The Epic Ebert Videogame Debate

Via Kotaku, a column at Ebert.com going into some depth on the are-games-actually-art debate. Ebert engaged in a public debate on the subject at last week's Conference on World Affairs. From the article: "Going in to the videogame panel, I'd been hoping the audience (mostly students) would be fired up about the subject and challenge the panelists, but they were unfortunately pretty passive. Maybe they were intimidated by the rather formal (for Boulder) theater setting, I don't know. Ebert began by explaining why he felt a game (particularly the shoot-shoot, point-scoring kind) was not an experience equivalent to that of reading a great novel like, say, 'The Great Gatsby,' because games don't delve very deeply into what it means to be human."

Comments

Epic Ebert

[ampathee]

For a second there, I thought the article was about a controversial game coming out on a future release of Ubuntu.

Re:What the fuck?

[Ian Action]

Of course all videogames aren't art. It's the same concept behind not considering a headshot art, or some jackass banging his hands on a piano as art.

If you'd seen some of the headshots I've seen, you'd take that back.

Epic Ebert Videogame

[hchaput]

I would like to weigh in on "The Epic Ebert Videogame Debate" and say, categorically, NO! There should be NO EPIC EBERT VIDEOGAME!

Let's face it, Ebert is epic enough as it is.

What it means to be Human in a Game?

[zmilo]

Usually 1 extra feat, plus +4 skill points / lvl.

Oh, and Common.

Re:Not that you don't sound good, but...

[theStorminMormon]

Although I actually thought the snobbish argument was rather insightful, someone please mod this up as well.

And while we're at it, someone should make a latin phrase for "relying on latin phrases to sound authoritative in arguments"

-stormin