Krug
Newshound
On Time's current list of most influential people they're in the top 20 I believe...
Video Games, Art?
- Thread starter Dias Ex Machina
- Start date
On Time's current list of most influential people they're in the top 20 I believe...
Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
Tycho's style is hyperbolic. This should be no surprise. Tone down the invective, however, and the point remains.
In this case, Ebert is choosing to represent the old guard. He is telling video games to get off his lawn. When he was young, he was probably chided by his elders for his taste for New Hollywood and Devil Music. He is now an elder chiding the youth for their Xbox and their Devil Music.
The circle is complete.
EDIT:
To be even clearer, Tycho is giving it a loud voice, but Ebert marginalized himself here. And he's comfortable with that. He's not going to re-learn all that he would need to re-learn in order to incorporate something he doesn't care for into his artistic canon. He's old enough to make that call for himself. His mistake is making that call for other people, and throwing his weight around to validate that position.
Being wrong about this doesn't invalidate his elder status in the realm of film. In fact, it puts him right where the elder statesmen of art always are when there's an incipient sea change.
In this case, Ebert is choosing to represent the old guard. He is telling video games to get off his lawn. When he was young, he was probably chided by his elders for his taste for New Hollywood and Devil Music. He is now an elder chiding the youth for their Xbox and their Devil Music.
The circle is complete.
EDIT:
To be even clearer, Tycho is giving it a loud voice, but Ebert marginalized himself here. And he's comfortable with that. He's not going to re-learn all that he would need to re-learn in order to incorporate something he doesn't care for into his artistic canon. He's old enough to make that call for himself. His mistake is making that call for other people, and throwing his weight around to validate that position.
Being wrong about this doesn't invalidate his elder status in the realm of film. In fact, it puts him right where the elder statesmen of art always are when there's an incipient sea change.
Last edited:
coyote6
Adventurer
I suspect PAX got to be so hugely successful in large part because of their popularity; if they weren't popular, why would anyone go to a Penny Arcade Expo in the first place?
They also created Child's Play, which seems to be a very successful annual charity drive.
IMO, the got to be successful by being active on the Internet at the right time and in the right way; their comic appealed to a certain (sizable) segment of game-loving people on the Internet, at a time when video games were blowing up (10+ million playing WoW, 25 million playing Modern Warfare 2, isn't it?); add in that they also like and mention other sorts of games (CCGs, RPGs, etc.), and that gave them a big possible base. And they've built on it, with PAX & all, which took some smarts, creativity, hard work, and luck.
So, basically, same way anyone becomes successful.
Last edited:
Fast Learner
First Post
Yes, that's what I was saying, just the short version. You do things people like and that build on each other. PAX is just good shorthand, since it's the clearest demonstration of the built-up devotion.
No free passes. If Tycho's point is solid, he doesn't need to sensationalize, which it seems to me the Penny Arcade guys do in a transparently self-conscious, pandering way. "Oh, we're sounding too intellectual. That's not what our readers want. Insert an f-bomb here for some mouth-breather appeal". I'm not exactly squeaky clean, but it rankles a bit that these guys get away with being so successful when much of it's just grabbing low-hanging-fruit.
It's kinda meaningless. Kim Yu-Na #2??? Jeff Bridges #3??? Barack Obama #26???--but the PA creators are #43. Right before Peter Molyneauz, whose "influence" consists mostly of grossly exaggerating how wonderful and revolutionary the Fable games are.
"The LOVE for your dog...Your dog's LOVE for you....It's so REAL this LOVE..."
I wonder if there's a PA strip about that guy?
Last edited:
Krug
Newshound
Scott McCloud on the issue:
Scott McCloud | Journal » Archive » Wrong Question?
So the elephant in the room.. are pen and paper RPGs art?
Scott McCloud | Journal » Archive » Wrong Question?
So the elephant in the room.. are pen and paper RPGs art?
Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
That's how most people end up successful. The trick is seeing the right fruit consistently. Been that way since well before we were walking. This is what trichromatic vision is for, after all, and brother, I got trichromatic vision.
That aside, I'm curious why you hold a guy who writes a webcomic to higher standards than blogs, editorials, and even most "hard news" outlets?
It is naive to think you will be able to read anything without bias. I'm in academia and I've never seen such a beast. No matter what people tell you, it doesn't actually exist. Frankly, I prefer the primary bias to be written right on their sleeve so I can feel extra smart when I find the hidden biases and the implicit biases (the ones the author was deliberately hiding and the ones the author didn't even know were there).
You don't read an OD&D blog expecting dispassionate analysis of different editions of D&D. That would be a fool's errand. Are you all up on those guys for their hyperbole?
You don't read the blog of a French cooking enthusiast for examples of where French cooking's richness contributes to health problems. Would you honestly expect that? You won't even find an acknowledgment like that in academic work on the subject.
And you don't read Tycho's thrice-weekly post looking for some sort of hard news or calmly stated point following all your high school debate teams rules. He's fully capable of doing it on most subjects when he wants to, but (a) he rarely feels the need to genuflect at various cultural institutions; and (b) he knows his audience is waiting for the punchline. Since he's a webcomic writer and not a news organization, he's entitled to give them that.
Dias Ex Machina
Publisher / Game Designer
Deny it or not, Penny Arcade has acquired substantial weight through the internet. This same magical thread which connects us is also responsible for the success of Steven Colbert, whose internet presence is seemingly larger than his televised one. I count myself a fan of all of them (Colbert, PA, and Ebert). With Ebert and Colbert, they have shifted attention to the internet because their growing fan base is there. For Ebert, it has become his primary outlet.
I respect Jerry Holkins views on many issues and have agreed with many of them (including his view that games can be art). In his many tirades, I have sided with him. However, in attacking Roger so vehemently, he has muffled his valid argument as no more coherent as feces being thrown from the hand of a monkey.
In such a vulgar personal attack, Jerry falls under threat as being dismissed from the debate on grounds of not being civil. Roger Ebert is not Jack Thompson. Roger is not attacking video games or condemning their morality or violence. Roger is also articulate and intelligent, with awards webcomics would dream about owning (and none currently do). There was an opportunity for a real dialogue and it has been squandered.
On a side point, not wanting to sound patronizing, but this thread has been really been intelligently handled. No feces throwing here. Good on all of you. I read the Scott McCloud blog and found it really enlightening.
I respect Jerry Holkins views on many issues and have agreed with many of them (including his view that games can be art). In his many tirades, I have sided with him. However, in attacking Roger so vehemently, he has muffled his valid argument as no more coherent as feces being thrown from the hand of a monkey.
In such a vulgar personal attack, Jerry falls under threat as being dismissed from the debate on grounds of not being civil. Roger Ebert is not Jack Thompson. Roger is not attacking video games or condemning their morality or violence. Roger is also articulate and intelligent, with awards webcomics would dream about owning (and none currently do). There was an opportunity for a real dialogue and it has been squandered.
On a side point, not wanting to sound patronizing, but this thread has been really been intelligently handled. No feces throwing here. Good on all of you. I read the Scott McCloud blog and found it really enlightening.
Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
This is the core of your mistake.
There never was an opportunity for dialogue. Ebert has rejected efforts to have a dialogue on this in the past. His mind is closed.
That is not slander, but a fact. But it's cool. He's playing out the role history has laid out for him as an elder of a recently established art form when another one starts to appear.
You don't see the criticism community of painting or sculpture loudly proclaiming these things because they already lost to film and have become comfortable with the notion of a bigger space for art to live in. Film, however, is currently King of the Mountain. Some filmmakers (and lots of film critics) have the memory deeply ingrained of when film wasn't Art. They remember when they were the virtuous Barbarians and Art was under the control of some Evil Empire. But they conquered that Empire, and in their minds Film sits on a throne. After all, that's what happens when you kill the other Arts and take their stuff, right? But they've been there a while, and now they're afraid some other barbarians are at the gate. They fear for their throne, not yet realizing that it is not and never was a singular throne.
So Ebert and some like him will stand up and deliver speeches to the people, telling them how awesome Film is, and how much Film has done for them, and how could they abandon Film for these upstart Barbarians, who aren't Art anyway.
Everyone is acting out their part in the cultural narrative. All of this has happened before and all of it will happen again.
Which is why I learned to study history. It makes the present hysterical to watch, black humor though it be.
Dias Ex Machina
Publisher / Game Designer
Well, two things on that. Firstly, you're correct. Ebert's mind is pretty much made up. You can't sway him from his opinion but you can still have a civilized discourse with him, which is what Penny Arcade made no attempt to do. I believe Ebert's comment and reply to the TED video was civilized. PA only inflamed the issue with vulgar wordplay.
Second, I don't believe Roger is on the wrong side of history nor do I believe his opinion is solely based on his age. I sincerely believe that if he was born in 1850 and as an elder started watching the first films being made, he could admit to it as being art. What we have is a simple disagreement on the definition of art. Roger endorses one opinion; others (like me and PA) endorse another. On Krug's question, are RPGs art, well, I write RPGs and novels and never once did I refer to myself as an artist. I never considered novels art. I consider novels stories. Nick Greenwood, the artist on Amethyst, is an artist. He makes art. My writing is not "artistic" in my opinion, nor do I consider the work in total a work of art.
This is because my definition of art is something you watch and analyze and understand and reflect. I accept movies are in that category but my "obsolete" view doesn't consider novels art. And I'm a writer. Someone asks me, I would call myself a storyteller. I am not going to tell someone they are wrong if they call me an artist, I would just never do it myself. Some people call some automobiles a work of art, I could never see myself doing that. This is just my opinion. Other disagree.
The point I am making is that I would never condemn you or others for having an adverse opinion to that. This is not some hot-button debate. I firmly believe artwork is eye of the viewer and I never could understand someone that purchases an expensive piece of art for the sole reason to own it and not take any fulfillment in its viewing.
So I believe Roger only has an opinion because of who he is, not what he is. Officially, the only game I think really falls into art is Flower. I can accept arguments as to why Ico or Braid could be...and you may have a point, but I would not stand on a soapbox to defend them as art, as I am kinda on the fence on it.
I will not dismiss the opinion of Roger Ebert solely on the basis of his age. He has stood out in defense of films which were not appreciated in their time and has maintained his conviction in his opinion. More often than not, he has been validated in that stance. Is he wrong about his opinion on video games, I think he is, but that is only because my opinion is only slightly divergent from his.
So no, Ebert won't concede his point. You are right, but there was no place warranted to disregard his opinion solely on the basis on the accusation that he is a senile old man unwilling to see the changing winds around him. That is simply not true.
Second, I don't believe Roger is on the wrong side of history nor do I believe his opinion is solely based on his age. I sincerely believe that if he was born in 1850 and as an elder started watching the first films being made, he could admit to it as being art. What we have is a simple disagreement on the definition of art. Roger endorses one opinion; others (like me and PA) endorse another. On Krug's question, are RPGs art, well, I write RPGs and novels and never once did I refer to myself as an artist. I never considered novels art. I consider novels stories. Nick Greenwood, the artist on Amethyst, is an artist. He makes art. My writing is not "artistic" in my opinion, nor do I consider the work in total a work of art.
This is because my definition of art is something you watch and analyze and understand and reflect. I accept movies are in that category but my "obsolete" view doesn't consider novels art. And I'm a writer. Someone asks me, I would call myself a storyteller. I am not going to tell someone they are wrong if they call me an artist, I would just never do it myself. Some people call some automobiles a work of art, I could never see myself doing that. This is just my opinion. Other disagree.
The point I am making is that I would never condemn you or others for having an adverse opinion to that. This is not some hot-button debate. I firmly believe artwork is eye of the viewer and I never could understand someone that purchases an expensive piece of art for the sole reason to own it and not take any fulfillment in its viewing.
So I believe Roger only has an opinion because of who he is, not what he is. Officially, the only game I think really falls into art is Flower. I can accept arguments as to why Ico or Braid could be...and you may have a point, but I would not stand on a soapbox to defend them as art, as I am kinda on the fence on it.
I will not dismiss the opinion of Roger Ebert solely on the basis of his age. He has stood out in defense of films which were not appreciated in their time and has maintained his conviction in his opinion. More often than not, he has been validated in that stance. Is he wrong about his opinion on video games, I think he is, but that is only because my opinion is only slightly divergent from his.
So no, Ebert won't concede his point. You are right, but there was no place warranted to disregard his opinion solely on the basis on the accusation that he is a senile old man unwilling to see the changing winds around him. That is simply not true.
