Comments on: Roger Ebert Still Says Video Games Aren’t ‘High Art’: Do We Really Care?

By: webonics

webonics — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:44:40 +0000

There was a time not so long ago when haute culture felt similarly about film as a form artwork. People were even terrified of the earliest works fearing objects, like trains, would even come out of the screen and kill the audiences. Art evolves over time (i.e. cave drawings, music, sculpture, oil paintings, theatre, etc.). It seems Ebert needs to revisit some art history before making such uneducated statements on media that he has little exposure.

I liked Siskel better anyways.

By: Paul G

Paul G — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:16:47 +0000

When the news came out that Siskel of Siskel and Ebert died, everyone thought it was this joker.

Playing the Atari 2600 once does give one the right to critique the industry as it is today.

By: Daveed

Daveed — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:02:34 +0000

He still avoids the question on whether or not he plays games. Which means he’s probably only knows the bigger and slightly older games.

Getting into a great video game is like getting into a great book. You get immersed in the story, and there are people who have slaved away on the look and feel of the game. There are scripts, acting, storyboards. Someone has put effort into every little detail.

Just like there are shallow pieces of literature, film, and art there are also shallow video games. There’s nothing wrong with those, they provide entertainment. But to think that they cannot reach the same level nor haven’t already I think is a bit naive.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:09:43 +0000

Who says video games can’t be both a ’sport’ and art?