Roger, you were not a fool for mentioning games in the first place, you were a fool for underestimating the passion of the gaming community to prove you wrong.
A Way Out's Josef Fares talks Roger Ebert and video games, referring to the 'insanely stupid' view that video games cannot be art.
Didn't he die in like 2013? Why is he even worried about what he thought at this point, let it go Josef. It's well established video games are an art form and therefore is art.
I miss Roger Ebert greatly. I still go to his reviews first (for past movies).
That being said, the iconic Museum Of Modern Art has already started collecting video games as art. Some of these are Pac-Man, Tetris, Pong, Street Fighter II and Portal. And these are some titles that they wish to acquire in the future:
Spacewar (1962)
Zork (1980)
Donkey Kong (1981)
M.U.L.E. (1983)
Core War (1984)
Marble Madness (1984)
Super Mario Bros. (1985)
The Legend of Zelda (1986)
NetHack (1987)
Chrono Trigger (1995)
Super Mario 64 (1996)
Grim Fandango (1998)
Animal Crossing (2001)
You're welcome. :)
Laguna Levine writes: "Roger Ebert was certainly a respected movie critic, but even if you disagreed with his opinions, you have to admit that the man at least was well read, would engage with his audience and critics, could analyze his personal opinions and explain why and how he came to his conclusion(s). There is a reason his was a critic, and even if you disagreed with him, it was not because he lacked analytic skills. However, one thing he focused on when discussing games was their inability to make people less reflective and empathetic. He wasn't alone in this though, but I'd argue that as much as we may be lacking a Citizen Kane of gaming, games as more than visual art is not only possible, but becoming a reality."
Dann I miss Roger Ebert. I didn't agree with him on everything, but he was great.
Sorry, cant respect the opinion of a man who gave Diehard a 2/4 and then realizing he was wrong and that Diehard had burnt itself in the cinema goers psyche and became movie history, gave the good but inferior sequel a 3.5/4.
oprainfall writes: "Unlike the idea of searching for gaming’s Citizen Kane, the question of finding the video game equivalent of Roger Ebert is a legitimate one. While Ebert was somewhat notorious in later years for his dismissive attitude toward video games as an artistic medium, he was also a widely known and respected film critic. He was not just someone whom the film fanatic crowd latched onto, but a person who was widely known for his televised opinions that were summarized with an easily digestible thumbs-up or down."
That will not happen any time soon, for us to have a critic on the same level of Ebert, Games journalism will have to mature.
The only one who comes close for me is Adam Sessler.
The real question is: Do we need someone like Roger Ebert in the video game critic space?
I say "No".
Games are supposed to be about fun and appreciate the effort, art and entertainment values added to the experience. Even if there was someone who could articulate this for a mainstream audience, it would be pointless given that there's someone who will just drive their car and get it stuck between a guardrail, jiggle the thing to pieces, explode, die, lose their save game in a crash and then give the game a 1/10 because they didn't have fun doing so. That could never happen in a movie.
speaking of critics does anyone else have the annoying relative that owns the mindset that graphics>gameplay...?
also generally being a smart ass and telling you what you should play? yeah, it get's fucking annoying.
It annoys me more that people think that a game is like a hamburger where you can pull the pieces apart.
A game is like a cake. Once you've thrown the everything together it's a single product and trying to split it into "sugar, eggs, cream" from that point is just silly.
The games industry will have a Roger Ebert. It'll be someone who realises that games are more than the building blocks. How many film critics write "the camera angles in this film are 9/10?"
The gaming community has to mature first and we can't allow the young gamers to overrun criticism with immature knee jerk reactions.
And journalists are afraid to buck that system because they have these websites breathing down their backs to give the people what they want.
Just look at the critical about TLOU and the reviewer that generated enough backlash that the Sony president even said something. And even his words were flakes of immaturity over that man's opinion. For fear of being completely locked out of the industry and dissolving of his contacts, he immediately apologized for the subjective truth he had spoken.
Same thing with Jeff Gerstmann. He was fired for negatively reviewing Kane and Lynch.
So its one thing to recognize that we do need an Ebert styled journalist in the industry and its another to look at the reality of the situation.
The industry is all about appeasing young gamers. Cause thats where the majority of this uproar comes from. Young gamers who have the internet to voice their opinions that are not constructive, highly volatile and unstable.
And its going to take an industry backing that journalist. Soon as a journalist makes that stand, everyone backs away from him once the internet uproar reaches their ears.
I aim to somehow change that. Gamers need a lesson in decorum and tact. In how to constructively voice your opinion to the devs. Quiet as its kept, there seems to be a clear detachment between the devs and gamers. Unless you're Naughty Dog, then gamers will kiss every ground you touch with your foot.
Until the above things change or until a journalist that comes along with the guts to say the truth or at least what isn't common to the masses, we won't ever see a Ebert style journalist in gaming.
Nice argument.
I agree with a lot of what you've said there, but there's something I'd like to add to it:
The games industry - that is the readers, the writers and websites like N4G - need to learn to separate unprofessional writers with properly trained and educated journalists. Right now it's possible for a kid with a blog and no writing experience to get as much more traffic by writing a useless, pandering rant than a 15, 20-year journalist who has meticulously researched a piece and spent months putting it together about something that's actually important to the industry.
Until the community and games industry learns to appreciate good quality journalism, then good quality journalism won't exist. There's not a market for it. If you want a Roger Ebert or The Economist of criticism/ games journalism, then it's time to start reading and responding to the good quality press, rather than the "OMFG LOOK AT THIS PICTURE OF THE PS4" stories.
Nice add on, indeed. The community definitely needs to learn how to appreciate good quality journalism.
I don't think passion is the right word to describe the reaction of the gaming community.
Owned.
I dunno, I'm pretty passionate about gaming, I'd say a lot of other people are too. Especially the people who took aim at Roger Ebert for what he said.
Awesome!! Ya, I was a little miffed when he said that. I hate when people speak in ignorance. He’s a movie guy, not a gamer so why did he even mention it.
Now I know this is a bit off topic, but the day I learned that Roger Ebert wasn't the end-all-be-all when it came to who's opinion I trusted (sychophantic in a way), was when I looked up David Lynch's movie, Blue Velvet and I saw that he gave it a bad review! I would have been fine with this, but that old geyser's reason was that...HE DIDN'T LIKE THE WAY THE DIRECTOR PORTRAYED AN ACTRESS CUZ THE MOVIE WASN'T IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY HER GREAT ACTING IN THE FILM!
So I say Bullshit with him and his stance on not accepting video games as an art form in the first place.