<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Right. Moving On&#8230; [My Response to Ebert]</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thatgamecompany.com/general/right-moving-on-my-response-to-ebert/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thatgamecompany.com/general/right-moving-on-my-response-to-ebert/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 03:59:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kellee</title>
		<link>http://thatgamecompany.com/general/right-moving-on-my-response-to-ebert/comment-page-1/#comment-1401</link>
		<dc:creator>Kellee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 19:47:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thatgamecompany.com/?p=919#comment-1401</guid>
		<description>I agree with you, maxmyth. Which is why, when Ebert says &quot;this can&#039;t be art,&quot; without providing any context or definition, is so maddening. I do believe we should broaden the definition, and in doing so, truly take into account the emotions we receive and are exposed to on a daily basis.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you, maxmyth. Which is why, when Ebert says &#8220;this can&#8217;t be art,&#8221; without providing any context or definition, is so maddening. I do believe we should broaden the definition, and in doing so, truly take into account the emotions we receive and are exposed to on a daily basis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: maxmyth</title>
		<link>http://thatgamecompany.com/general/right-moving-on-my-response-to-ebert/comment-page-1/#comment-1399</link>
		<dc:creator>maxmyth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jul 2011 13:26:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thatgamecompany.com/?p=919#comment-1399</guid>
		<description>I see both you, Kellee, and Ebert being right and wrong. This debate stemmed from the fact that words are not black and white concrete concepts. So it follows that the word &#039;art&#039; is open to interpretation as are many/most words. Art is in the eye of the beholder as many say. I understand that each of you had to defend your own idea of what art is. It seems we humans have to defend our perspectives as humans or we, rather our ego or reputation as being leaders/experts, get decimated.

Personally I feel &#039;art&#039; is anything a life form, or any other natural process, thinks, does or experiences. Art is cause and effect. The floor affects my existence as does the manner in which my cat meows or what my friend says in an email. Our current thoughts are altering emotional and physical reality in subtle almost imperceptible fashion. So limiting the word &#039;art&#039; to the realm of film, painting, sculpture, poems, video games, music, etc. I feel is unfair. 

To further push the idea of language/words being a problem, as our consciousness evolves, words like science, sport, art, politics, etc. will merge into one grand concept. This grand conjunction or unification of separate categories will bring forth advancements that current humans would consider magic. Perhaps then our current spoken and written language systems will be depreciated and a new more powerful language system based on pictures will emerge. Think &#039;techlepathy&#039; although I prefer true telepathy since techlepathy could backfire (further enslavement of humanity). Anyways I am tangenting a bit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see both you, Kellee, and Ebert being right and wrong. This debate stemmed from the fact that words are not black and white concrete concepts. So it follows that the word &#8216;art&#8217; is open to interpretation as are many/most words. Art is in the eye of the beholder as many say. I understand that each of you had to defend your own idea of what art is. It seems we humans have to defend our perspectives as humans or we, rather our ego or reputation as being leaders/experts, get decimated.</p>
<p>Personally I feel &#8216;art&#8217; is anything a life form, or any other natural process, thinks, does or experiences. Art is cause and effect. The floor affects my existence as does the manner in which my cat meows or what my friend says in an email. Our current thoughts are altering emotional and physical reality in subtle almost imperceptible fashion. So limiting the word &#8216;art&#8217; to the realm of film, painting, sculpture, poems, video games, music, etc. I feel is unfair. </p>
<p>To further push the idea of language/words being a problem, as our consciousness evolves, words like science, sport, art, politics, etc. will merge into one grand concept. This grand conjunction or unification of separate categories will bring forth advancements that current humans would consider magic. Perhaps then our current spoken and written language systems will be depreciated and a new more powerful language system based on pictures will emerge. Think &#8216;techlepathy&#8217; although I prefer true telepathy since techlepathy could backfire (further enslavement of humanity). Anyways I am tangenting a bit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Teeth Grinding</title>
		<link>http://thatgamecompany.com/general/right-moving-on-my-response-to-ebert/comment-page-1/#comment-1164</link>
		<dc:creator>Teeth Grinding</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Oct 2010 16:49:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thatgamecompany.com/?p=919#comment-1164</guid>
		<description>Great Post.bookmarked !!
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.treatmentforteethgrinding.info&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Teeth Grinding&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great Post.bookmarked !!<br />
<a href="http://www.treatmentforteethgrinding.info" rel="nofollow">Teeth Grinding</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stef</title>
		<link>http://thatgamecompany.com/general/right-moving-on-my-response-to-ebert/comment-page-1/#comment-933</link>
		<dc:creator>Stef</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 23:43:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thatgamecompany.com/?p=919#comment-933</guid>
		<description>Art really doesn&#039;t have a definition. Everyone seems to have their own opinion of what it means and personally I think that art is the conveying and exploration of feeling. I&#039;m an artist myself and whenever I&#039;m drawing or painting I&#039;m try to express feelings through poses, landscapes and atmosphere.

Personally, I think possible the best example as gaming as an art form is Flower. You don&#039;t need to play the game to have fun, you can just sit back and take in the atmosphere. To me that&#039;s what it&#039;s all about and Flower, along with many other games, has done that so much better than some of the movies, music and paintings I&#039;ve seen over the years.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Art really doesn&#8217;t have a definition. Everyone seems to have their own opinion of what it means and personally I think that art is the conveying and exploration of feeling. I&#8217;m an artist myself and whenever I&#8217;m drawing or painting I&#8217;m try to express feelings through poses, landscapes and atmosphere.</p>
<p>Personally, I think possible the best example as gaming as an art form is Flower. You don&#8217;t need to play the game to have fun, you can just sit back and take in the atmosphere. To me that&#8217;s what it&#8217;s all about and Flower, along with many other games, has done that so much better than some of the movies, music and paintings I&#8217;ve seen over the years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lonewolf2877</title>
		<link>http://thatgamecompany.com/general/right-moving-on-my-response-to-ebert/comment-page-1/#comment-892</link>
		<dc:creator>lonewolf2877</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:57:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thatgamecompany.com/?p=919#comment-892</guid>
		<description>More importantly now is to spread the word that Ebert does not know games so this doesn&#039;t come back to slap the video game industry in the face especially in the court proceedings that are happening now:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Roger-Ebert-doesnt-know-games-because-he-doesnt-play-them/111219238918791</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More importantly now is to spread the word that Ebert does not know games so this doesn&#8217;t come back to slap the video game industry in the face especially in the court proceedings that are happening now:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Roger-Ebert-doesnt-know-games-because-he-doesnt-play-them/111219238918791" rel="nofollow">http://www.facebook.com/pages/Roger-Ebert-doesnt-know-games-because-he-doesnt-play-them/111219238918791</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simulated Knave</title>
		<link>http://thatgamecompany.com/general/right-moving-on-my-response-to-ebert/comment-page-1/#comment-888</link>
		<dc:creator>Simulated Knave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:34:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thatgamecompany.com/?p=919#comment-888</guid>
		<description>I think you&#039;re greatly hampering your argument with your choice of games.  

Firstly, I&#039;m not sure you chose particularly strong examples.  Flower is arguably not a game - it was approached as art first, and there is little for the player to do (though much for them to experience).  Waco: Resurrection is about violence and is, frankly, not very good looking - both of which would make it trickier to sell as art (IMO).  Braid...OK, I&#039;ll give you Braid.  Though I&#039;d say Braid is hampered by its mediocre story presentation (in-between level text?  Really?  Are we playing Tyrian?).  

These examples are also quite recent.  If you want to make the argument for games being art, I would argue that there are many examples which are much older.  Off the top of my head, a lot of the old Black Isle products were art (including the original Fallouts and Planescape Torment), many adventure games would qualify (Grim Fandango, Full Throttle, even King&#039;s Quest), a lot of modern Bioware games (KOTOR being perhaps one of the best examples), what about Sid Meier with Alpha Centauri?  Or Pirates?, and Team Ico stuff (Ico, Shadow of the Colossus).  

There&#039;s an entire history of gaming to draw on.  Choosing examples from the past few years needlessly hampers your argument.  I think it would be difficult to argue that Planescape Torment isn&#039;t art - it&#039;s a story presentation that relies intrinsically on player interaction.  Shadow of the Colossus has beautiful art direction and visceral presentation.  Grim Fandango has unique and original ideas and a quirky aesthetic.  And that&#039;s the ones I can think of.  I have no doubt here are plenty more.  Furthermore, it means you concede a point you might not need to - the whole &quot;not comparing to the masters&quot; thing.  Gaming has its honored classics, and its titans of the field - Tim Schaefer or Chris Avellone both spring to mind, as does Sid Meier or even Peter Molyneux.  People do haul out their old games and replay them - and the experience is not appreciably hampered by age.  The enduring experience of many of these games is a point towards games being art.  

All of the games mentioned can (and usually do) evoke an emotional reaction in the player (other than controller-snapping rage, which nearly all games can evoke :P).  All received a lot of effort visually and in their story.  Hell, Planescape: Torment stayed on a lot of top ten lists until OBLIVION came along.  That&#039;s almost ten years. And it did that on the strength of its story and experience.  

These are games pointed to as great by the community (or at least by journalists).  And I&#039;ve got to wonder why you didn&#039;t take advantage of that?  Gaming, like other forms of art, also has a rich history.  And like other art forms, what was and was not art is more agreed upon than what is and is not art at this particular moment.  Going back to pick the best examples of gaming three, five, ten, or even fifteen years ago would be a much better way of both demonstrating the artistry of gaming and of demonstrating the history and long existence of that artistry.  

I think you weakened your argument unnecessarily.  Not that I think it would have made a difference to Ebert, mind you.  :P</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you&#8217;re greatly hampering your argument with your choice of games.  </p>
<p>Firstly, I&#8217;m not sure you chose particularly strong examples.  Flower is arguably not a game &#8211; it was approached as art first, and there is little for the player to do (though much for them to experience).  Waco: Resurrection is about violence and is, frankly, not very good looking &#8211; both of which would make it trickier to sell as art (IMO).  Braid&#8230;OK, I&#8217;ll give you Braid.  Though I&#8217;d say Braid is hampered by its mediocre story presentation (in-between level text?  Really?  Are we playing Tyrian?).  </p>
<p>These examples are also quite recent.  If you want to make the argument for games being art, I would argue that there are many examples which are much older.  Off the top of my head, a lot of the old Black Isle products were art (including the original Fallouts and Planescape Torment), many adventure games would qualify (Grim Fandango, Full Throttle, even King&#8217;s Quest), a lot of modern Bioware games (KOTOR being perhaps one of the best examples), what about Sid Meier with Alpha Centauri?  Or Pirates?, and Team Ico stuff (Ico, Shadow of the Colossus).  </p>
<p>There&#8217;s an entire history of gaming to draw on.  Choosing examples from the past few years needlessly hampers your argument.  I think it would be difficult to argue that Planescape Torment isn&#8217;t art &#8211; it&#8217;s a story presentation that relies intrinsically on player interaction.  Shadow of the Colossus has beautiful art direction and visceral presentation.  Grim Fandango has unique and original ideas and a quirky aesthetic.  And that&#8217;s the ones I can think of.  I have no doubt here are plenty more.  Furthermore, it means you concede a point you might not need to &#8211; the whole &#8220;not comparing to the masters&#8221; thing.  Gaming has its honored classics, and its titans of the field &#8211; Tim Schaefer or Chris Avellone both spring to mind, as does Sid Meier or even Peter Molyneux.  People do haul out their old games and replay them &#8211; and the experience is not appreciably hampered by age.  The enduring experience of many of these games is a point towards games being art.  </p>
<p>All of the games mentioned can (and usually do) evoke an emotional reaction in the player (other than controller-snapping rage, which nearly all games can evoke <img src='http://thatgamecompany.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' /> ).  All received a lot of effort visually and in their story.  Hell, Planescape: Torment stayed on a lot of top ten lists until OBLIVION came along.  That&#8217;s almost ten years. And it did that on the strength of its story and experience.  </p>
<p>These are games pointed to as great by the community (or at least by journalists).  And I&#8217;ve got to wonder why you didn&#8217;t take advantage of that?  Gaming, like other forms of art, also has a rich history.  And like other art forms, what was and was not art is more agreed upon than what is and is not art at this particular moment.  Going back to pick the best examples of gaming three, five, ten, or even fifteen years ago would be a much better way of both demonstrating the artistry of gaming and of demonstrating the history and long existence of that artistry.  </p>
<p>I think you weakened your argument unnecessarily.  Not that I think it would have made a difference to Ebert, mind you.  <img src='http://thatgamecompany.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adem</title>
		<link>http://thatgamecompany.com/general/right-moving-on-my-response-to-ebert/comment-page-1/#comment-886</link>
		<dc:creator>Adem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:31:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thatgamecompany.com/?p=919#comment-886</guid>
		<description>Yesterday i sent you an e-mail regarding this question i surely hope u read it, because it gives you the answer to the question what art is. as a philosopher my job is to find the answers to these fundamental questions. games surely have the potential to be art, like movies, literature, fine arts do, every media has that potential, but it is in our effort to made them such, they can&#039;t be by default art, we must put our humanity in it so that they can inspire other people, and therefore be art. ebert is confused here because he mixes videogames with sports and competition, which are opposed to art, cause they wake the instinctive competitive nature in us, that&#039;s why he thinks games cannot be art, but that&#039;s just plain stupid because every media has that potential. media is material that waits for an artist to come and awakes the potential in it. my elaboration on this question should be in your mail box or in that of your company. be sure to read it, there is some interesting stuff in it, as well as my wish to involve myself more in your topics i think i could be of good use on that matter. stay cool and never leave school;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yesterday i sent you an e-mail regarding this question i surely hope u read it, because it gives you the answer to the question what art is. as a philosopher my job is to find the answers to these fundamental questions. games surely have the potential to be art, like movies, literature, fine arts do, every media has that potential, but it is in our effort to made them such, they can&#8217;t be by default art, we must put our humanity in it so that they can inspire other people, and therefore be art. ebert is confused here because he mixes videogames with sports and competition, which are opposed to art, cause they wake the instinctive competitive nature in us, that&#8217;s why he thinks games cannot be art, but that&#8217;s just plain stupid because every media has that potential. media is material that waits for an artist to come and awakes the potential in it. my elaboration on this question should be in your mail box or in that of your company. be sure to read it, there is some interesting stuff in it, as well as my wish to involve myself more in your topics i think i could be of good use on that matter. stay cool and never leave school;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrice Aubry</title>
		<link>http://thatgamecompany.com/general/right-moving-on-my-response-to-ebert/comment-page-1/#comment-885</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrice Aubry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:29:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thatgamecompany.com/?p=919#comment-885</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s ironic that a movie buff like Ebert (whom I respect) is trying to convince himself that games are not worthy of artistic merits when, at the beginning of the 20th Century, movies (aka. moving pictures) were considered as a passing fad by photographers, who themselves had been treated as frauds by painters during the 19th Century.

Like with any art form, some games are better than others.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s ironic that a movie buff like Ebert (whom I respect) is trying to convince himself that games are not worthy of artistic merits when, at the beginning of the 20th Century, movies (aka. moving pictures) were considered as a passing fad by photographers, who themselves had been treated as frauds by painters during the 19th Century.</p>
<p>Like with any art form, some games are better than others.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher</title>
		<link>http://thatgamecompany.com/general/right-moving-on-my-response-to-ebert/comment-page-1/#comment-884</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:27:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thatgamecompany.com/?p=919#comment-884</guid>
		<description>I would not conclude that the commercial purpose of any particular video game disqualifies it as art. After all, most artists (especially the best ones) in painting, music, etc., commanded hefty commissions or were on staff to produce their content (Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel, Bach working at St. Thomas&#039; in Leipzig and its attached school, that sort of thing).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would not conclude that the commercial purpose of any particular video game disqualifies it as art. After all, most artists (especially the best ones) in painting, music, etc., commanded hefty commissions or were on staff to produce their content (Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel, Bach working at St. Thomas&#8217; in Leipzig and its attached school, that sort of thing).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amy</title>
		<link>http://thatgamecompany.com/general/right-moving-on-my-response-to-ebert/comment-page-1/#comment-882</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:27:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thatgamecompany.com/?p=919#comment-882</guid>
		<description>My own extended response to Ebert:

http://etherealclarity.livejournal.com/263518.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My own extended response to Ebert:</p>
<p><a href="http://etherealclarity.livejournal.com/263518.html" rel="nofollow">http://etherealclarity.livejournal.com/263518.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

