Author Topic: Loose ends... the games we have not finished and should we?

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14,057
    • View Profile
Re: Loose ends... the games we have not finished and should we?
« Reply #75 on: August 19, 2011, 01:11:04 AM »
This modern day re-definition of critic where it means "sadistic psychopath who enjoys calling people shit and demanding they quit their passion" is bull.
Geez, man - chill.  Who defined critics that way?  If you're saying that certain people define themselves that way... I suppose I don't have the evidence to disagree with you.  If you're saying that society as a whole defines them that way, even the responses in this thread clearly indicate that you are mistaken.  Evidence outside of this thread is equally damning to that position.

Note that he only backstepped after it looked like this would ruin him, which IMO it already did since prejudice is always despicable and horrendous.
No... as a grown up, he re-evaluated his position when presented with well-reasoned and articulate discussion on the topic.  Now granted, after he re-evaluated his position, he didn't really change his mind.  He just realized that he hadn't expressed it in a good way.  Under Ebert's definition of art, video games are not art, because as he defines it, art relies on not only its content, but on its presentation and degree of interactivity.  That is to say, none.  He does not see video games as art because they allow players to experience something other than the director's pure vision of the game.  (Which is perhaps not the kindest way to put it, but it's the best way I can find to explain it.)

But guess what - he's not the one who gets to define the concept of Art.  He's an expert in one medium of art, and that's why he earned an award: for his study and discussions of the merits of individual examples of that specific medium of art.  Certainly it is true that as an expert in that aspect of the artistic community, his opinion is respected.  But when film first came onto the scene, critics of painting and literature made the same arguments that film was not art and never could be.

And if this is one of the good ones, what would a bad critic do? Commit a violent hate crime. I shudder at the thought of just what exactly a bad critic is, if this is a reputable, respected one.
Seriously.  Chill.  You know what a bad critic would do?  He'd be Armond White. The guy who gives every good movie a bad review, and every bad movie a good review.  And you know what effect he's had on the world?  Zilch.  None.  Bupkis.  Nada.  Nichts.  He has merely driven internet commenters to wonder why he still has a job.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 01:14:04 AM by Tooker »
Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
—Kurt Vonnegut