Was he right that videogames cant be art?

If any game could ever be considered art it would be chain of memories. Every scene constructed,every line interated is perfect and where it should be literally the perfect story.

Attached: bruh.jpg (184x184, 12K)

Underrated post

yes, but movies are not art either, no matter how pretentious they get

now fuck off back to your pedo board

Whats wrong with its face?

>the descent had destroyed me.. and yet, I lived.

what a horrible terrible disease. I feel bad for him.
also, that was his opinion. i don't agree with it and I think he was wrong, but for some reason gamers are so autistically triggered pver the idea that their hobby isn't considered art by someone rhat bloggers and industry "journalists" have written countless articles arguing agaisnt him and offering to have him play XYZ artistic game
he has a different opinion
stop sperging out at the idea that someone thinks differently than you
mean

Attached: IMG_8529.jpg (1080x1173, 181K)

I thought Milton Berle was just a comedian.

He had mouth cancer. It took his jaw.

What madness is this? What pitiful form is this that I have come to inhabit? Death would be a release next to this travesty!

fuck art

Look there's no need to get so upset over us having a chuckle, just take it on the chin.

How many people did you think would know who Uncle Milty is?

Damn. That sucks.

I didn't know him myself until I saw a clip of The Critic and then I watched some of his work, he was pretty good, I am not even that old and I find him very funny.

youtube.com/watch?v=PGfx3QAV64M

His main argument was gamers can't feel thoughts of maker because they have freedom and can make something maker can't control.
He should play today cutscene simulators.

Based

No, he was an obnoxious boomer contrarian who didn't warrant the attention and rage that he got.

>Retards ignoring when he redacted that statement

Attached: IMG_20190815_035244.jpg (720x357, 52K)

youtube.com/watch?v=NL8V07bHum4

I needed that smile today. Thanks.

Attached: 119069iBEAA4AB902EA2AEC.gif (400x458, 309K)

Why was he so respected anyways?
All he did is being done by youtubers arguably better today.

watch his texaco stuff, it's a mixed bag, but some good stuff there, even has a young Phil Silvers in many episodes

That's a pretty bad premise considering one could argue the opposite and still have a seemingly valid point.

Just for instance, for any given movie you end up watching; you don't have the freedom of how the movie is playing, but you do have the freedom how to interpret the central themes which the maker certainly can't control. Does that make that not art?

He should have dug deeper in his analysis.

He was a retard with a deformity, he was never right about anything

Attached: GOD_YOURE_A_FAGGOT.jpg (343x343, 14K)

When I watched a channel that reviews old films there was always these bits where Egbert was always criticizing stuff and apparently he didn't like anything in general.

Can? Probably. Will they be anytime soon? No. People who play, and make, and consume video games are too juvenile, mentally regressed, lacking in education and spiritually empty to make proper art with a video game. The only one that comes close is Pathologic because it uses the medium to do something that cannot be done in any other medium, or Planescape Torment, but even that is just a glorified novel and it has some really juvenile parts. It's both a talent problem and a byproduct of our age problem, where anti-intellectualism is rewarded, and a problem with the video game industry, which is probably the worst "IT" industry to work in. I can go in detail about this but I get the feeling I'll just be called a faggot.

Attached: 1550574744181.jpg (765x630, 49K)

nah

Attached: Myst.png (396x500, 267K)

Cause he did it first.

Yes

Attached: rogerebert.jpg (2560x1440, 652K)

When people talk about video games being art most gamer's interpret 'art' as meaning 'not a dumb thing for babies you shouldn't be wasting your time on'. Because of this they, gamers, come down in favour of games being art more as a way of salvaging their self-image than from holding some rigorous theory of aesthetics.

I don't care either way and think the argument is boring. Games being art or not doesn't really impact on my enjoying them.

Based and enlightened, this world is nothing but a trick being projected by our own minds, even death is just an illusion conjured by stupid people afraid of life.

nothing is art

a drawing is a drawing

music is music

films are films

games are games

Yes.
And you know, I can't help but like Roger Ebert. He got one of the most terrible forms of cancer, but through it all, he never lost his smile.

Attached: 85777756_wide-601573f9a74c0c3bc9fc0bd4e3552032b40491a6-s800-c85.jpg (800x449, 57K)

>better

no they didn't, also he's much better with siskel

Ebert believed the entire video game medium was NES Ninja Turtles. What he said was just as dumb as someone saying movies aren't art because they think all movies are Bayformers.

and as far as the pretentious douche's definition of 'art' goes, video games have had that since Eastern Mind: The Lost Souls of Tong Nou came out.

>juvenile parts
Trainspotting and Catcher In The Rye are legendary classics of literature and are juvenile as fuck.

>Suck 100,000 aids infested dicks
>Contract Hepatitis A through W
>Culture a brood of genital mites in his mustache for 30 years
>Chronic persistent pneumonia from excess semen which found it's way into his trachea and settled in his lungs

>93 years old
>Still outlived both Roger and Ebert

Attached: shalit.jpg (640x480, 85K)

"Art" can be anything. It's all up to what the individual considers "art."

Attached: 1537545490106.png (1000x725, 1.02M)

>never look at paintings
>know nothing about paintings
>claim they can't be art
see the issue?

Video games are not art which is hard to deal with for failed English majors and postmodernists. Only insecure losers that care about the validation of some authority figure care about some 'art' designation. Calling a video game art would be like calling a potato peeler or a car art. It's called game design for a reason.

very true, video games are not art on a single condition though: ''arsty'' films are not art either.

if we consider pretentious movies to be art, then so are video games, supercars, or just random red paint thrown on a white sheet.

You could make an art piece in the medium of a game but it would probably suck frozen dog turds as a game. On the other hand virtually all videogames are composed of art: meshes, textures, animations, music etc. in the same way chess might not be considered art but a chessboard and chess pieces are works of art.

The virgin Ebert vs. the CHAD Christgau

He didn't really care. He was just hoping an angry gamer would put him out of his misery.

They're an art only in the sense that they require technical skill and mastery in order to engage with, and what you get out of it will correlate directly with what you can bring to it. They are a participatory art form which exists only in the intersection between player input and game rules. Otherwise, they can contain artistic assets - but those aren't games. They're just assets. Objects of creative expression interjected into a game as flavor, but they are not definitive of the game.

Any game which undercuts it's own mechanics and difficulty in order to pander to a broader market or appease no-skill "art" majors is not only missing the point completely - but is actively sabotaging it's own reason d'etre. It's like subverting and destroying Jiu Jitsu as a martial art because you want every fat shit, woman, and cripple to feel empowered by the cool designs you made when wearing the robes.

If video games are even analogous to any traditional art form, it'd be a performance art like Dance - and even then, only really from the perspective of the dancer.

Attached: 4456552-3172240-1796953065-segat.jpg (320x320, 16K)

video games can fall under the definition of interactive art, and that's actually their highest (and more underappreciated) potential. a game with a simulated immersive space with emergent gameplay can do far more to convey information and ideas through experience than even a novel or a film.

the problem is most video games are trash, and the masses focus pointlessly on the quality of a game's story being directly told to the player with perhaps inconsequential choices/dilemmas as the qualifier for a game's "art" status, but really, those games are just fucking movies.

as a result, there are barely any video games that qualify as art, but plenty of crappy movies with pointless gameplay.

Attached: 1557088078314.png (601x615, 89K)

GABBO GABBO GABBO!!!!

He liked Spider-Man 2.

does he know anything about games?

Anything can be considered art, bitches launching paint filled eggs out theirs cunts is considered art for fucks sake.

>made nerds want to be taken seriously and thus contributed to the normalization of vidya
doesn't matter if he was right or not. he can go fuck himself.

Everyay with this, he retracted his statement as an absolute after recalling Cosmology of Kyoto showed how art, mostly cultural, and interactivity can happen and happen well, and changed his criticism to something along the lines that most games by design don't want to be art or don't fuse art and interactivity well.

In that sense he's wasn't wrong, there is a visible water and oil philosophy with designers in games with how they lean too preferentially towards one area or the other, and so a lot of games that have tried to be more cinematic just end up depriving the player entirely from meaningful gameplay to front the majority of the "experience" as a long and often clumsily made movie. Ebert became bored with both aspects there because the game aspect of things recommended to him were often barebones, repetitive or not very engaging, and the movie part, which he is a heavy critic of already in the conventional format, were often tediously long, tritely composed, terribly edited and tragically showy in visuals or dialogue.

So a very simple but polished adventure game clicking with him made sense because how much or little the viewer wants to engage is up to them, not the cutscene director trying to ram his ideas down your throat, allowing Ebert to in turn appreciate how the "gameplay" aspect makes the story a gameplay element and not something in a separate file that loads between stages.
And what is engaged, in terms of concepts and dialogue and so on, can be better polished by the devs when it isn't just a checklist of flashy cutscenes.

Del Toro also gave the game a thumbs up, which goes to doubly show you don't have to make Ze Beeg Movie to impress an art type.

This isn't to say all games should strive for this mindlessly, but he did make an astute point in how their efforts currently are poor form for their medium.