best book? No. Though I've never found movies particularly immersive, so I do side with games there. And, ultimately, at its most pared down, a game can be essentially identical to either a movie or a book, because there's an easy reduction to either (no feedback = movie, no feedback + no visual aside from text = book). That Ebert claims that something which can be either cannot be art like either must be hinging around the feedback, which is what many people get hooked on. He's basically saying that art can not react to you, or it ceases being art. To which I say "ignorant bullshit".