bonbolapti

PODOCASTU: http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/bonbolapti/blog/tl-dl-podcast-31-late-to-the-party/101025/

1542 4203 49 68
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

bonbolapti's forum posts

#1 Posted by bonbolapti (1542 posts) - 22 days, 18 hours ago
#2 Posted by bonbolapti (1542 posts) - 27 days, 18 hours ago

It reminds me of a simpler time when games were crazy enough to work.

I'm really happy that something like this exists.

#3 Posted by bonbolapti (1542 posts) - 29 days, 16 hours ago

WELCOME BACK

#4 Edited by bonbolapti (1542 posts) - 29 days, 20 hours ago

It's an okay game, but it's far from being shocked about.

#5 Edited by bonbolapti (1542 posts) - 1 month, 5 days ago

They can't all be winners.

#6 Edited by bonbolapti (1542 posts) - 1 month, 14 days ago
@fiberpay said:

@bonbolapti said:

@fiberpay said:

@bonbolapti said:
@fiberpay said:
A good critic/reviewer can do both. A good critic can be offended by a movie and point that out in the review but also able to understand why someone might like it. Ebert could not. That shortsightedness also effected him when it came to the "games as art" discussion. He could only see things one way, his way. As an art major I will never respect a man who dismisses anyone's creative work, be it video games or a crappy painting on a fridge that a little kid drew.

He actually made a pretty good argument as to why games aren't art. (Which I can say that I'm that side too. ) The problem with it, is that he was giving an opinion to a field that wasn't specific to him, and everyone got insanely defensive. Suddenly it was so important to everyone that he didn't think of games as art.

I mean, to this day it still needs to be argued within the sheer mention of Ebert's name.

Actually it was a pretty bad argument as to why games aren't art. He contradicts him self many times in that article. Just a quick example, he throws Kellee's definition of art right out the window by basically saying definitions vary, but in the next paragraph he then uses a definition to re-enforce his statement.

I'm thinking about the first time he made the statement. But I think a lot of the debate gets further perpetuated because people just don't want games to be games anymore.

Exactly he is so shortsighted that he can only see games and games. He clearly thinks there is no way you can put a definition on "art" so why does he think he can define "game"? That is a little to arrogant for me. His problem is that he dismisses anyone's response by saying definitions are interpreted many ways but yet his only claim as to why games are not art is by his definition of a game.

But that's the problem. Games are games. They have their definition we all understand and can say what a game is. But the further we debate, "Are videogames art." We're not so much arguing in favour of games, but for interactive experiences.

Personally, I feel there's a disconnect in the argument. Just because these titles seem to be evolving beyond what I would even consider being called a game.

#7 Posted by bonbolapti (1542 posts) - 1 month, 15 days ago

@fiberpay said:

@bonbolapti said:
@fiberpay said:
A good critic/reviewer can do both. A good critic can be offended by a movie and point that out in the review but also able to understand why someone might like it. Ebert could not. That shortsightedness also effected him when it came to the "games as art" discussion. He could only see things one way, his way. As an art major I will never respect a man who dismisses anyone's creative work, be it video games or a crappy painting on a fridge that a little kid drew.

He actually made a pretty good argument as to why games aren't art. (Which I can say that I'm that side too. ) The problem with it, is that he was giving an opinion to a field that wasn't specific to him, and everyone got insanely defensive. Suddenly it was so important to everyone that he didn't think of games as art.

I mean, to this day it still needs to be argued within the sheer mention of Ebert's name.

Actually it was a pretty bad argument as to why games aren't art. He contradicts him self many times in that article. Just a quick example, he throws Kellee's definition of art right out the window by basically saying definitions vary, but in the next paragraph he then uses a definition to re-enforce his statement.

I'm thinking about the first time he made the statement. But I think a lot of the debate gets further perpetuated because people just don't want games to be games anymore.

#8 Edited by bonbolapti (1542 posts) - 1 month, 15 days ago
@fiberpay said:
A good critic/reviewer can do both. A good critic can be offended by a movie and point that out in the review but also able to understand why someone might like it. Ebert could not. That shortsightedness also effected him when it came to the "games as art" discussion. He could only see things one way, his way. As an art major I will never respect a man who dismisses anyone's creative work, be it video games or a crappy painting on a fridge that a little kid drew.


He actually made a pretty good argument as to why games aren't art. (Which I can say that I'm that side too. ) The problem with it, is that he was giving an opinion to a field that wasn't specific to him, and everyone got insanely defensive. Suddenly it was so important to everyone that he didn't think of games as art.

I mean, to this day it still needs to be argued within the sheer mention of Ebert's name.

#9 Edited by bonbolapti (1542 posts) - 1 month, 20 days ago

because somebody has gotta be 'Old-man-internet' somewhere.

#10 Edited by bonbolapti (1542 posts) - 2 months, 2 days ago

@tyty: when not a lot of people show up, we have a tendency to say "fuck it" to the format :P

Use your keyboard!

  • ESC