Roger Ebert has gone on record many a times to say that video games are not art. It's been a year since he first uttered those words from his mighty jowls and here we are. Clive Barker, creative mind behind some crappy video games, has come to the defense of the gaming community. Does he drop the Hammer on Ebert like MC Hammer? Or Does Ebert pull out his lazer and shoot Barker like so many Hedgehogs?
Barker's Response
The Eggman Speaks
And what I have to say...
*warning, wall of text. if you read, you will become smarter... or waste about ten minutes of your life.
Only recently has the video game medium come into the spotlight of the media. The idea of the video game has become so massive that it can no longer be ignored. It's like the avant garde who tries to dismiss art that invokes anger or the actor who only appears in plays who dismantles the idea of movies.
Video games have a long way to go before they're accepted by the mainstream media, but they have also made humongous strides in storytelling, technological advancements, simulation and music. You can't make a game on a few hundred bucks and now that the movie industry wants to make games into cinema, it's a sign that they're taking notice.
This generation, those born in the 80s-90s are currently coming into power. We're gradually distancing ourselves from the childhood state and now we're bringing the idea of video games into the mainstream. Those who are over 30 play games in the sense that it's a distraction and it can also be a job.
Ebert is from the older generation, where video games were viewed as senseless past times for children. So, here we have an industry that is treated with a rating system, has countless man hours and is a billion dollar a year machine and Ebert can't make the comparison to the movies. Games like Manhunt 2 are banned because they push the envelope, so now the world takes notice. It's inevitable for video games to stay confined in such a small corner of the entertainment industry. So, cliche as it may sound, we're at a crossroads where the gaming industry is going to make a transition.
And when it's all said and done, Ebert will either have to eat his words or pick up a gaming controller.
Of course, I believe this to be bullshit, since I've played games that ultimately tell a story and are better than a 100 movies I've seen. In fact, if I were to post a list of the 10 most moving stories I've been exposed to, you'd better believe that FFVI is going to be on that list, and probably in the top 5.
But this is one particular person's arguement, and as I've often ranted on myself about particular topics, it's pointless to argue against him. Ebert's just a jawless, talking head who reviews movies. Ultimately, we know and believe that games CAN rise above their button mashing beginnings and more importantly, we embrace them for what they truly are. Screw what someone else outside, that has no exposure to our hobby thinks of it.
Do you really care what someone your grandparents age thinks of FFVII? Or Gears of War? Or Super Mario?
I don't.
dvddesign, I'm sure that we could ignore the ignorant who assume that games can't achieve the same status as movies or literature. Well, literature is kind of getting out of hand, but I think that the dumber a person is the louder they're going to scream. It's like those who know nothing about a genre are instantly considered the go-to-guys, because they have the most to say about a particular subject.
But I do find it rather appealing that Ebert's examples are 5 - 10 years old, with games like Myst. How far back do his examples go?