Man screw this guy. He hated on my vidya gaems hard. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions can be objectively wrong. His was because he never played any vidya, and still dissed them. That isn't a valid point of view, that just makes you an idiot and a curmudgeon, and speaks volumes of your character. Good riddance cranky old man.
The art in video games is an interactive duet, between the developers and the player, a couples dance if you will. And while it is preformed we are lavished with music and visuals and story and writing, all which improve the dance.
It doesn't matter that it takes an enormous amount of technicality to create a game, working through that and producing a fluid and imaginative final product is the hallmark of a great game. Haters don't understand it, they may even poo-poo the idea for being to high brow (while simultaneously being their own flavor of hipster snob) but they want this in their games. Some prefer it subtle, others overt.
The undeniable art in the game, the creativity needed to create, the sewing of it all together, the final product, even the interaction with it. Listen to the Half Life 2 dev commentary some time and you'll understand the idea of a paired dance. Valve has a deep understanding of what will draw a players interest, egg them on, nudge them to act . Now most video games are not good examples of art, most of any medium is bad.
I read and write voraciously, I have an interest in poetry, my i-pod has death metal and classical music (because I don't have to choose one), and I appreciate picture-productions, sculptures, paintings and especially architecture. None of the other forms of art have inspired my imagination, or provoked such a visceral emotional response from me than a handful of video games, the rest are solid entertainment.
So fuck Ebert for dissing on it like it 'wasn't worthy', when he didn't even try it.
And fuck this article too, this has nothing to do with video games, someone in Hollywood died, Giant Bomb isn't a goddamn blog.
Fuck this article because of what it represents, I love video games as art, and I (we) don't need any validation from the existing forms, and especially not from film.
"Namely, if games are as much about their services as they are the core gameplay--as Joystiq's Alexander Sliwinski smartly poses in his editorial on the subject--should we be reviewing them before they launch? And should the scores be adjusted to reflect the ever-evolving state of such games?"
Bang on, and kudos for Jeff thinking about it a ton.
How much should the services of a game be reflected in a review, is a good discussion as is how much of the meta commentary (aka sales pitch and pre-launch buzz) figure into your expectations and final review. Sims City 4 and Tomb Raider highlight these two concerns of mine.
The salary cost seems way to low and the other costs seem too high. So if it's 150k per character the game itself took a couple million to make? I guess that sounds right. I won't be chipping in, but as a fan of Skullgirls I will glady reap the benefits of free characters and purchase any DLC that follows this up.