News
Ebert Claims He's "Too Well-Read" to "Get" Video Games
Also Tired of Kids and Their Being on His Lawn
by Coop
As the "games as art" debate roars on, film critic Roger Ebert finds his name in the headlines again, this time after a lengthy attack on the gaming industry in a recent article entitled "Video Games can never be art." In it, he claims that games can't be art for a number of different reasons, none of which deviate from his traditional slander on the medium. More recently, however, he has found himself defending his opinion on Twitter.
In the days since his article went live, many have apparently claimed Ebert is simply too old to "get" video games, an argument that he was quick to rebut: "Over and over, the gamers tell me I am too old to appreciate video games," he replied, "Not a one is too young to appreciate art."
Apparently, gamers hit a nerve. Since then, he issued another statement, claiming, "I'm not too old to "get" video games, but I may be too well-read."
This is a claim that should make anyone to ever pick up a game controller cringe. While he's not literally saying that he's too smart for games, he's... sort of saying exactly that. In his wave or Twitter rebuttals, he even went as far as to post that he was surprised that the gamers arguing against him were "literate," another desperate swing by an out-of-touch man.
This condescending statement will obviously do little but further aggravate those who are against him, which might be his point to begin with. He's slipped out of relevancy in the film industry, so he apparently has to get his kicks by randomly assigning qualifications to the completely subjective term "art." In his article, he even finds time to say that Flower isn't a game, meaning he's even taking time out of his busy schedule to qualify "game" as well. Lucky us. What would we ever do without him.
Comments
I vote we stop giving a flying shit what he says about video games.
Yeah, let's stop acknowledging his pointless, uninformed tirades and stop giving him the attention he's seeking. I really don't need this guy to tell me what art is.
Siskel would have been fucking hardcore. This guy is a joke.
Roger Ebert has "slipped out of relevancy in the film industry, so he...." That is news to me. His is the positive opinion every filmmaker of the last 20 years has wanted to display on their trailers or dvd covers. Your opinion isn't sought after by anyone. (myself included after reading this drivel)
Also, for someone who loves writing, you should learn your grammar. I could care less about mine as a commenter.
"He's slipped out of relevancy in the film industry, so he...." No comma after an independent clause. Instead you should have said "*As* he's slipped out..." Then again why bother with grammar as a writer when you are not one, just a drone with an uninformed opinion. Who cares about Ebert's opinion on games. He is a Pulitzer winning film critic. He is held to the standard of a Pulitzer winning film critic and not a Pulitzer winning game critic. You, on the other hand, hold yourself to the standard of ... actually you just write and not well.
I feel as though asking a film critic what he thinks about video games is like asking an art critic which webcomics he thinks are best.
I guess the industries are tangentially related, but he's not an expert in that field, so why would you ask him?
If gamers want to start a pissing match with Ebert, by all means. I doubt anyone outside of 4chan will side with them, though. Especially if their argument is that video game related films AREN'T all terrible...
@skins: Sorry, Ebert winning a Pulitzer 35 years ago makes him relevant? I fail to see how that makes any sense.
The chance that Ebert is more "well-read" than I am: virtually nil.
It is painfully obvious that Ebert has never really played video games
I don't really think it's fair for him to say that being pretentious and conservative in his views of an emerging medium can qualify him as well-read. For God's sake, the man has been working in one of the (possibly) most subjective careers one can have for years. And now he thinks that he has the power to determine what art is and isn't? O.K. let's add delusions of grandeur and an ego the size of Russia to the long list of personality problems he has.
Personally, I wouldn't say that he's too old to understand video games, I would say that he's too prejudiced and close-minded to appreciate the evolution of the medium. I bet he's a creationist, and a republican to boot (this is all just conjecture of course) but based on the way he handles himself in a situation like this I'm probably right. Instead of a lively debate the topic has become a childish argument turned into trash-talking. If he was ever a respectable figure in people's eyes, this should definitely bring him a few notches down and back to Earth.
@skins
Get your head out of your ass buddy, this is 2010. People like Roger Ebert are being phased out of social relevance and will probably be completely forgotten about in 5-10 years, and if your so concerned with the spelling and grammar of a writer then you're obviously not absorbing much of the subject matter. Writing and speaking are totally different, it's not how you write it, it's what you are writing about that matters more.