>To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.
—Roger Ebert
Jawdropping statement. Really something to sink your teeth in.
The end is correct.
The beginning is incorrect because he is trying to sneak in filmmakers with poets and novelists and composers. Film is the junk food of art, just like videogames.
Yes.
Jokes aside, before dying he retracted his "video games can never be art and are a waste of time" statement.
Essentially he didn't really play video games at all.
His last statement was along the lines of
>sry i don't actually play any of that gay shit lol brb dying
Brainlet quote. Gaymen is too young for it to have definitive "greats."
Feel bad for him, died before he could experience Undertale.
no and he got punished with deadly cancer for his stupid statement
Video games are art, a lot of people just don't want them to be.
Based
They are a amalgam and driven for cash. Basically, videogames are the artistic equivalent of a Marvel movie
>worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers.
This guy thought that movies are comparable with poems, plays, paintings, novels etc. Tells you everything you need to know really
All games? Every single one of them?
Unironically yes, video games will never be art. In fact, all art made in this day and age can never be art.
Art has become a meme.
I think he compliments video gamers in that they would be reading good literature instead of watching stupid shit on cable if there were no video games.
They're all amalgams, yes. They're all made for profit too.
>>To my knowledge
Yes, almost impossible to be wrong with such a statement. His knowledge might've been lacking, but that doesn't make his statement wrong.
Spoken like someone who thinks AAA games by big publishers are literally all the video games that exist.
This fucker is the sole reason why my favorite movie (Brazil) only has a 98% instead of a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. He was the only critic on there that gave it a bad score
First of all, I don't think you know what the word amalgam means.
Second of all: so are other media.
Big suprise you've never heard of freeware games.
Ebert was a fucking hack.
Spoken like someone that thinks videogame corporations are their friends and making pieces of meaningful art.
He was hardly ever right and I have no idea why anyone sucked his dick. This man shat on Die Hard, but praised Paul Blart. Which is a comedy Die Hard.
This has nothing to do with being or not being art. Dostoevsky wrote some of his books just to pay his debts.
You're retarded. Videogames are an amalgam artform. They're mixed media.
Freeware games were basically terrible amateur products or trying to sell you a full game.
One person trying to make a buck from their skills is different then a group of kikes trying to maximize profits.
So yes, you do admit to thinking that AAAs by big publishers are the only games in existence. Maybe you should stop posting now.
You are confusing freeware with shareware. You really don't know anything.
>You're retarded. Videogames are an amalgam artform. They're mixed media.
Oh. Like most other media? The fuck has that to do with anything?
he never played Planescape Torment
?
Media? Yes.
Art? No.
I always loved agreeing with Ebert because it made people absolutely fucking buttmad.
Bullshit. All fiction in itself is a waste of time. Those great artists from the past are only worth time because there is a whole industry of people teaching and learning about them. Cultured in this case means learning about those works of fiction, which makes the whole argument circular. Written drama, films, novels were all regarded as worthless hobbies by the contemporaries, and only in time they get any value. Same is going to happen to games.
The fuck are you trying to say here? Can you actually formulate an argument for a change?
I don't admit to anything of the sort. Plenty of smaller studios are full of greedy kikery. If you think they're not, you're naive and know nothing about videogame development. Sometimes you get some special cases like games developed by small teams or even individuals, but that's about it.
How do you live with knowing that you are a trash?
Based and redpilled.
ITT: gamer cope support
I guarantee this man has never sat through an entire game from start to finish.
>I don't admit to anything of the sort.
You said:
>They are a amalgam and driven for cash. Basically, videogames are the artistic equivalent of a Marvel movie
And then you said:
>Spoken like someone that thinks videogame corporations are their friends and making pieces of meaningful art.
It's time to stop posting.
Amalgam art is mostly dogshit devoid of any artistic merit. Too many people with different visions and half the people are just wageslaves or phoning it in. Just open up Steam or Netflix and look at all that art!
>NOOOOOOO MUH GAMES ART LOOK AT THIS LUDONARRATIVE R E S O N A N C E
Oh grow up. It's just one old dude saying your hobby isn't art.
Videogames are intrinsically art, it's funny to watch boomers trip over themselves to deny it and pretentious millennials trying so hard to justify it.
Holy fuck you're retarded. When did he say he thinks AAA publishers are the only ones in existence?
Keep coping faggot.
>wtf how does form of art that is couple of decades old didn't produce as mush masterpieces as forms of art that are century or thousands of years old
This is truly a mystery
They're as much art as a chess board.
Okay retardo:
Where did I say,
>So yes, you do admit to thinking that AAAs by big publishers are the only games in existence.
Please show me without jumping to assumptions or putting words in my mouth.
Yea Forums btfo forever.
There was no cope. Why do you people even bother attempting to argue when you lack even the elementary ability and knowledge for it?
A more NPC statement has never been uttered. Yeah no shit a medium this fucking young doesn't measure up. I like how he sneaked movies in there though, because they're the video games of his generation, and are now socially respectable as an art form, yet will never measure up to the greats either.
fuck off, Carlitto
I disputed your idea that only big publisher AAA games exist, and then you said:
>Spoken like someone that thinks videogame corporations are their friends and making pieces of meaningful art.
You just couldn't comprehende any possibility other than me cheerleading for big publishers even though I just said that's not all video games are.
He is correct.
Or you know, all of cinema and theatre, apparently. Because, you know, it's exactly the same deal.
Again, argument you moron. You have to make a claim and a line of reasoning that supports it. Is that really that much to ask of you?
Not really my problem. Saying shit solely because it "makes people mad" is. That is a behavior that is not really tolerated even to children above the age of 12. A grown up man doing that shit is fucking despicable.
How do you live knowing that you are less than an annoying brat?
So pretty high art then.
You either disregard all fiction as a waste of time or accept that anything that involved creative input is art. Doesn't mean that all art is good, obviously, but games are as much art as a filmmaker pointing a camera at an actor and having 99% of the movie being CGI, or a writer simply wanting to pay his rent or even writing something he himself doesn't like, like Clockwork Orange.
lmao I had to look up who this ugly bastard was on wikipedia
>film critic
I can't think of anything that's more of a loss of those 'precious hours' than film criticism.
Men shoveling shit on a farm serve this world a better purpose than he ever did.
Feels pretty good honestly. You have no idea how many autistic tirades people on different forums have gone whenever I mention him.
Chess isn't art, it's a game. Why do zoomers find this so hard to comprehend?
>This medium that is less than 50 years old has nothing on these mediums with hundreds of years under their belt
People get paid to say this shit?
>I like saying and agreeing with things purely on the merit that it makes others upset :)
Proof that people literally never, ever "grow up". You're the same dipshit you were at high school if you still lived a comfortable life ever since. Nothing changes people except adversity, and what would you know, even a stubborn old dipshit retracted his statement when he was about to croak.
Movies aren't art either.
You do realize that still makes you worse than any of the people throwing the tirades, right?
i dunno op was he? instead of being a faggot as usual name a game that fits the criteria.
He didn't play games and wasn't invested in his opinion of them.
It's like asking some guy who writes textbooks about painting what he thinks about the artistic merit of moving pictures back when kino was starting out.
youtube.com
Quick reminder to the best description of a critic.
Yeah sure but I already know I'm a piece of shit. Might as well revel in it.
When people pretend the opposite, yea.
Die Hard's on his list of the greatest movies of all time. You're getting mixed up.
>Spoken like someone that thinks videogame corporations are their friends and making pieces of meaningful art.
≠
>So yes, you do admit to thinking that AAAs by big publishers are the only games in existence. Maybe you should stop posting now.
These are two completely different statements.
You can't even """comprehende""" what I said without making up your own schizoid narrative in your head. Take your pills. If you can't argue a basic point without strawmen and making up false assertions in your head, stop posting.
Reminder that all the greats in history were considered hacks and nut jobs in their own times.
It is not our generation that chooses the greats, but the future generations that do.
I just explained this to you, right here: Now fuck off.
JESUS, OH SHIT!!!OH FUCK!!! MUH DICK IS GETTING TOO HARD FOR THIS BEAUTY. XCUSE ME GENTLMEN, I GOTTA GO TO THE LAVATORY FOR A FEW MINS
Mozart, Shakespeare, and Beethoven were considered hacks?
Playing chess is an art, the amalgam of materials that constitutes a chess board is also art.
Why not kill yourself?
Or maybe stop being shit?
It will make you sleep better.
>Video games are art, a lot of people just don't want them to be.
More like video games are art, but way too many people try to force them to be.
A genuine, heartful game developed out of passion by a group of friends who just want to make something fun is more likely to end up a work of art than a thousand tryhards who set off to make "their artistic masterpiece".
Art trying too hard to be art will always be shit.
And it is non-sequitur, a strawman, and an assertion. Learn to argue and come back.
You are salty and retarded little faggot that can't spell or argue. If you can't argue without assertions or strawmen, leave.
is that the guy who wrote cheap porn movies before some tabloid picked him up?
Cinema and theatre are shit. Sucks to be you, because you can't prove otherwise.
Why does it even matter?
Art has never been truly defined. And a lot of modern art is considered elaborate trash by most outside of a small self-centred artsy circle
Who cares
Are you the guy who keeps saying "amalgam" because you just learn the word, but could not be bothered to learn how to you it correctly?
Because you don't really have much to stand on yourself.
Cringe
>text adventures are amalgams
Tell me more idiot
This. I can’t wait for this “games MIST be art!!!” phase to end.
So your argument is "I'm so cool because I just keep saying everything is shit" then?
Do you not hear how sad it is?
I told you that games aren't just big publisher AAAs. You responded by claiming that I must be a big publisher fanboy, because you could not comprehend the idea of games being something other than big publisher AAAs. This factually happened and you cannot take it back. So fuck off and stop posting. You totally lost and there's nothign you can do about it.
Video games were a thing in some form or another since the the mid-1950s, making them well into 60-year mark. In that timeframe film had matured into a healthy diverse market with many great works produced like Citizen Kane.
He still shit on it when it came out, especially because of the black cop's role. His overall opinion changed over the years.
This retard also hated Lethal Weapon. Who the fuck hates Lethal Weapon?
>mid-1950s
Fuck off bullshitter.
>Are you the guy who keeps saying "amalgam" because you just learn the word, but could not be bothered to learn how to you it correctly?
I'm sorry what? Nigger, do you speak English? This is an English website you dumb ESL nigger.
And nice deflection. Nice assumption.
I like how this is the standard on Yea Forums """arguments""": just distract as much as possible from the fact you fucked up with every diversion you can while claiming an assertion that was never made to strawman the opposition.
Because games aren't allowed to be elitist or made for higher intelligence audiences. If they are journalists shit all over it for not being accessible.
>But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.
You spent your life constantly watching movies and talking about them. You only worked on one movie and it was writing for Return to the Valley of the Dolls which was retarded as fuck and in no way contributed to the enrichment of culture, civilization or promote empathy seeing how it makes its villain a crazed transwoman for no real reason other than it needed a " crazy twist."
Ever seen Amadeus? The line "it has too many notes" actually happened in real life.
You're doing it again:
Making an assertion to strawman the point.
You lost because you don't understand the basics of argumentation.
THIS factually happened. You can't take it back. There's nothign you can do about it.
There was no fucking strawman for fuck's sake you goddamn moron. You made it very clear that in your mind only big publishers exist. WHY are you still going on about this?
First of all, not the same guy: suprisingly, there are more people around here that think you are genuinely retarded. You still have not addressed that guys actual argument, which is that there are games that aren't made by large corporation. Plenty of them. Since the closest to an actual argument you ever got was the claim that games are shit because they are made by huge studios seeking nothing but profit, this is a huge hole in your pseudo-argument.
Your other two "arguments" are saying the word amalgam over and over, and saying everything is shit.
Again: Do you not fucking see the problem?
Films are a lower form of entertainment and expression than games.
That's not what I believe you dumb fucking nigger and your making up your own schizo talking points in your head. This is why you lost.
Any game that's made in a studio is made by a corporation. Those are the facts. There are very few projects that can claim otherwise. Do you understand? It being AAA or not doesn't matter.
I don't understand why 'art' is associated with the small independent things and boring "intellectual" content.
The famous works we regard as classics are as more often mainstream as fuck and were often looked down on in their time and only gained popularity as artists reference and copy them.
so movies aren't art either
Got it
Yup. People have shit in a can, sealed it, called it art, and sold it. What is or isn't ""art"" is completely subjective.
Also that faggot probably hasn't even played video games so no one should care what he has to say about them.
>faggot who doesn't even watch movies tries to critique anything
the constant lying is what lead to his jaw cancer and eventual death, same goes for his butt buddy siskel with the brain tumor.
Then why did you immediately assume I must be a big publisher fanboy, dumb nigger?
They're art alright. Just dogshit low IQ art.
reminder he considered one game art and that was cosmology of kyoto
Except games made by small studios, or even one guy? Do you not know what a corporation is on top of all the other things you are getting wrong?
According to Wikipedia:
>The earliest known electronic computer games actually implemented were two custom built machines called Bertie the Brain and Nimrod, which played tic-tac-toe and the game of Nim, respectively. Bertie the Brain, designed and built by Josef Kates at Rogers Majestic, was displayed at the Canadian National Exhibition in 1950, while Nimrod, conceived by John Bennett at Ferranti and built by Raymond Stuart-Williams, was displayed at the Festival of Britain and the Berlin Industrial Show in 1951.
>Perhaps the first game created solely for entertainment rather than to demonstrate the power of some technology, train personnel, or aid in research was Tennis for Two, designed by William Higinbotham and built by Robert Dvorak at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in 1958.
>inb4 citing wikipedia
Wouldn't we have our "Gone with the Wind" at this point? Is it Halo? Doom?
Any wanker that listens to classical music (any music) and claims this same stance can fuck off up into their own asshole.
Because the big things target larger audiences to make more money and to capitalise on the recent trend. As such are less creative, challenging and different because that's risky and won't make money.
>Art exists for the self and design exists for everyone else
Most games are not art, even the games that pretend to be art are not art. Most are insecure facsimillies of art, which is why they so frequently exist in reference to traditional artforms which are deemed 'legitimate' by an insecure intelligentsia we are all forced to endure. The game is cinematic they declare so it must be art because it is like a movie, this game is all narrative so it must be art because it is like a book. Outside of gender politics how man insightful criticisms can any of the critics in this industry muster? Surely if games are art they should be able to ascertain some kind of weltanschauung or underlying concept in a game but they cannot. When The Last of Us, God of War and Bioshock Infinite are elevated as cultural pinnacles of video game art you know the industry is fucked because their writing is on par with young adult novels and they have the conceptual depth of a blockbuster film.
What's also funny is that many famous paintings and sculptures were just commissions for the rich.
imagine being famous for critiquing films. kek
also this retard died at 70. people ITT will have more hours on this earth than he ever did and they also don't necessarily look like freaks either
A corporation is a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law. But we're talking about its usage more as a business. Small studios are corporations if they have filed the meaningful paperwork. Do you not know what a corporation is? There are probably some studios that don't register as businesses, but those would be extremely rare.
>Writing off an entire form of media as not art
Fastest way to mark yourself as a Luddite.
Incredibly so.
Mozart was considered an eccentric moron at best, Shakespeare was a shitty writer who could only get by writing plays lampooning nobility (Romeo and Juliet was a low key comedy), Beethoven was supposed to have stuck to writing noncy court pieces.
Your post is not art
Whatever "new media" comes after games will be held up to it in the same way these mongoloids have been doing with media n and media n-1 for hundreds of years. In fact, people already pull that shit with PC > Console > Mobile in a way.
It wasn't until you replied to it with that statement. Now it's high art.
No, he's wrong. Undertale is better than all of those
You know nothing about Mozart and the bars apparently. Mozart was a celebrity during his time and Shakespeare was considered to be the English's answer to Lope de Vega and Lope de Rueda.
what's wrong with his butterface? lmao
>two machines that were more showcases of rudimentary programming, one of them on the completely solved game of tic-tac-toe
>representing the meaningful beginning of video games as a media
This is like me claiming that the first stage plays are the beginning of movies as a medium, and stage plays have been around for at least 2000 years.
This
The nigger also gave The Usual Suspects one star. He had no real taste.
Actually, the thing that defines a corporation as distinct from a private enterprise, is the limited liability and distributed ownership, you mongoloid: but at this point your argument somehow regressed to the fact that games are not art because those who make them are legally registered somewhere as enterprises and thus liable to pay taxes?¨
Aside from that NOT being true as there are literally thousands of free games that do not require their makers to register shit: what kind of fucking argument is that?
The exact same is true of anyone who does anything for living, you mongoloid. Where is the fucking LOGIC of your reasoning? Premise, conclusion you fuckwit: can you make it. A is true because of B? For someone screeching a lot about how others can't argue properly, you sure as fucking hell suck at it yourself.
We are not even 2 decades past the point where games started being more than just primitive pixel mush with story written in 1 sentence on separate txt file
Who fucking cares what Rotten Tomatoes says, on there Wonder Woman is 98%
He literally had to have his lower jaw removed due to cancer.
Games have been far more limited by technology in the past and did not have the massive popularity and funding films have until very recently.
rogerebert.com
>Paul Verhoeven is facing in the other direction. He wants to depict the world of the future as it might have been visualized in the mind of a kid reading Heinlein in 1956. He faithfully represents Heinlein's militarism, his Big Brother state, and a value system in which the highest good is to kill a friend before the Bugs can eat him.
Imagine being retarded enough to think that Starship Troopers was a celebration of Heinlein not an absolute lampooning. Why did people take this guy seriously?
>To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers.
True due to the "to my knowledge" part
> That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept.
True when it was said, as he could accept it at that moment
> But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.
False, the hours were not lost, they were spent.
>—Roger Ebert
True, he said it
So all in all, he was 1/4 wrong. You can't be just 75% right so he was wrong
Ever seen him talk? Shit will fuck you up. I have no idea how you'd live like that, i feel like if you laid down half your face would go down your throat.
You're making up your own definition of a corporation to claim it's different from other enterprise but this is a distraction. It's also dishonest.
The point is this:
I never said games weren't art: I said they were shitty art, which is true. Lump them in with music videos and anime.
Videogames don't approach art because the writing is often poor, with no clear themes and nothing to think about. Videogame choices tend to lead nowhere, and even games split into seperate storylines by choices e.g. Undertale end up being nothing more than a gimmick. The underlying themes and writing are so basic only a child would think them deep.
Of a few games I've personally played, only Deus Ex and Earthbound spring to mind as ones being worthy of note. Deus Ex gives the player plenty to think about with its interesting amalgamation of conspiracy theories, making us question the nature of power as it blurs closely with our real-life world. Deus Ex also uses a lot of factual data that is completely real, leading the curious gamer to research further. That is art.
Earthbound was created by a renowned advertising copywriter, Itoi (he actually created the profession in Japan). The game is very spiritual and uses the theme of psychic powers to explore the concept of family and friendship throughout. The beauty is in the writing however, particularly sequences such as the coffee breaks, and the playful nature of conversations throughout the game. It has no melodrama to speak of like normal JRPGs but moves you because of its humanist dialogue. It needs no sequences where characters break down into a bawl to inject a soulful feeling of sadness. This is art.
rogerebert.com
>"The Thing" is a great barf-bag movie, all right, but is it any good? I found it disappointing, for two reasons: the superficial characterizations and the implausible behavior of the scientists on that icy outpost.
What did he mean by this?
Am I a brainlet if I think video games are more valuable than poetry, films novels etc? You need a degree of critical thinking to play video games since they are an active process and thus many times more stimulating.
>we've had this thread 1000s of times
>we have disproven his argument 1000s of times
>but because OP just learned about him today in primary school, the thread goes up yet again
I tire of zoomers
>art = good writing
>art = clear themes
Certified brainlet post.
Lovecraft wrote his spooky stories to make ends meet. He didn't regard his own writing as art. Now his self admitted hack jobs are hailed as 'too smart to be adapted'.
Trying to cater to an audience is part of of any art, what matters is the end product, not the compromises you had to make along the way.
Retards tend to think that scientists are cold and calculating emotionless robots
No shit he didn't regard his shit as art, because it's terribly written. Have you ever read Lovecraft?
>using Earthbound as an example
Well now I'm convinced of your initial statement.
>Trying to cater to an audience is part of of any art
I disagree. Have you not noticed that the new 'big thing' in whatever art form is often something so new and creative nobody has done it before, and then becomes popular. They're doing something different, they are expressing themselves without fear of the reception they will recieve.
>they are expressing themselves without fear of the reception they will recieve
At lot of the time it seems they are trying to do something different because it gets them more attention.
>You're making up your own definition of a corporation to claim it's different from other enterprise but this is a distraction. It's also dishonest.
Actually, I'm literally reading it out from legal business guidelines both for US and my country, but you are right. It is a distraction: one that YOU made specifically. You used the word corporation because of it's vaguely negative association to distract people from the fact that you lack any actual argument.
Now we can add the word "art" to the list of concepts you don't understand on top of that. Also if I'm not mistaken you wrote off cinema and theatre in the same fashion (thus writing off works of such people as Shakespear, Chekov, Tarkovsky, Kubric or Tarr.
And now you are adding music videos, including works of such persons Sednaoui or Cunningham.
Great job dude. Really powerful argumentation that you are bringing to the table.
>is often something so new and creative nobody has done it before, and then becomes popular
Did you not go to school? Like - ever?
I've read most of his works, and I do know that the dialogue and general style sucks. I haven't read the dream quest thing.
t. people that could not comprehend an art exhibit
No, video games are art. Now people just need to realise that "art" doesn't automatically mean good, meaningful or important
>old fart talking about a medium he has no relation to
He's right. The minute games aspired to be artful is the minute they stopped being passion projects. Games can be art, but that doesn't mean they should be, or need to be. Why people pushed for the validation of video games as an artform I have no idea.
>Why people pushed for the validation of video games as an artform I have no idea.
Because they're tired of games being censored.
Games are art
Games that try to be art fail at being an artful game, but they can succeed at being an artful audiovisual interactive experience
The best example of an artful GAME is Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3
>Why people pushed for the validation of video games as an artform I have no idea.
Because any medium strives for value eventually.
ebert obviously never played video games so he freely talked shit about them without much care. video games can have same amount of artistic merit as any other artform. earthworm jim was a deconstruction of 2d platformers all the way back in 94. you can either ignore it or acknowledge it
How often is the "new big thing" also targeted at an existing audience?
Lovecraft didn't start the weird story magazines that hired him and there were other online shooters before pubg.
Any new big thing is just a spin on an old thing, Don Quixote was a parody of a preexisting genre but now it's more famous then that entire genre.
If you're making something you're copying someone.
I can't respect the opinion of anyone who shit on Starship Troopers and Freddy Got Fingered
Why do Amerilards worship those retards? Every time i watched on of their movie reviews they came out as ignorant or biased pompous mongs. They made so many wrong calls it's ridiculous.
He also shat on The Thing, I can't believe people respect him.
That's a retarded meme. Books/music/film can be as stimulating, strenuous and difficult as any video game, if not more. Of course you're gonna pay attention and devote yourself to those things when you're consuming them, the only difference with video games is how you're forced to do that anyway. Oh, and you're pressing buttons. How much food for thought you're left with afterwards depends, although you and I both know that video games usually aren't huge in that department.
>More like video games are art, but way too many people try to force them to be.
This, please stop trying to force this shit. If you have to keep calling it art, I wouldn't consider it art at all.
It all looks like some attempt to make video games seem mature.
Why is this video game board the only place that has an actual discussion about this? Everywhere else people rather just circle jerk the same opinion, it can't all be bait posts
Well, I think video games have the potential to produce some incredibly strong emotions and some of them are harder to create in other environments because video games are interactive. Have you ever felt the same adrenaline rush in a movie that you get when you have a timer running down and you have to escape? Ever played Descent? I bet no other form of entertainment can provide you with such a thrilling sensation (well maybe professional fighting and extreme sports etc).
At the same time I don't think just straight up telling stories is very good idea in video games, the interaction between the medium and the player has to be used in a meaningful way, just being an observer to stuff on the screen is boring
Yea Forums is filled with angry people that range from slightly above average to far above average intelligence. Considering that most videogame players are dullards in every way, that's why there is a difference.
To put it another way, Yea Forums is filled with people that went to regular forums and got sick of the ass kissing and forced consensus that is found when usernames are involved.
>Am I a brainlet if I think video games are more valuable than poetry, films novels etc?
Yes. Even very little children can comprehend most games, very few of them require anything more than very, very basic capacity to learn.
Games are not inherently any more or less valuable than any other medium. Of course since their history is fairly short and the library of really valuable works is limited compared to older and more established media.
Die Hard's actually a good example of why people like Ebert though. Far too many critics try to play it safe or give opinions that aren't controversial. Ebert always gave sincere opinions that were genuinely his own and he was always open to revising his opinion if he later changed it. It's a lot more refreshing and a lot more useful than the sort of bland safe opinions most critics are given even if it means he regularly gave opinions that were at odds with the general consensus.
>Games can be art, but that doesn't mean they should be, or need to be.
why should any medium be used for art? why is any medium needed over any other?
buddy i think you're missing the point of art, it's supposed to be superfluous.
why ugg make wall hands when me have carvings already? ugg stoopid.
Correct. Film is for faux-intellectuals. Patricians gravitate towards written work, including music.
>wow all music is just these shitty black and white scribbles on paper, these can't be called paintings, music isn't art
Basically every boomer art critic or artist talking about video games
I don't really agree with this. I consider games art, but they still have to catch up to other mediums and make meaningful use of what makes them unique. Mainstream games rely too much on the audiovisual aspect, and it that regard, they do a good job at reproducing films. Arthouse films can convey things through a combination of imagery and sound unique to cinema, but most artsy games rely on this more than they do on the interactivity that makes the medium unique. Modern games are often little more than interactive films.
Are you actually implying that all of the other art forms weren't made for profit? Really?
Venetian, Genoese, Florentian and Veronese noblemen would like few words with you
That deluded fuckass praised Home Alone 3 higher that the previous titles, look it up
>Modern games are often little more than interactive films.
Everybody talks about how games should do this, but when Pathologic 2 came out, nobody fucking cared.
Believe it or not Yea Forums has the best format for discussion because it doesn't matter if people are split 20/80 on a topic because those 20% can't be shut down, you actually have to persuade them.
On any other site you're conditioned to post the most widely agreeable thing for internet points and visibility.
Video games are meant to be a pick-me-up, not an art form. If I really wanted to appreciate fine details I'd watch videos, not be tortured by the media I'm using to escape my real-life problems. There's a reason I dislike life lessons being pushed into a game's narrative.
If trash like Jack And Jill or Twilight get to be considered art solely because of the format they're on, then maybe it's better if videogames aren't considered art
>They are die Gesamtkunstwerke
FTFY
The only games that manage to be genuinely meaningful works of art are games which don't try to be knock-off films or books. In its early days, film tried too hard to imitate theatre, it only started to produce genuine art when directors began to embrace the things that only film can do - cinematography, cutting and mixing these together in creative ways.
Lots of video game critics don't seem to understand this either, they give massive credit to something like Gone Home at the time because they saw it as artistic, but walking simulators are only ever going to produce knock off and poor quality novels because they aren't making use of gameplay, which is the most unique part of the medium.
Games which actually should get some artistic credit are games which use gameplay itself, along with writing, sound etc. to create an atmosphere or tone rather than trying to remove gameplay.
For example:
Pathologic
Stalker
Planescape Torment
DEFCON
These games actively use their mechanics to improve the overall experience and atmosphere.
Buster Keaton turned film into an artform a decade after cinema became a thing. Video games have had 5 decades and the only game that can come close to be "art" is Planescape Torment and even then it's more like a highly interactive novel.
He had garbage taste in film so I wouldn't trust his taste in video games either.
I blame the gaming press, critics reviewed it as if every part of it was separate and argued that it had great writing and frustrating mechanics. These people were completely incapable of realizing how much the mechanics add to the atmosphere.
That's why you don't eat the tuna guys, don't do it, it's not worth it.
>These people were completely incapable of realizing how much the mechanics add to the atmosphere.
More like how the mechanics are INTEGRAL ELEMENT OF THE FUCKING STORY TO BEGIN WITH. THEY ARE. THE FUCKING STORY.
God I'm so fucking angry with this. But I'm also pissed how few people actually tried the damn game, despite everyone saying how we need games like it.
Utterly based.
At least some people did. I'm praying they at least made enough to justify releasing Bachelor, even if we end up having to pay for it.
Most likely, they did not. But we'll see. I just would recommend not being overtly optimistic at this point. The industry has utterly failed on this.
Depends on what you mean by walking sim. Stanley Parable and Yume Nikki can only work as games, even though you don't really do anything except walk around.
What does this have to do with the artwork itself?
>"ahaha this Beethoven symphony is trash because a rich guy PAID him to make it lolololo"
kys
>lewd artist becomes confident enough to do commisions
>immediately decide to never fap to him again, as he is doing it for money, so its not art or hot
Who cares what some literally who snob said?
Because a lot of people think that art can only come from some pure state devoid of any financial compensation.
>Doing it for the art, man, not for the Man, man.
That sort of thing.
If you are trying to compare something like mario 64 to the fucking odyssey, obviously, video games can't be like that.
But as an artistic medium, Video Games have several.
>Film is the junk food of art
There are shitloads of films that are beyond you, I guess.
>Early in the next millennium, mankind is engaged in a war for survival with the Bugs, a vicious race of giant insects that colonize the galaxy by hurling their spores into space. If you seek their monument, do not look around you: Bugs have no buildings, no technology, no clothes, nothing but the ability to attack, fight, kill and propagate. They exist not as an alien civilization but as pop-up enemies in a space war.
He's landed impressively far from the point.
>Film is the junk food of art
Someone unironically thinks this.
How sad.
Boring comment made by someone who doesn't like video games as a medium.
expression through gameplay is something that gets completely ignored, even by the gaming industry itself.
it frustrates me to no end cos i believe it's really the only thing that really makes video games a unique medium & yet it goes completely passed over. it's a shame really
if you want an easy example to use while talking about gameplay's potention for artistic expression then 1980's arcade game Missile Command is a great choice.
simple enough to keep the discussion focused & on topic while also being expressive enough to analyse it as an art piece. its developer Dave Theurer has even done interviews talking about how the game has affected him personally & how his personal beliefs influenced gameplay decisions.
There is no question whether Video Games are art
The real question is, are there any Video games that are actually Good Art?
I bet Ebert had someone masticate his food, and then feed him like a baby bird.
Daily reminder that Roger Ebert
>said The Thing (1984) was an awful movie
>Gave Tora! Tora! Tora! a low/mediocre review because "hurr I already know what happened at Pearl Harbor so I don't care durr" but then gave a higher score to Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor
>Spent his entire review of Predator whining about how he couldn't understand the alien's motivation
Actually, "good art" is redundancy. Being art already implies some kind of exceptional value to begin with.
That said, yeah - couple. IPL games in particular come into mind.
None of that changes the fact he's right about vidya not being art.
>whining about how he couldn't understand the alien's motivation
The predator is obviously hunting for sport, what is there to not understand?
>Actually, "good art" is redundancy.
Then what do you call bad art?
Because by your definition, that's a contradiction
Video games are way too young of a medium to have reacheds its cultural/artistic potential.
It might take several decades or centuries even.
>Then what do you call bad art?
Not art. We sometimes use the term "bad art" as a shorthand for saying "something that tries to be art, but ultimately fails". And of course, there is the other use of the word art, actually refering art asset of some sort, so it's reasonable to say "the art in this game is pretty horrendeous", because the context makes it clear you are simply saying that the assets are poorly made.
But yeah, if we want to talk about art as an institution, "bad art" is a contradiction. If it's bad, it's simply not art at all.
In the grand scheme of things, films are pretty new too. So I don't get what you're on about.
None of those games are art, you pretentious nitwit
>Not art
Then who gets to decide if something is Art or not, since something being Art by your definition is subjective?
Also, where are the boundaries of something being Art and something being not Art?
When does something transition from being not Art into being actual Art?
If your logic counts the first experiments with games in fifties, then cinema has been around since early 19th century, if not longer.
yes, but I balance myself out by doing nothing but playing video-games for weeks and then turning to nothing but culture for weeks
How is that a fact?
He didn't even play videogames so his opinion is moot on default.
would an artist earlier work not be considered art purely for being of lower quality than their more recent works then? that seems counter-intuitive to me.
i think bad art exists & is just as much art as good art is, even if it's less effective at evoking a response.
A) stop posting this fucking picture its horrifying. Jesus christ if i ever get my jaw cut out i would have the decency to legacy of kain that shit so people didnt have to look at it.
B) video games aren't art and when you hit your knees tonight you need to thank your creator for that. Artists fucking suck. They are a bunch of pretentious, self absorb, poseurs. All they do is sit around in giant circle jerks huffing their own farts while discussing big brain topics like "are video games art?" Seriously fuck every single one of the drug addled fucks. If you think Yea Forums is contrarian hang out with some fucking music people or go to a modern art gallery sometime.
I found the low iq retard, look I know you can't recognise visual patterns very well but that doesn't mean that art-films have no meaning
Art is not subjective. It transitions into Art when intellectuals deem it to be Art. The general boundary is how easy it is to swallow. It's why there is a definition between pop-culture and art. Videogames are pure pop-culture, because the intellect required to understand them is low and they add nothing to the human condition
Neither does Yea Forums but this thread will still get 300 posts
>This post
>Then who gets to decide if something is Art or not, since something being Art by your definition is subjective?
It's a discursive matter, with academia having arguably the biggest authority in our current society. Which makes it not subjective, but rather normative.
>Also, where are the boundaries of something being Art and something being not Art?
Whenever the given society places them, that is the point. Different eras and different societies adhere to different value systems, which is why people tend to be confused about it. But almost universaly there tends to be a circle of some kinds of experts with authority (elites, philosophers, in some eras even religious authorities) that set examples and models for what is art and what is not.
>When does something transition from being not Art into being actual Art?
When you succesfully convince enough people to treat it as such.
What?
It's a matter of threshold that is largely imposed on the entire medium. If your work passes, then it passes.
art is a meme
Trolling is a art
Games have a difficult task. They have to reveal something about the human condition through the one thing that separates them from movies, which is gameplay. The very act of gameplay forces you to interact and make conscious decisions on your own. You are not simply watching or experiencing art, you are taking part in it. You are being competetive with the game, yourself, or other players. This creates a weird mix of feelings. Gameplay also has to be enjoyable, so whatever message the game is sending (be it a sad story or epic adventure), there is always an overlay of this enjoyment. This fun can detract from the emotions the games story is trying to portray. For example, a game like dark souls that shows this bleak world and tells it's story through this unique atmosphere of opression is helped by the difficulty of its gameplay. The problem is that the player derives a certain type of enjoyment from challenging themselves. This enjoyment is time consuming and takes away from there being a direct emotional message sent from the game, unlike a movie, which can pinpoint these messages and send them to the audience full force without gameplay getting involved.
Yeah, but nothing is inherently art. Most films aren't art, they're just information or entertainment. Something isn't art by virtue of its medium. It's art when it makes full use of its medium's possibilities to tell a story or convey an idea. Games that don't use their mechanics or gameplay as much as they do sight and sound to convey things are not art.
Yes, because I am sure Homer's works became the basis for ancient Greek culture when everyone thought his works were a worthless waste of time Ignorant philistine.
Don Quixote literally created the concept f a canon as soon as it exited.
I was going to ask wtf is wrong with his mouth but then I remembered that he lost his jaw. Poor Ebert.
Anyways, he was wrong. Just goes to show how some people are unwilling to change their viewpoint especially as they grow older.
>Entire argument of Art being not subjective and that Art means of good quality relies upon appealing to authority
Ok mate
>brainlet pretends he is laughing when he understands nothing and feels inferior
Here's two:
Quake 3 arena
Unreal tournament.
Games are fucking games, they aren't movies or books or whatever. They can contain other types of art - they have music, graphics and storyline, but they remain games.
Those two games are fucking art.
There are plenty more too - just think of genre defining games. Most are art.
I do not think you have any idea what appeal to authority means, kid. I know this is very hard to swallow to people like you, because you have been literally trained for insecurity, and any notion that anyone anywhere may have any form of authority causes you to shit your pants: but that is how art works. And always had.
the government of basically any first-world country disagrees with you
That's some good projection you got there.
What kind of resolution does it have?
You're wondering why an academic who clearly never did a bit of physical activity growing up couldn't understand how someone could find enjoyment in hunting. He probably didn't understand why some guys like cars so much.
I do, but you obviously don't.
Here you go:
>Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject.
These academics don't have any process of objectively showing what is and what isn't art, like the science academics and community has, so its hard to take what you say seriously.
Seems like you just don't like certain types of Art and are hiding behind "academics" with no way consistent or methodical way of describing what is and isn't "Art", other than them just saying so, to try and validate your subjective opinion.
Hence you're appealing to authority
Why do you think they aren't?
Bad art is something that fails to convey its message or the message its telling sucks. Knew a guy in art school who wanted to make a piece on how we're destroying Mother Nature and completely fucked it up. He got a headless mannequin which he then made neck covered in blood and painted what he thought was space and Earth (it really didn't look anything like space or Earth) and put broken glass as a means to reflect the viewer in the work. Needless to say all the woman including the female prof tore it to pieces saying how all it reminded them of violence towards women with the bloody neck while also promoting an idealized version of the female body in the mannequin. Absolutely nobody saw "we are destroying Mother Nature" which is also a push of female stereotyping as its applying a gender to nature. He did not get a passing grade on that project.
The more I see this argument brough up, the more I think the Souls approach is probably the best one games have had for a long time, ie gameplay at the forefront, with whatever favors it being a close second (bosses, level design, art direction...) and whichever story there is being told not in excessive cutscenes, but rather having the player put stuff together through several NPCs dialogues and item descriptions.
Because those games are theme park rides, not art. They are experiences, and were not intended to have anything for you to take away and expand your intellect
Just because you endured 45 minutes of a camera slowly zooming into a wall doesn't mean you can call it artistic and worthy of praise. Most artistic movies are worse than "interior semiotics."
seething film school dropouts lmao.
Spoken like a true pretentious hipster.
>amalgam
So you're too stupid to understand how to judge the final output of all elements when they come together.
>driven for cash
So you're too stupid to understand how this not only makes no difference in the realm of artistic expression (i.e. the final output) but makes no difference to the artists either (just the stakeholders and other financiers).
>artistic equivalent of a Marvel movie
So they're art, in other words. Good job making no sense at all.
No, fuck off. It's maths, yes, but not not art you literally have no idea what you are talking about.
Everyone who says that cinema is shit must either be ignorant or as brain-dead as the NPC meme, guess which one you are.
The Passion of Joan d'Arc, Intolerance and Metropolis were some of the most famous films that proved that films can be art. Intolerance was made in 1916, we should at least have something to this level of quality by now. Hell, we don't even have our Utena, Lain or EVA to prove that if a move is made games can become more sophisticated. Do you know why anime in the 70's to 90's was better than the anime now? Because people who made those anime actually read and were more cultured. The problem with video-games is that no one who makes them reads or has any sense of culture, even the artsy-fartsy indie devs only play games so their idea of high-art is that artsy-farty cartoon rubbish. Video-games can never become high-art until devs become more intelligent and cultured in other mediums.
People need to be doing things other than games for games to be good.
You just presented a definition of appeal to authority that proves you wrong.
Appeal to authority is pressenting a statement being true because someone of note claimed it.
It is NOT saying that bodies authority plays a role in a process, you mongoloid. If you asked where does the line between acceptable and punishable behavior come from, and I said "from government that presents laws, and judges that apply them", would you also screech it's an appeal to authority? Are you retarded?
THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU. You quote the very thing that proves you wrong. God dammit.
>hard to take what you say seriously.
Are you legitimately autistic? 99% of all normative systems are not based in process of objectivity. What fucking reality do you live in?
>Seems like you just don't like certain types of Art and are hiding behind "academics" with no way consistent or methodical way of describing what is and isn't "Art"
Ironically, it's the exact opposite: what I'm saying actually means that most of things I absolutely despise and don't think SHOULD be art, sadly are. My entire fucking point is actually that I am not the one making calls here. Again, are you demented? How the fuck did this point fly over your head?
>Artistic equivalent of a Marvel movie
I think the point was to say that most games, like most films, are just entertainment, and fail to fully utilize what makes their respective mediums unique to convey things.
A work only has artistic merit when it fully uses its medium's possibilities to convey things.
But what about Actual Sunlight and Little Red Lie or Tales of Tales' lineup? Or hell David Cage's attempts
What does a Marvel movie not utilize in movies to convey things?
ITT: pretentious hipsters mad other pretentious hipsters dont find their hobby amusing
These games aren't art. They don't use their mechanics and gameplay to convey things in a way a film couldn't.
There is nothing in any other medium that comes even close to the magnitude of Dwarf Fortress
This always fascinate me. What exactly makes the uniqueness so valuable. Just because something is different does not mean it's automatically more valuable. I'm not defending the games listed (as far as I'm concerned they are garbage), but the logic that gameplay somehow matters more than anything else is fascinatingly illogical.
They don't use cinema's unique combination of sight and sound for anything interesting. You can watch the movie without the image or without the sound and you'll get the same thing out of it.
>2 million varieties of identical rocks only differing in name
wow such magnitude
Rookie mistake. Should've turned the violence against mother nature and rotated it to the oppression of third world women.
Spotted the retard who didn't understand Stalker. But what about stuff like Bergman or Eisenstein, or maybe even French New-Wave? Art-films all come in completely different styles and forms, and aren't all the slow films that you have in your head.
Literally no art-film is "45 minuets of a camera slowly zooming into a wall", that's something close to conceptual art or dada. Films are grounded and based on literature, theatre and painting and form the same type of experience. Your stereotypes are not even based on everything irl, probably just based on a joke made on some cartoon you watched when you were 8 or something
youtube.com
>he ''understands'' movies
brainlet
>You can watch the movie without the image or without the sound and you'll get the same thing out of it.
I really fucking hope this is a shit troll.
Well the point of the cinematography of Stalker is that it's more emotional than metaphorical, in that there is nothing that can be summed up in words, meaning that aside from what's being said there isn't something to understand as much as feel
He should have wrote a book titled "My jaw will never fall off"
I agree that uniqueness doesn't make a work more valuable. My point isn't that gameplay should matter more than story, visuals and sound, but that it should be used as much as these other elements, and bring something. What's the point of telling a story through a game if you don't use its unique interactivity in any meaningful way. You get as much from playing these games as you do just watching them, their gameplay doesn't add much to the experience.
>the message its telling sucks
Well that applies for most of the case, but not always, unless you are a /pol/tard the message of Birth of a Nation is quite horrible and yet it is considered great in how it conveys that message
Mmm yess candy so good good food easy eat it's and art!
Don't fucking delude yourself, this place has mostly below average brainlets with some people that are slightly above average due to a healthy dose of the 'tism.
If people here were actually smart they wouldn't be here.
Now liking anonimity, that is the true reason why we are here.
It's not. I really do think that these films are simple enough to rely solely on visuals or sound to tell their story, and that removing either doesn't make it much harder to follow.
>What's the point of telling a story through a game if you don't use its unique interactivity in any meaningful way.
The same point as it would have in any other medium: TO TELL THE STORY.
I will applaud games like Pathologic 2 that actually use the mechanics to complete the narrative, but I do not see why people state that the unique point of the media (which is basically an arbitrarily assigned formal line for delimination) somehow magically becomes more important.
Games like Homeworld told fantastic stories even though they did not really use the gameplay to convey the narrative.
what are you even talking about? You have it in your head that I am some kind of 60s beatnik post-modern art type.
Just watch at least 15 mins of the film I linked you and tell me what you think about it after
Literally who.
You're retarded. Taking away either the visuals or the sound from those movies would significantly alter the experience and be a detriment to it.
Primitive pixel mush, huh?
Yeah, you fuck right off, zoomer.
games are toys, not art
PS:T is great and all but there are far more "artistic", groundbreaking products by studios like Ice Pick Lodge or Failbetter that go much further in their expression of ludonarrative synthesis. calling PST the height of contemporary vidya art when it came out 20 years ago (and even then it managed to be derivative of a TTRPG franchise) is incredibly ignorant.
Avellone is a good writer but he has never been able to fully wrap his head around designing a compelling RPG system that doesn't inevitably devolve into a bland power fantasy (which is why he shits on them so much in Lonesome Road for FNV).
Middens is art
>Lethal Weapon
>Die Hard
>The Thing
>Starship Troopers
>Predator
these are the movies that Yea Forums thinks are great, I think I'll ignore their opinions on art
>needing to justify your hobby by trying to lump it in with the mess that is "art"
is DnD art? are sports art? No? do people still play them?
Yes, cause they think it's fun
Shut up about "art" and enjoy your fucking video games
to waste your hours to become weak and empathetic, what a joke.
They're certainly not the highest form of the medium but none of them are bad movies
>died in 2013
who cares
art is just entertainment. It is entertainment so it is art.
This weirdly specific definition of what "art" is tiresome.
He is, and isn't right. The problem is the social value of game "culture". People see it as acceptable to gather in order to discuss movies and books, while discussing games with people outside of the internet is seen as some shameful thing. You could also argue that it's a generational thing. I'm 30 and me and the lads go out and we talk about movies, books, music and even sports. But we grew up playing together, and even the guys that stopped playing still enjoy talking about it, and hearing about the new stuff
It's true. In terms of artness:
Dance > Instrumental Music > Painting/Sculpture > Poetry > Theater > Opera > Novels > Film > Photography
Not art:
>pop music
>video games
>comic books
>blorp
Pathologic 1 and 2.
People who think video games are art, are virgins.
People who want video games to be art are the reason that shitty walking simulators with 30 hours of dialogue like the last of us exist.
>Yea Forums is filled with angry people that range from slightly above average to far above average intelligence
This cesspit of underageb& and gullible retards is like a case study in the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you think the average user here is remotely smart I've got some bad news for you.
That's because they're not actual artists but socialist activists using the concept of art as a tool to advance marxism.
> Dance > Instrumental music
Haha, good one user.
That's a good example. Warhol's soup can painting isn't a work of art. It might be aesthetically pleasing, or make you think about what makes art art, but it doesn't use the visual aspect of its medium to convey anything that you couldn't convey by simply saying "can of soup" or writing it on a piece of paper. On the other hand, shadow of the colossus conveys the act and feeling of climbing on top of giants by ways of its powerful music and sound, by showing your character being flung around while he holds on for dear life and by having you physically press and hold a button while managing stamina. The game makes meaningful use of its sound, visuals and mechanics to convey this feeling in a way a piece of music or cinema couldn't. That's what makes it a work of art.
>the reason that shitty walking simulators with 30 hours of dialogue like the last of us exist.
those games are better than most modern games
I would take walking sim over generic platformer/shooter garbage any day
Those are all fantastic films though. Maybe not Starship Troopers but the rest inarguably.
he thought the Star Wars prequels were decent. I don't think i should take his opinions on other things seriously
>Dance above everything
>novels that low
>The game makes meaningful use of its sound, visuals and mechanics to convey this feeling in a way a piece of music or cinema couldn't.
Again the weird exclusionarism. What makes the fact that other medium can't do the same thing somehow the thing in question more valuable?
Giving you another (you) for being the only good post in the thread.
Of course not. Many video games require a certain amount of skill in order to fully appreciate them. Some half-dead old man is never going to understand them, especially one who spent decades of his life criticizing a passive entertainment medium.
I don't even think he was that great of a film critic. The guy gave Revenge of the Sith 3.5/4 stars but shit all over John Carpenter's The Thing.
I disagree; while arcades have been around for a while, they were the equivalent of comics; something to spend a bunch of quarters on during an afternoon. Video games really didn't start until the Magnavox Odyssey, and even then, modern gaming culture didn't come around until the NES. Video games are still a toddler compared to even cinema.
>They are a amalgam and driven for cash.
But movies aren't? Lmfao.
Fuck off Khomeini
Why does video games need to be art in the first place? It's different enough from other entertainment mediums that it should be judged differently.
>But movies aren't? Lmfao.
To his credit, he also later said that movies and theatre are all shit too. So at least he was consistent. But he left a long time ago, so not much point replying to him now.
I hate things like "Gone Home" or those Quantum Dream games; they deliver very little, for being an interactive medium, aside from collectibles and a minor sence of exploration. I really hope that shit like "Bandersnatch" kills more of those games.
Why should we judge them differently, if we judge books, movies, theatre, music or sculptures all the same?
I'm not saying a work's value is inherent to its medium, but rather that it is defined by its ability to fully use the possibilities afforded by that medium to convey what it wants to.
Because those are mediums that you interact with passively. You interact with a video game directly.
They don't need to be art, they can simply be entertainment or information, just like films or books can.
Music is the only form of art superior to video games.
>dance
You bait is a work of art so I'll take it.
>specifying that music should be instrumental
Turbocringe.
>sculpture in the same tier as painting
What an absolute artlet.
>poetry, theater and opera over films
What a pretentious faggot lmao.
>not art
If you think that label "art" must be reserved only for "cool" mediums that you don't know shit about art. Pop music isn't on any fundamental level is different from instrumental music. Elevator music is instrumental music too. You are just retarded.
Photography's status of art is questionable though because it's just a delivery method for other art forms. Photography is literally just "apply composition to random shit".
>art is just a medium for the artist
No.
>said pearl harbor was better than tora tora tora
His opinions are all disregardful after such an implication.
sauce on pic
You're actually a fucking idiot if that's what you think I was saying.
>cultured, civilized and empathetic.
What a pretentious cunt, to presume his definition of art is the end all be all.
But he knew that too, and changed his opinion later.
Shit thread op.
I still don't see the logic in that. Isn't the value in the experience it offers? A very powerful movie working almost entirely through it's music is not necessarily taking full advantage of cut and motion, but it can still be incredibly valuable. I do not think that the particularies of how the impact is achieved should ever matter specifically: only the impact that a work leaves behind.
Firstly, not true. Even if we ignore hypertexual novels, the problem of intepretation and the whole semiotic turn thing, you still have things like dance, martial arts, caligraphy and so on. Those also require direct interaction and yet have been considered art across thousands of cultures and thousands of years: and have not been given some kind of special treatment.
Second: what SPECIFICAL difference does this make? People flaunt around this notion a lot, but nobody actually explain it: everyone acts as if it's self-evident, but it really, really isn't.
Why can't they be both? Art, after all, is a label of prestige and nothing else. What you are effectively suggesting is that games cannot under any circumstances attain greater value, mastery of craft or storytelling. Why?
I don't even understand this argument. Most visual art like paintings and shit aren't making you "expand your intellect" unless you're actively trying to become a painter yourself, at which point literally any viewing of more experienced counterparts would count as "art".
He also thought Starship Troopers was fascist propaganda
The man was an actual brainlet who only stood out because the other critics are somehow even more brainless than he was
Is Yea Forums the only board on this website that holds this much utter fucking contempt for their own hobby? This is like if Yea Forums made thread after thread talking about how anime is shitty and it's for children.
Video games are art. Get over it.
It certainly sounded like that, considering you made an arbitrary division between a video game's interaction and a book's, a movie's, a theatre play's, a song's, etc. when judging these things as art. All these involve interaction, the interaction being "passive" or "direct" doesn't make art an inapplicable term for video games.
there is nothing abstract about video games, it's like a sport but without the skill
people watch people play video games but there's a reason that nobody watches someone read a book
>there's a reason that nobody watches someone read a book
Actually that exists. It's called an audiobook, dumbass.
>What madness is this? What pitiful form is this that I have come to inhabit? Death would be a release, next to this travesty.
Not him and was going to call bullshit on your post, but I can see the comparison. I unironically can't see how people listen to audiobooks all the time; I get a better sense of the book when I read it myself.
RDR2 was much better experience and made me think billions times more than anything (except Blade Runner 2049) Hollywood has come up in last 10 years.
They certainly can, any piece of media can for that matter. I consider art any work that uses its medium's possibilities in equally meaningful ways.
A mixture of several different factors, actually. Partially, a lot of people here don't really see games as their hobby: they come here because they see Yea Forums as their social website, sort of a Facebook for people who nobody wants to talk to on Facebook. It's mostly people who do not care about games, it just happenes that games being arguably most accessible medium, it's the only one they actually were exposed in the first place.
Second problem is the idiotic culture that genuinely thinks being dismissive of something genuinely makes you superior. It ESPECIALLY thrives among particularly poorly educated and insecure people, and see above.
>while discussing games with people outside of the internet is seen as some shameful thing.
But that's just not true. Lots of people gather together and talk about games.
Yea Forums, you guys are aware that video games are a multi-billion dollar industry, right? You're aware that we didn't travel through a portal and return to the 1980s, right? There isn't a stereotypical highschool bully with a leather jacket waiting to break your Nintendo Switch if you play them in public. That doesn't exist. This is a fantasy concocted in your head because of your lack of social interaction, and a mixture of some weird self-persecution complex. At the end of the day, ABSOLUTELY NOBODY gives a fuck if you play video games. That stigma just doesn't exist anymore -- except for like, weird circles of steroid-induced meatheads and boomers.
You aren't gonna end up in a cringe compilation simply because you enjoy video games. It's okay. I'm here for you. We can work through this together. Just stop acting like giant fucking faggots, okay?
Seethe harder
First of all, maybe other people consider dancing to be art but I fucking don't. Even if you do consider something like balet to be art unless you are the person doing the dance you are still appreciating it in the exact same way you appreciate a movie or painting: by watching it passively.
>SPECIFICAL difference
SPECIFICALLY it's that for entertainment mediums like books, movies, theatre, music or sculptures, you stand there and appreciate it with your brain only. Maybe you're a fucking weirdo that needs to touch it or taste it or whatever but most people don't go to an art gallery to put their dick on a sculpture or wipe their ass with a painting. That's why videogames are special and shouldn't be considered art the same way movies are considered art. You're not only using the analytical part of your brain to appreciate a video game, you're using the parts of your brain you need in order to play the game. Your skill at playing the game is a major factor in your ability to appreciate it. You're also using your hands to physically interact with the game. A game like Dwarf Fortress probably looks terrible to casuals like Ebert but here on Yea Forums it's always been considered a classic game for big brain boys.
Video games need to be appreciated differently, maybe it's so different that it really shouldn't be considered traditional art at all, but that doesn't mean video games can't have the same impact on a person as an art piece.
>there is nothing abstract about video games
Gameplay.
No. It's pretty obvious that he never really played video games either. If you go by simple mathematics, there are more aspects to a video game that have to go right than there are for a movie or book. That just means that making a good, artistic video game is that much harder.
Then again making anything of real artistic merit is difficult, considering that there are shallow, meaningless books, music, movies and games released every single day.
Not him either and I don't even do it myself, but I gather the appeal is so you can "read" while doing something else that requires your hands, like driving or repetitive manual labor like mowing lawns, or while working out.
But then there's some people who are just incapable of only doing one thing, so they have to be listening to audiobooks while exercising, doing their taxes, and taking a shit all at the same time to MAXIMIZE EFFICIENCY.
>talked so much shit his jaw fell off
All these involve interaction, the interaction being "passive" or "direct" doesn't make art an inapplicable term for video games.
Maybe you slow your roll there, fuckwad, because that's not what I was saying either. Go exercise your inability to examine a statement correctly on someone else.
Games aren't a written medium, nor are they a static video medium. They're interactive, and as such the thing that makes them special is the Gameplay and interactivity. You could compare some Soundtracks that were recorded by orchestras with the work of past composers or some text and dialogue with a book. But that'd be missing the point in a similar way as comparing a movie screenplay to a book would, when a movie is primarily a visual medium.
>Wouldn't we have our "Gone with the Wind" at this point?
A Tale of Two Sons? Life is Strange?
when I think art I think simple mathematics of aspects that have to go right
>First of all, maybe other people consider dancing to be art but I fucking dont
Nobody cares, frankly.
>You're not only using the analytical part of your brain to appreciate a video game, you're using the parts of your brain you need in order to play the game.
So interpretation isn't a think in your world? Appreciating certain movies, or books is NEVER restricted by your knowledge of the medium now?
Nothing that you described is unique to games, other than the fact that you have to move your hands in the process.
I just can't read for long stretches of time. I'll just get mentally exhausted and not really digest the words that I'm reading. A GOOD narrator can add a lot to a scene in a book than if I were to read it.
I don't give a shit what someone says. A good video game can invoke just as much emotion as a good book or a good movie for me. I've cried from games, I've been scared from games, and I've laughed because of video games. Nothing can take that away from me. To me, games are just as valid of an artform as movies. Fuck you Yea Forums you guys are faggots.
Your post was a follow up to which questioned which asserted that video games should be judged as something other than art because they're different from all the other mediums of art. Ergo, your post very much sounds like you're saying that art isn't an applicable category for video games because of this passive vs. direct interaction shit. Maybe pay attention to the chain of posts YOU'RE responding to next time.
>Nobody cares, frankly.
You cared enough to respond so that just isn't true.
>Appreciating certain movies, or books is NEVER restricted by your knowledge of the medium now?
Now you're arguing just to argue. It's obviously different for video games and you know that. Or maybe you don't and I'm arguing with a literal retard. Actually that sounds more likely.
>Nothing that you described is unique to games
Yes there is, and I imagine as a denizen of Yea Forums you aren't a complete normalfag who can't understand this. Go argue for the sake of argument somewhere else.
Why is it that those who consume art but do not produce it are always the most pretentious douchebags?
Those who claim that a pretty picture has some "deeper meaning" or that the strum of a guitar has "such passion" and "true emotion" are utterly delusional retards. In reality, art is just artists passing time and potentially making money.
Sorry user, I'm not here to think for you. In the future you should calm down and actually think about the post you're replying to.
But friend, I don't have an inferiority complex (not anymore) about what I like and deslike. But I do Live in a society where being a gaming aficionado is not something you want to share with people outside of your circle. I don't REALLY know what the reality in America is, but here, in Portugal, it's looked down upon. Especially if you play anything other than Fifa or CoD. It is a social stigma.
Because they make consuming art an important part of their personal identity.
Sadly this was also the first thing that came to mind as an artistic video game
Yeah, I don't believe you. I refuse to believe that there are grown adults who hear that you play video games and immediately recoil in disgust like you're some kind of troglodyte.
Unironically yes, especially at the time.
When did he make this statement anyway? If he said this around the time of like, Pacman then that's understandable.
Fuck "art". It's a nebulous term that means nothing. Basically the normie equivalent of "soul".
Video games aren't art, and that's a good thing.
>You cared enough to respond so that just isn't true.
No you moron. I mean that your call on this simply does not matter. Dance is being taught on art academies, it is being considered art in virtually all cultures in the world: what ever YOU think simply does not change that.
>Now you're arguing just to argue. It's obviously different for video games and you know that.
HOW is it different you mongoloid? Your understanding of the functionality of Japanese poetry deeply influences your ability to appreciate japanese poetry. Your motoric skills deeply inform your ability to enjoy the practice of caligrafy. This was the ONLY argument you actually made: that the skill required to participate on the game changes your experience of it. But that is clearly true for multiple classic art forms.
Your argument simply does not add up.
I'm going to guess early 2000s.
Metal Gear Solid 2
SOMA
World of Warcraft: Burning Crusade
These games achieved artistic expression that is unique to video games and cannot be captured by any other medium.
To be clear, i'm not arguing games can't be art, but that for a game to be appreciated as a work of art, it has to convey things through sound, visuals and gameplay. A game can convey through strorytelling or aesthetics, but so can paintings and books. What they can't do is convey through interaction, which is unique to games. And if a game fails to utilize what is unique to its medium, is simply cannot consider it a work of art, regardless of its storytelling or aesthetic qualities.
lol capitalising ignorant for no reason while trying to appear intelligent, what a fuckin 5 year old babby faggot
have you even finished school yet little boy?
Nah, fuck off. Even the first video game ever, Spacewar!, was art. What do you think Steve Russell was doing, if not utilizing a new type of format for his own creative and frivolous expression?
He’s right. When video game apologists cite corny shit like Journey, Braid and Undertale as examples of games as art, it just shows how uncultured they really are. They are below genre apologists that think Lovecraft and Tolkien are respectable high literature writers.
Even Brian Moriarty, the Loom dude and mentor of Jonathan “Head-in-butt” Blow, has stated that no game out today is even close to being a work of art.
Chess isn't art, but videogames are not chess dumb fuck. Completely ignoring the visual part of videogame lmao, what a fucking aspie you are.
Ok, Do you Know there is this thing called a Typo? maybe you can Search it up?
>LUDONARRATIVE
I am ashamed for even knowing this gay word, and you should be too.
I love that cap so fucking much cuz it's painfully true
fuck you ludonarrative is cool
Pretty boring bait, all things considered.
Why is it that pretentious Yea Forumstards always show up for these threads, now they're even claiming films aren't art.
>Lovecraft and Tolkien are not respectable high literature writers.
>genre defining work, influencing the imagination of millions for the better part of a century at this point
>it's not respectable high literature
What.
Yea Forums: "Video games aren't art because no video game takes advantage of the game aspect to present its narrative. It's all cutscenes.
also Yea Forums: "LuDo NaRrAtIvE iS dUmB!!1!11"
>influencing the imagination of millions for the better part of a century at this point
Not him, but that's kind of the problem. It sort of normalized fantasy, and it allowed lazy people to create derivative forms of fantasy. Because of Tolkein people IMMEDIATELY associate fantasy with dragons and knights.
There's no such thing as a good piece of fiction.
>Iffy-uh stuffy-uh is now high art because I wrote it down on a sticky note
>Taking an obvious shitpost meant to piss off faggot leftists seriously.
Trolling however remains the most patrician of art forms.
>when dum dums say thing is stupid but listen to other dum dum they smart
When did anyone mention leftists?
What does any of this have to do with leftists?
Are you okay?
>There's no such thing as a good piece of fiction.
Nigga what the fuck are you on
there is exactly one thing in the world that is art and it is page 167, lines 26-32 of James Joyce's Ulysses.
nothing else is art, it's all shit.
There isn't. All forms of fiction and fantasy are meant to appeal to children.
...*ppthptphtppbbrrrraaaaapp*
*whiiiiifff* ahhhh...
Video games can't be art because they're for children...*audible stomach gurgle*...hnggg...*bbrrpprpptpthtrraaaapppp*
*whiffff* ahhh...
>Ramona in a swimsuit inquiring about your mental well-being.png
Name a single piece of fiction that isn't the narrative equivalent of jingling keys in front of a baby.
>no such thing as a good piece of fiction
>in science fiction, things that were conceptualized captured the imagination of actual engineers
>hello computer is real now
>transparent aluminum is real now
youtube.com
Define "good".
I graduated about two months ago, so I think that I have a pretty good understanding of high school and games.
Ninety-percent of all guys played video games, and the few who didn't either were really into something like their own rock band or sport or were edgy loners.
However, most guys' interests were restricted to CoD and FIFA, not even Madden, and I live in Burgerland. Rockstar was also really popular, but talk of RDR2 went right back to GTAV after several months. Fortnite was a trend last year, and some were getting back into Minecraft.
We did have a gaming club, but it a better term would have been the Smash Bros. club. Every meeting was people playing Brawl, or, if someone brought their Wii U in,, sm4sh. The club switched heh exclusively to Ultimate when it came out, and there were a few fun tournaments. You could talk with other people about vidya in general, but most of their interests were exclusively weeb and/or Nintendo.
Then there were the Blizzarddrones. I ran cross-country with one, and he was pretty cool guy aside from his fanatical devotion to the company. All of them had massive gaming laptops to play OW or SC2 during breaks, and they had virtually no other interests besides Blizzard. They got angry at me when I made a joke about phone Diablo; that's how much of corporate cocksuckers they were.
Overall, if you like vidya in the same way others like theatre, books, or movies, you're out of luck
>it was too good, so everyone paid homage to it
>this means it is not good
What.
>a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.
It's funny because Roger Ebert was a fat fuck that contributed nothing of value to society and made his living by tearing down the works of others.
Found the guy. No one that reads literary fiction gives a shit about Tolkien or Lovecraft. It doesn’t matter that they influenced thousands of mediocre writers.
I actually like Tolkien (especially his fairy tale stuff), but he isn’t respected in the slightest. His work is a little underrated in the academia, but way too overrated by people that put him on the same level as the greats. Now Lovecraft is just a bad writer, simple as that. The only actual writer I have seen acknowledging him was Borges, and he said he was a cheap imitation of Poe.
Infinite Jest, and don't fucking Yea Forums meme me
Okay? A bunch of scientists stole an idea from a gay little sci-fi movie? What's your point?
Science fiction, at the end of the day, doesn't need to exist. Any worthwhile narrative or moral you want to present can be done in a non-fictional way.
I think you're missing my point. It's not JUST that everyone pays homage to it; the problem is that people are paying homage to something that REALLY doesn't deserve it. Yes, Tolkein put a lot of effort into his work, but that doesn't make it good. Fantasy is just a set piece. It's a background element. Nothing more.
Now that is just hillariously wrong. Except for the bit that he is - or more specifically used to be - underrated in academia. But that has been very quickly changing.
Rest of that post is just drivel.
I found the problem: critics have created an insular clique so far removed from actual human thought and experiences that the things they say could also be applied to Shakespeare.
Quick question:
Are diagnosed development disorder of some degree?
>Any worthwhile narrative or moral you want to present can be done in a non-fictional way.
Do you...know what fiction is? Serious question, because you seem to be using fiction and fantasy as if they're the same thing.
>Science fiction, at the end of the day, doesn't need to exist.
It's now obvious to me that the people attempting to gatekeep what is good in the world, are themselves not good people.
I would like you to now name one singular force that has done more good in the world than people inspired by science fiction and science.
All popular things are bad: the thread
Can we move on now?
why the fuck do you keep falling for this bait
Stories have been a part of human life since before we became hunter-gatherers. To dismiss fiction as unneeded is not only idiotic but dangerous. I'm 75% sure that this is a bait, but it's working on me
>bait
It's genuinely hard to tell the difference from sincere clowns and only pretending to be retarded clowns in Clown World now.
Do you have any connection to the academia or are you just making shit up? I did not study English, but Italian, but I know a lot of anglo guys and not a single one of them gives a shit about Tolkien. More specifically than Italian, I studied Italian fairy/folk-tales, and not a single fairy tale guy I knew gave a fuck about Tolkien too.
Bloom actually has a critical interpretation book on Tolkien, but he says on the introduction that the academia does not care about him (and neither does he), but he had to put out the book because of popular demand. And even then, most of the essays on the book are negative.
>I knew some guys
>Tolkien and Lovecraft are irrelevant, the guys I knew said so
This is great. I don't even care if it's bait. Are you one of those "X are white colonialism and must be destroyed" guys too?
The final line is right on the money, the rest is questionable.
Homer's works weren't the basis for Greek culture you ignorant retard, they are one enduring aspect of it that managed to survive.
I'm not reading the whole thread, but this is probably the most correct post in it.
I literally teach literature at Uni, so yeah, I do. Tolkien has been overlooked, ironically especially by english academia, but that has changed in the past twenty years completely: he has been considered one of the cornerstones of British modern literature nowdays. As for Lovecraft, fucking Borges used to sing praises on him, he has been considered an invaluable part of classic literature library for well over hundred years now.
Again, you are full of shit.
>I teach literature at a university
>but I spend my free time shitposting about video games on Yea Forums
I agree. This is also basically the difference between early Bungie who was a bunch of friends vs. 343, you can see the difference in quality between their games too.
Yep. Can't say I'm proud of it, but we all have our guilty pleasures. Arguing about art on Yea Forums is one of mine. And as you can imagine, being a Uni teacher, I have quite a lot of free time on my hands.
Why didn't he have a prostetic jaw put in lads?
I find it believable, and glad to see someone capable of independent thought posting here instead of consuming CNN soundbites on their wage slave break.
unlike any other medium, games have the potential to be better works of art than movies and books. the interactivity coupled with the scenery and exposure of the scenery to the player, means that you have to take into account what can the spectator see at which moment in the story, whereas books and movies can only do it in a linear way
This thread is notoriously full of Yea Forums shitposters, look how easy they get triggered.
their interactivity is actually what means they can't be art
>I touched a sculpture
>Now, it is not art.
You are a genius.
Sounds like the definition of art needs to be reworked if that's the case.
Are you literally retarded? Touching a statue doesn't make it interactive anymore than scribbling in a book does.
Only faggots actually care is video games are art or not, just fucking playing them if you enjoy them and ignore them if you don't.
It really doesn't matter.
>can pee inside Duchamp's Fountain
>now it's not art anymore
imagine the waves of art desecrators that would be running around killing art everywhere
>yfw when your argument is BTFO by a book for ages 1 and up
I feel your art education has been a bit narrowly focused. You should experience more in the world.
>post in a thread for discussing a subject
>say the subject is pointless
If it didn't matter, why post your worthless shit?
If he’s is talking about your favourite games then yes he is absolutely right. Get fucked Op!
Holy fucking based
For (you)'s nigga
>empathetic
what kind of faggotry is this? nobody needs to be empathetic, you don't exist to please others
pro tip: that's your mom's job
friend that was a joke
a jest
a jape, even
though to be fair the thread is currently filled with some pretty terrible opinions right now
The "guys I knew" were exactly the people we are talking about. It is even like humans are capable of capturing general impressions from individual observations.
>he has been considered one of the cornerstones of British modern literature nowdays
Who says that? The only serious works I have seen done on Tolkien were from dedicated fantasy research groups (and coming from someone that used to research fairy tales, I know that those are not exactly respected) and from OOO philosophy autists (and they also praise Lovecraft for some reason). I'm not saying that you are lying and I have had no contact with the academia for some time, but I need evidence for this.
>As for Lovecraft, fucking Borges used to sing praises on him
The only thing he has said about Lovecraft is that he was an unconscious imitator of Poe and that he was unsure about writing a story based on his style. Not exactly "singing praises".
Yeah I misread you at first, and it certainly is filled with something resembling opinions. You can tell by the smell.
This argument will always miss the point and focus on just countering a small group of manchildren. Yes, there are retards who push that things are art because otherwise they will feel utterly useless. However, whether we consider something art or not drastically changes how we view that something in its entirety, and how it will factor into our personal lives. Being art doesn't mean we should take it more seriously; rather, by saying it's not art, we have to assert other things, like there is nothing creative about the development process, no craftmanship to appreciate, etc.
So how much art theory has Yea Forums read?
>inb4 you don't need to know art theory before commenting on art
The same way you don't need to play video games and have knowledge before commenting on them?
Come on bro, that is a lot of typing.
Try this summary instead: "I hate white people."
Just try it on, see if it is comfortable you know?
I read the Wikipedia page before coming to this thread, so I know more than you.
>trusting anyone elses opinion but your own
>their interactivity is actually what means they can't be art
I'm going to ask what I asked the other guy:
Why?
You can't just make statements like that and expect to be taken seriously, without actual clarification.
>Who says that?
I have not met a scholar that would look down on him in my career. Papers on him aren't common in english mostly because there isn't much call for it, but you can find some amazing ones in Spanish, Polish or Czech.
>The only thing he has said about Lovecraft is that he was an unconscious imitator of Poe
That is amazingly wrong, have you ever even fucking READ Borges? He literally wrote two separate tributes to his work, and multiple essays on him, stating that while stylistically weak, his imagination and the way he constructs horror is unparalled.
Games as art peaked with MGS 2 and Kiler7. Prove me wrong.
>art theory is needed to discuss the worth of works inherently so culturally profound they are still being discussed in threads like this nearly a century after they were created
>the very fact this thread exists btfo out of the pseuds in this thread arguing against lovecraft and tolkien
>in science, which is infinitely superior to any liberal arts discipline, theory is used to predict behavior in the real world
>ywn take your skill in art theory, and use it to predict or create the next culturally significant art work, and use that to become rich
>report back when rich and world culture changed
>references:
>the wheel
>fire
>industrial revolution
>atomic age
>the Internet
Katana zero is art
Darkwood is art
Original War is art
Perimeter is art
My Dick is also art. The greatest art.
>So how much art theory has Yea Forums read?
Lot more than I can even remember.
I've never played My Dick before. What platform? Sounds like a Your Mom exclusive to me.
Silent Hill 2.
/thread
>Original War is art
Good taste.
>I've never played My Dick before.
Please do so ASAP before you shoot up a school.
Where were you when First Post was needed, fuck.
Is school shooting a art?
if you're not gonna use interactivity in a new medium that could be considered a form of art, it's a lost potential. art is essentially about expression first and foremost, there has to be a way to work around that
No one can name a filmmaker to match a great poem.
>guy who doesn't play games critiquing video games
It's like never watching movies and forming opinions on them. This guy is a hack
>Video games can't be art!
>Same dude will define art by "something that creates emotions"
Yeah well maybe I don't want to deal with this stupid wagglan gimmick, motion controls have never been good.
>He literally wrote two separate tributes to his work
There Are More Things and? He wrote on the Book of Sand epilogue that he was unsure about writing that.
Also, pic related.
Giving credence to so-called critics is the most pathetic thing in modern history.
Yeah I'm thinking he based.
There Are More Things and The Immortal, specifically. For the rest, just browse through his essays, he wrote about him quite a lot.
As for the pic, Borges also "shat" on Kafka, which does not mean he did not hold him in great respect.
dont know who this guy is but hes doing that wojak face
No and his taste was bad anyway. Maybe because he never remotely studied the industry in which he was a critic. The guy was a news reporter that got shuffled to the film column and it stuck, the one script he did write was written over I could go on.
In the end the only perception that matters is your own.
>The Immortal
What? That has absolutely nothing to do with Lovecraft.
he really isn't
also
>not knowing who Ebert is
This guy:
>Tolkien is a hack
>Lovecraft is a hack
>Now Hans Christian Anderson is also thrown in the hack pile
What author is not a hack? We're tired of sitting on top of this fortress of western civilization dabbing on you from the crellenated ramparts, let us see you defend something.
It has everything to do with it: the nausea of transcendental and the fucking city especially. You also find some interesting references in Circular Ruins if you look closely.
Immortal is as much inspired by Lovecraft as both of the Babel stories are inspired by Kafka. That is to say: A fucking LOT.
What is artful about video games?
You said it was a tribute, which is false. I'm not talking about possible influences or references.
>What is artful about video games?
Pic related, let me know if you need help with any other big questions.
Does a scat fetishist's perception on feces suddenly mean that eating shit is okay? No, it doesn't.
>I hate white people.
Come on man, just say it. You'll feel a lot better getting your real opinion out there. Be honest with urself.
Borges writing a story based on someone elses ideas is a tribute, you moron. Do you have anything else than empty semantics?
Is this post and this pic trying to say something?
This guy literally had his throat waste away and he still has better teeth than a certain fatty
Yes.
>In the Before Time: Video Games once came on Compact Discs.
>These Compact Discs can be used to sculpt a fish by people without gainful employment opportunities.
>Therefore, Video Games can be Art.
CWC?
You're missing the point. Besdes, in this case, yes. For them, it's okay while for you it is not. What a silly example to give, are you looking for cheap thrills or are you just bored?
>Ebert and all pretentious artfags BTFO for eternity
I do think it is fair to say that Roger Ebert destroyed film criticism. Because of the wide and far reach of television, he became an example of what a film critic does for too many people. And what he did simply was not criticism. It was simply blather. And it was a kind of purposefully dishonest enthusiasm for product, not real criticism at all…I think he does NOT have the training. I think he simply had the position. I think he does NOT have the training. I’VE got the training. And frankly, I don’t care how that sounds, but the fact is, I’ve got the training. I’m a pedigreed film critic. I’ve studied it. I know it. And I know many other people who’ve studied it as well, studied it seriously. Ebert just simply happened to have the job. And he’s had the job for a long time. He does not have the foundation. He simply got the job. And if you’ve ever seen any of his shows, and ever watched his shows on at least a two-week basis, then you surely saw how he would review, let’s say, eight movies a week and every week liked probably six of them. And that is just simply inherently dishonest. That’s what’s called being a shill. And it’s a tragic thing that that became the example of what a film critic does for too many people. Often he wasn’t practicing criticism at all. Often he would point out gaffes or mistakes in continuity. That’s not criticism. That’s really a pea-brained kind of fan gibberish.
What isn't? There isn't a single pixel not deliberately put there in any of them.
What are you on about you retard?
There Are More Things is literally a tribute, you can't put the two stories together because you think that there may be some Lovecraft influences on The Immortal. Borges actually wrote about his influences on that story and he never cited Lovecraft. If anything, it is a tribute to Blake.
find me a noteworthy videogame that's meant for 40 year olds
hard mode: no wii fit or just dance
WHY DOES HE LOOK LIKE A PEZ CANDY DISPENSER?!
Pathologic 2
The Void
arguably Cryostasis
First give me three examples from books, movies, music and art first
Pathologic 2 is pretty dadcore.
Firstly, I do not give a fuck in meaningles typologies you made up in your head. The influence of Lovecraft on Immortal is massive and rather blatant. And given that you said just few minutes ago you thought Borges did not think of him highly, not realizing There are More exists at the very least, tells me that you are googling this shit on the fly.
If it inspires emotion then its art, negative or positive.
>hard mode: no wii fit or just dance
That's very easy mode. Sid Meier's Civilization, which is almost 30 years old. Many RTS and 4X games, in fact, are themed and written to appeal to adult men.
just because it can be classified as art doesnt automatically raise it to a higher level of value or exclude it from a critical eye. capeshit is art, skyrim is art, phone app games are art etc. its just a broad definition.
I give up. Not only I realize that There Are More Things exists, but I also pointed out that Borges wrote in the epilogue to the book it is on that he was unsure about writing it and called Lovecraft an unconscious parodist of Poe. That was my argument from the first post, he recognized Lovecraft, but was conflicted about him. Fucking retard.
Borges was always very clear about his influences, and he never cited Lovecraft other than this time.
How come the Gamecube was so cute and compact yet the controllers were hunchbacked monstrosities? Not as bad as N64 controllers, but still bad.
You still have to explain the part where you claim all fiction is meant to appeal to children.
And curiously enough, the only thing you seemed to have know is the bit about him and Poe, which is literally the least significant thing he ever said about him, but happens to be on the wiki article that pops up instantly when you type in "Borges on Lovecraft". You've literally googled it, opened the wiki, and basically copied and pasted what is there, you moron.
>Borges was always very clear about his influences, and he never cited Lovecraft other than this time.
AHAHAHAHA no. Literally 99% of his work is trolling his audiences and playing games, to a point where he started suffering a serious problem with his own identity. You'd know that if again: you knew ANYTHING about the man and weren't working off a hasty google.
Also, you stated that Borges wrote "multiple essays" on Lovecraft. Care to link those? The only thing I found was a quick bio of him in Introducción a la literatura norteamericana. In that, he said "Estudiosamente imitó el patético estilo de Poe y escribió pesadillas cósmicas".
Guys. This is bullshit. It doesn't fucking matter. Pointless.
We know, that's why we're arguing about it.
I never said that.
Maybe I know that because it is very clearly written in the book we are talking about? I cited that even before you jumped in the conversation. I did in fact search for what he had to say on Lovecraft, but I was only able to find the same quote and the interview where he states that he isn't worth reading.
His medium can be effectively copied by games and done better as it allows for a more interesting experience. Films had their day and that day is now done.
>filmmakers
I'd like to see what he would think about the capeshit wave.
Video Games are definitely above movies today. Maybe above books as well, considering what became bestseller lately.
Is not you? It looks like it from the reply chain. If not my mistake, there's an uncommon amount of idiots in here.
Why would I be discussing Borges if I think all fiction is worthless?
Beats the hell out of me. People don't often hold consistent viewpoints here.
>Film is the junk food of art
Get some taste anytime, user. You must truly watch some shit films like capeshit or movies with the Rock.
>But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic
>it's better to sit on your ass watching someone else than is to engage and shape your own experiences
Dumb boomer
Video games have the highest barrier to entry as a creator unless you're doing really bare bones RPG maker tier shit.
Books have the best stuff because literally anyone can sit down and write one, but you can have the best game director/writer in the world and do nothing with him if you don't have a team of other people doing the rest.
To be fair I said that Borges thought of Lovecraft as a "cheap imitation of Poe". Could it be because I cited it from memory instead of looking to quote up?
>>To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a movie worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, novelists and composers. That a movie can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most moviegoers, movies represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.
FIXED
Read a book, go to the theatre and go to an art museum you faggots. Film is still in its infancy and Hollywood is set on destroying what little passion is left in film.
I do not have my books on me here, but if you are interested, look up Synchronious Worlds by Armand, it's a pretty comprehensive analysis of their relationship, and the essays and texts he wrote about him will be all listed there.
Sure, you just happened (as my own quick google reveals) to literally copy past the two first results on the subject, even though academically speaking, neither of them is in any way noteworthy.
For fuck sake, kid.
IPL shit is aimed at GAMES ARE ART retard youth, at around 30 you sorta should begin to understand poor excuses at gameplay aren't worth your time.
>Man who can't play videogames says videogames can't be art.
ok
You are adorable.
>I'm so big and old!
>Why aren't these games more stupid fun for the easily amused!
Also, both The Void and Pathologic 2 have pretty sold gameplay, actually. You'd known that if you actually played them.
>IPL
>aimed
They couldn't aim their games at an audience if they tried. I wish they'd try, can't make more games with no money.
Film is far superior an art form to painting. Prove me wrong. You can't.