Slashdot Mirror
Ebert Reclassifies Games as Sports
You may recall last year's spirited debate touched off by film critic Roger Ebert's assertion that games are not art. He's once again touching that nerve, this time stating that he was too loose with his words. He points out that 'a soup can' can be art; what he meant to say is that games cannot be 'high art'. Says Ebert: "How do I know this? How many games have I played? I know it by the definition of the vast majority of games. They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in Myst, and (3) player control of the outcome. I don't think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports." The critic goes on to discuss comments from Clive Barker from last year, a gent who took great exception to Ebert's view.
You only need look at Ebert to realize that he understands even less about sports than he does about gaming.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
...where does Mario Paint fit in?!
That's right. For example, most online FPS games make me feel lame and inadequate most the time and then, when someone's connection dies or they have to go feed their cat and I finally manage to kill someone, it aides my ability to delude myself into thinking I might be getting better.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Dammit!!!! I was so close to the end. Thanks!
Then there's that old classic tic-tac-toe where you're always a hero -- tragic or victorious.