|by Jordan Magnuson||Tuesday, June 16, 2009 [5:21 am]|
Thanks for the thoughts Jason; I think your response is far more thoughtful than Ebert's (and on a different plane than Barker's--Ebert's the one at fault there though, as he could have picked a different defense, as you say).
The question of "art or not" is always going to be tricky, but I think Ebert's settling on "the real question is, do we as their consumers become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, philosophical (and so on) by experiencing them?" is a decent place to start the discussion.
@Rod Humble: I think the comparison of games to films is not worthless (despite the fact that the mediums are "worlds apart" due to the interactive dimension, they still share three other dimensions (visual, auditory, temporal), but I too would be very interested to here some intelligent criticism of video games from poets or musicians (and/or their critics). The key word in that last sentence is "intelligent."
P.S. Jason, I recently played Passage and extremely impressed with your project: I don't think it's pretentious to try and build up a vocabulary before we write a masterpiece. If a haiku can be art (and I believe that it can) then Passage is art.