Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> > Roger Ebert is full of BS.  Watching games is not the same as playing them.  I
> > first realized games could be art when I would not pay attention to the score
> > anymore...
> >
> > He's like one of those late 1800's drama critics dismissing cinema as a cheap
> > toy medium...
> >
> >
> He has, fairly obviously, never a) played games that have real stories 
> (which could stand as movies, if you yanked out the player interaction), 
> or b) gone to/heard of interactive art exhibits.

  He says: "No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a
game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and
poets."

  Even if that were true (which is debatable), it still doesn't make sense.
Is the requirement for something "being art" that it has to be comparable
with great examples of other fields of art?

  Is he, basically, saying that "if it's not great art, it's not art at
all"? That sounds like snobbery to me.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message