He is right

He is right.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 144.39K)

*was

>He is was
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Attached: 1594152577717.png (446x252, 94.3K)

Who cares? Art is for faggots, and discussions about art are for faggots with no talent. Call it whatever you want to call it. Call it "creative expression" call it a pile of shit. It's still going to be the same thing.

If he was so smart how come he's dead?

Is*
If videogames were art, then they would maintain their image and present relevant challenges in game, not require me to kill 200 zombies of each type for a single trophy.

You cannot read corrections. You are very stupid and you have the brain of an infant

He faked his death, like Tupac or George W. Bush.

>Video games don't NEED to be art.
Checkmate fat fuck.

Attached: images - 2020-06-19T113906.342.jpg (460x613, 29.1K)

Considering the state of modern art, who cares?

to me this argument is like saying "films can never be art because jack and jill and disaster movie exist". also what exactly does ebert know about vidya? he probably thinks games are still like 80s arcade games.

I don't think he thinks much these days.

He's just jawboning

Like I give a fuck about the opinions of a man that gave The Thing a bad review while Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull a good review.

I always thought it was funny how much they hated the Friday the 13th movies
Halloween was okay, because of course it was

Ebert was a complete fucking pleb. He didn't know shit about art.

How did Ebert become one of the most renowned film reviewers?
none of his reviews that I've read are particularly insightful. Sometimes he just shat on movies simply because he didn't like the premise.

His argument wasn't that games can't be art because the stories are shit. I'm sure he'd defend shit art as art. His opinion was that video games give the player the agency to ignore the intended message and to break the art. In his defense he walked back enough to say that he stands by his opinion but doesn't know enough about games to make a full defense of his opinions.

I think a more fully fleshed out take on it would be something akin to "A video game on its own is not art, but the resulting playthrough that is created via the player's experience with the developer's creation is in itself a work of art".

Attached: b4f.jpg (569x428, 24.55K)

Yeah look at this shit-eating grin. He knows that he's full of it.

Attached: ebert3.jpg (480x360, 16.5K)

What about walking simulators like SOMA.

>intended message and break the art

This is what confuses me. I always hear about some art pieces being subjective and open to the audience interpretation. Or should art always adhere to the artist's vision?

Halloween aint even good, lol. Do not get the fascination with that tedious pile. If it wasn't for the soundtrack and Donald Pleasence, there would be nothing of note about it. Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a work of art. Halloween is fucking lame.

no

Attached: 220px-Sotc_boxart.jpg (220x311, 19.59K)

Damn, Isaac Arthur is getting older by the day. Literally aging like milk.

If I want to play around with the game engine find way through walls. Fuck around and miss out on things that the developer wanted me to do or see that's inherently allowed in the design of a game. We've all played a game with a game and tested the limits to see if an action could hurt or kill us. Yeah I can go to a movie and talk like an asshole the whole time but that's not really inherent in how movies are meant to be experienced.

Art is open to interpretation but the experience is on a level playing field. Disagreeing with Ray Bradbury about Fahrenheit 451's meaning comes from everyone experiencing the same piece of art in the same way. Missing a message because you're dense isn't a reflection on a piece of art in the same way as missing a message in a game because it's impossible for two people to experience it in the same way.

I'm not saying I agree with Ebert, but that's where he was coming from.

That seems like needlessly arbitrary hairsplitting by people desperate to maintain some illusion that liking movies makes them "art connoisseurs" rather than consumers, but okay.
I know for a fact there have been art installations where people are invited to come and "take part in the art" in various ways, but I guess that's okay because shut up.

>video games can never be art
just put the game in a frame and hang it on a wall LMAO

The thing is, and not a lot of people know this, art is fucking bullshit. It's literally just a big cope by retards to convince themselves they're somehow doing something important by dedicating their lives to splashing coloured oils on canvas, or pointing a camera at some trees blowing in the wind, or writing down their trite emotions on paper, and it's all reinforced by the buyer's remorse of other retards who pay fortunes to indulge in that shit. They see the video game nerds, and something in their heads tells them "that's me. I'm a fucking loser", and then they cope.
Art isn't even real. Who gives a shit? Fuck off. Get a real job. Have sex.

Why should I care about what a chinless corpse thinks about vidya?

Get off the internet for a while, maybe go to a museum and immerse yourself. I hope you follow this advice :)