your videos are amazing and I really loved how you made the topic approachable. It's very hard to talk about the art of video games and make it digestible. Thank you so much.
The interesting part of Roger Eberts argument is romeo and juliette, because their wore two versions, but the one with the dramatic end won, because it conveys a deeper meaning as an piece of art form, and maybe someday this is also the way we will look at video-games as an art form. Also this Video essay is great, it really good me thinking.
Amazing video. YOu're definitely going to get up there with subs. On another note. I think it's telling about my age now that there used to be a time in which I would have called Ebert an old grumpy man, but now older I do wonder if he had a point. I don't agree with the notion that "games can never be art" That certainly isn't true as something like Journey absolutely uses game mechanic to evoke the sort of emotions one could find in a film. But I think games are kept from being considered art because of two things: 1. Something that I think Ebert alludes to how games are made, and I think his beef is is that games don't come from a sincere place. His jab at Santiago in the last sentence of his article suggests that he believes gaming as nothing more than a commodity manufactured by companies. And unfortunately with the pressure for profits and expansion, it leaves less room for artistic expression and more room for games who sole purpose is to make profit. I mean that's an issue with film too, but it often feels like its so much easier for creatives to put out movies than they can for video games. But 2. I think gamers themselves are kind of to blame as well. We want the validation that comes from games being called "art," but we don't actually want to consider what that means. Count the many times that people get upset because some critique looks at a popular game in a certain political lens? I recall people getting so upset over stuff like "Gone Home" specifically because it didn't let them "choose" how they wanted to play. You're right that interactivity is one of the greatest strength of gaming, but I think what Ebert was getting at was the ability to choose a good or bad ending--I believe Ebert made that comment during the rise of "moral choice" gameplay like Fable--blunts the ultimate message of the game. Because now game developers, rather than making a pointed message, now have to dilute their story to appeal toeveryone. And when you appeal to everyone, you appeal to no one. I think video games will get there, but it depends on an audience that's actually willing to treat games like the artform they are, and an industry that's willing to make people understand how games are actually made.
I think you hit the nail on the head with a lot of the points you made and I wish I had tried to capture some of them a little better within the video. Perhaps there's room for a follow up piece on this eventually especially as the medium continues to evolve and change. Thank you so much for leaving such an interesting comment and adding to the conversation.
@@somethingmoretothis No problem. I"m just glad the algorithim did something right for once and pointed me to your videos. If you are interested in expanding this topic out, I highly suggest taking a look at a video titled "Videogame Discourse is Broken "by AI and Games, as it goes a lot into things that I feel hold gaming back from being considered an artistic medium like music, literature, or film.
Great video! Very eloquently presented! I agree with a good amount of your points but I’ve gotta disagree with part of your conclusion. To my understanding, every game is deliberately made and designed to provoke a feeling in the player, which in my eyes allows them to be categorized as art. To me, how well one achieves this goal is irrelevant to its categorization. So I disagree with your statement that Ebert was correct to a degree. Every game is art in my eyes, but not every art piece connects with everyone (or with me, for that matter).
