Sid’s Corner: A Response to the Responses to Roger Ebert

A few months ago after seeing a TED presentation explaining why video games are “art” movie critic and douche bag extraordinaire, Roger Ebert, immediately wrote up an argument as to why video games can not and will never be a form of “art”. Without getting into the semantics of his argument let me explain to you with great brevity how much Ebert knows about video games: Jack shit. He lets us in on this secret when you start reading about his experience with games. Here is a direct quote from his blog you can read at the end of this article:

In my actual experience, I have played “Cosmology of Kyoto,” which I enormously enjoyed, and “Myst,” for which I lacked the patience. Both games are from the infancy of the form. I’d played no others because–well, because I didn’t want to. I particularly didn’t want to play one right now, this moment, on demand.

Other then what the above states here is more on his lengthy experience with video games. Ebert explains with detail how way back in the day, May of 2010 to be exactly, he was begged by a friend to play a PlayStation 3. The high-end console would be shipped straight to his house from Sony along with a pre-downloaded title, Flower. Ebert then goes on to explain a PlayStation 3 was something he didn’t want, and had no interest in trying out. In response his friend from Sony told him that this was OK, and that he can just return the console after he is done playing. Ebert refuses because he just doesn’t give a damn. And that is all Ebert has ever played and that is all he has ever experienced as far as gaming goes.

After reading both his blog posts that pertain to video games I was baffled. I wasn’t confused by his argument, and I wasn’t upset about his position. I was simply bewildered at how an opinion from someone who is obviously ignorant to the subject can get so much exposure, anger, and response. Obviously this guy is well known and loved by many for his writing and criticism of cinema and theater, but what in the blue fuck does he have to do with video games? Why the hell do so many pretentious nerds and assholes who own consoles feel that this ancient man has to experience video games, love them, and call them art. It’s Roger fucking Ebert! I don’t go to Bill O’reilly to get my news and I don’t look to Joesph Bryant for video game recommendations; want to know why? Because they’re not fit to give that advice; so why the hell do you care about what Ebert says about video games? I’m not even going to ask the obvious question of “What is art” because I already know it’s just subjective. Watch this: Pissing on Michael Cox while he sleeps is a form of art, because I go through many feelings during the activity (anger, fear, sadness, and joy) and it’s an experience I remember and enjoy having. Do you think pissing on Michael Cox is a form of art? Probably not. Do I care? Nope.

Video gamers are the biggest assholes on the Internet. They will harass you for not liking video games, they will harass you because of a comment you made about a video game online (positive or negative), and then they will harass and teabag you while you fucking play the video game. You can go read the many responses Roger Ebert got from actual video game journalists that fucking get paid to write, and nerds who have a blog site. You can read the responses on his blog site and on countless twitter accounts. At the end of the day all Ebert responded back with was regret. Regret that he even said anything about video games at all, and he explained his definition of “art”, his thought process, and told us about his laughable experience with video games. Yetyou still cared. At the end of the day all you got was a measly “I should have kept my mouth shut” response. He didn’t even change his mind about the subject, and he never will, and he doesn’t give a shit; but you do.

Nice going, Jackasses

Sid

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07/okay_kids_play_on_my_lawn.html