GR: "Bless him, Roger Ebert is sharing his opinion on video games again and, believe it or not, his view doesn't seem to have changed."
(Culture, Industry, PS3, The Last Of Us)
i don't even feel like addressing people like this. Ebert is an old, pretentious shriv, who understands nothing of the video game medium.
from the article
"It’s a struggle between loud, assaultive, photorealistic game design that rewards wispy attention spans while demanding minimal problem-solving skills of its players and … games where shotguns to the face and chainsaws to the jugular are not so essential."
wow. this person's knowledge of the video game medium is so lacking that they were unable to grasp what they were watching in the "last of us" footage. the level of depth, strategy, realism, and intensity shown in Last of Us is extraordinary and it is certainly not mindless shooting.
The medium doesn't need Ebert's approval to be a legitimate art form anyway, and we should stop wasting our time trying to convince him to change his mind. Ultimately, art is what the individual defines it to be, and Ebert is only one individual out of billions. If he doesn't want to accept interactive media as art, it's his loss, and no one else's.
I do not see why people care for the opinion of this film critic on video games or the writer who dismissed both Watch Dogs and Last of us as mindless..
Here is my original response to the first article
The reason that these two dismissed the game is because they do not think it is artistic, and dismissed it as another gears of war. Unfortunately they do not understand the fact that ND is trying to convey human emotions through their Ai. He also stated that our excitement for TLOU and Watch Dogs makes no sense as we should be praising games like Pikmin 3 and last guardian... which is funny because last guardian WAS NOT AT THE GOD DAMN CONFERENCE.
He ignorantly dismissed the game... I would have understood this, but what really made me know the guy who wrote the article is really out of touch with gaming is this statement
"2009’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, the second highest-selling video game of all-time in the U.S., was in many ways the Dark Knight of gaming. It solidified an ongoing franchise while exploring themes of terrorism and reprisal from the point of view of American protectors working Dick Cheney’s “dark side” to produce results. As Seth Seichel wrote in a New York Times review of the game, “Basically, the player, in the guise of an American commando, can participate in a massacre of unarmed civilians. ‘It will cost you a piece of yourself,’ your commander says of the mission. ‘It will cost nothing compared to everything you’ll save.’”"
NO! MW2 HAD ONE OF THE STUPIDEST PLOTS I HAVE EVER HAD THE DISPLEASURE OF PLAYING. THAT WHOLE NO RUSSIAN MISSION WAS JUST SHOCK, NO SUBSTANCE.
The fact he had the audacity to compare it with the Dark knight is an insult to both gamers and movie goers. COD doesn't care about the plot only the money they generate by teenagers.
That is how I know that we should dismiss this article... because the guy has no clue about the gaming medium at all
He also said Joel was wearing camo... jesus christ thats when you know this guy has no idea about what he is talking about
This film critic simply agreed with this, however this is the article that made me facepalm hard when I saw MW2 is the pinnacle of game story telling...
God that statement made me want to puke. Especially with games like MGS, Assassins Creed, Bioshock, RDR, Half-life, Uncharted, Halo, CALL OF DUTY HAS THE BEST STORY IN GAMING? GTFO
Oh and this guy wasn't at E3.... he's commenting based on youtube footage... no wonder he thinks the last guardian was at e3... but I do love the sheer amounts of sarcasm ND is giving both of them #yourwelcome http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-G...
He must be judging the game just on the E3 demo without knowing background info. This is just another hack and slash zombie game for him. Doesn't matter GAMERS know this is the real deal and excited for it regardless for what this guy "thinks".
He's good at movie reviews but he needs to step out of the talking about games negatively business. It's just a generation thing, just like how older people struggle with technology, he just struggles grasping that games should be enjoyed by all and they are not a mediocre form of entertainment. However, in several decades this bias in the movie critics should start to subside.
Yup, the game will be brutal. Yup, it will be violent. Yup, it will not be for all. Everybody has the freedom to choose not play it. Plenty of sweeter games for those who hold Ebert's opinion.
the only buffer from (an opinion like Eberts) is that you must use your imagination to fill in the gaps and holes in video games.
But on the other hand while there's far less depth to some games if you're able to play it over and over and keep discovering content and nuance (mark of a better game) in either game play or the story (Rocksteady games have this), then his argument is moot and he's just a lazy gamer...
Pundit: "an expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called on to give opinions about it to the public"
Troll: " an e-mail message or posting on the Internet intended to provoke an indignant response in the reader."
Ebert has no authority to critique anything but movies, he's not a videogame pundit, he's an internet troll. Congrats Ebert, you're just another internet asshole.
People keep asking why we should care about what Ebert says. It's simple:
People listen.
He may not know the first thing about games- he just might know the FIRST thing, but I'm certain he doesn't know the second- but because of his clout in the movie reviewing industry, there are those that will take his words on gaming to heart. It's a horrible, horrible thing, because he understands so little about gaming.
Ebert tweeted that he had nothing to say about the game, and was simply saying the article was good... but the article was horrible, outlining what happens when people try to sound intelligent on a subject they know next to nothing about. Agreeing with or liking such an article DOES show you have something to say, when the article was about a particular game, anyway. So he fails to clear himself of wrongdoing.
Ebert sucks. We all know that. WE know his knowledge of games and gaming is severely lacking.
But there was a time- when I was a kid- where I would have listened to him on games, if only because I knew how big his name was, and knew less about games.
Others will do the same now. And that's why we SHOULD care.
"He may not know the first thing about games- he just might know the FIRST thing, but I'm certain he doesn't know the second- "
The you go on to say:
"but the article was horrible, outlining what happens when people try to sound intelligent on a subject they know next to nothing about"
So you castrate him for sounding stupid yet most of the time here on N4G you come off sounding like a guy who drools all over his keyboard. The only reason why you bother to reply to this article is because you just can't stand anyone saying anything bad about your precious system. Get a life kid. It's clear you have nothing going on other than the ability to post here all day, every day.
This is a duplicate article and i already commented on it earlier. So if you want to disagree with that comment go ahead, because we all know you'll never agree with it (because of your inability to reason, discuss, and actually consider others peoples points of view that may be different than yours, and most of all because i go after you for being such a deranged fanboy) even though i too don't support Eberts input when it comes to games.
Basically what you're saying is you're just upset he trashed a Playstation 3 exclusive game and thankfully the folks at Sony have you clearing the air for them. Must be nice for companies like Sony who find all kinds around the globe working their little hearts out for free.
Hicken" But there was a time- when I was a kid- where I would have listened to him on games, if only because I knew how big his name was, and knew less about games.
Others will do the same now. And that's why we SHOULD care. "
Who are you talking to and why are you acting like Big Brother who's here to the rescue? Get over yourself kid, nobody actually takes what you say seriously.
Okay, I said I wasn't gonna respond anymore, but I'll make this my last.
First off, don't half-quote me. Either quote an entire phrase, or don't quote it at all. Changing what I said into what you WANTED me to say is childish.
And then simplifying it into what you WANT it to mean is equally as juvenile. Ebert sucks because he sucks. He knows very little about games- something he once admitted- yet here he is praising something that criticizes games, and what he's praising is a train wreck.
I'm talking to whoever would read my comment, poor child. I said what I did because I can remember watching Siskel and Ebert. And I remember taking their word on movies as gospel. If they had told me about games, I wouldn't have taken their word for it, because I knew nothing at all on the subject, myself.
Lots of people are still just like that; they know little about a given subject, but because someone they think is trustworthy has a certain opinion, that opinion becomes their own. Ever heard of the Milgram experiment? Yeah, it doesn't even have to go that far.
Please, if you're going to call someone else "kid," it helps to not act like you're 12, yourself. You still haven't shown the ability to debate rationally, as all you do is sidestep the issue at hand. I'll admit, you're very good at that, but it got real old, real quick.
If you don't take what I say seriously, then you should have no problem ignoring it completely. Yet you're frequently trying to discredit my every word. You may try to play it off, but SOMETHING I say strikes a nerve with you, something I write is serious enough that you feel the need to respond in the same infantile way every time.
But hey, I understand if this is all you've got. Feel free to be my personal little stalker/troll. Know, though, that you'll get no more responses out of me.
... unless, at some point down the road, you're done with your therapy and can converse like an adult. Then maybe I'll waste a moment chatting with you.
100°
330°
910°
680°
Ad 
300°
30°
0°
20°
40°
40°
from the article
"It’s a struggle between loud, assaultive, photorealistic game design that rewards wispy attention spans while demanding minimal problem-solving skills of its players and … games where shotguns to the face and chainsaws to the jugular are not so essential."
wow. this person's knowledge of the video game medium is so lacking that they were unable to grasp what they were watching in the "last of us" footage. the level of depth, strategy, realism, and intensity shown in Last of Us is extraordinary and it is certainly not mindless shooting.
I do not see why people care for the opinion of this film critic on video games or the writer who dismissed both Watch Dogs and Last of us as mindless..
Here is my original response to the first article
The reason that these two dismissed the game is because they do not think it is artistic, and dismissed it as another gears of war. Unfortunately they do not understand the fact that ND is trying to convey human emotions through their Ai. He also stated that our excitement for TLOU and Watch Dogs makes no sense as we should be praising games like Pikmin 3 and last guardian... which is funny because last guardian WAS NOT AT THE GOD DAMN CONFERENCE.
He ignorantly dismissed the game... I would have understood this, but what really made me know the guy who wrote the article is really out of touch with gaming is this statement
"2009’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, the second highest-selling video game of all-time in the U.S., was in many ways the Dark Knight of gaming. It solidified an ongoing franchise while exploring themes of terrorism and reprisal from the point of view of American protectors working Dick Cheney’s “dark side” to produce results. As Seth Seichel wrote in a New York Times review of the game, “Basically, the player, in the guise of an American commando, can participate in a massacre of unarmed civilians. ‘It will cost you a piece of yourself,’ your commander says of the mission. ‘It will cost nothing compared to everything you’ll save.’”"
NO! MW2 HAD ONE OF THE STUPIDEST PLOTS I HAVE EVER HAD THE DISPLEASURE OF PLAYING. THAT WHOLE NO RUSSIAN MISSION WAS JUST SHOCK, NO SUBSTANCE.
The fact he had the audacity to compare it with the Dark knight is an insult to both gamers and movie goers. COD doesn't care about the plot only the money they generate by teenagers.
That is how I know that we should dismiss this article... because the guy has no clue about the gaming medium at all
He also said Joel was wearing camo... jesus christ thats when you know this guy has no idea about what he is talking about
This film critic simply agreed with this, however this is the article that made me facepalm hard when I saw MW2 is the pinnacle of game story telling...
God that statement made me want to puke. Especially with games like MGS, Assassins Creed, Bioshock, RDR, Half-life, Uncharted, Halo, CALL OF DUTY HAS THE BEST STORY IN GAMING? GTFO
Oh and this guy wasn't at E3.... he's commenting based on youtube footage... no wonder he thinks the last guardian was at e3... but I do love the sheer amounts of sarcasm ND is giving both of them #yourwelcome http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-G...
Idiotic article written by Steve Boone:
http://www.capitalnewyork.c...
12
the only buffer from (an opinion like Eberts) is that you must use your imagination to fill in the gaps and holes in video games.
But on the other hand while there's far less depth to some games if you're able to play it over and over and keep discovering content and nuance (mark of a better game) in either game play or the story (Rocksteady games have this), then his argument is moot and he's just a lazy gamer...
Troll: " an e-mail message or posting on the Internet intended to provoke an indignant response in the reader."
Ebert has no authority to critique anything but movies, he's not a videogame pundit, he's an internet troll. Congrats Ebert, you're just another internet asshole.
People listen.
He may not know the first thing about games- he just might know the FIRST thing, but I'm certain he doesn't know the second- but because of his clout in the movie reviewing industry, there are those that will take his words on gaming to heart. It's a horrible, horrible thing, because he understands so little about gaming.
Ebert tweeted that he had nothing to say about the game, and was simply saying the article was good... but the article was horrible, outlining what happens when people try to sound intelligent on a subject they know next to nothing about. Agreeing with or liking such an article DOES show you have something to say, when the article was about a particular game, anyway. So he fails to clear himself of wrongdoing.
Ebert sucks. We all know that. WE know his knowledge of games and gaming is severely lacking.
But there was a time- when I was a kid- where I would have listened to him on games, if only because I knew how big his name was, and knew less about games.
Others will do the same now. And that's why we SHOULD care.
The you go on to say:
"but the article was horrible, outlining what happens when people try to sound intelligent on a subject they know next to nothing about"
So you castrate him for sounding stupid yet most of the time here on N4G you come off sounding like a guy who drools all over his keyboard. The only reason why you bother to reply to this article is because you just can't stand anyone saying anything bad about your precious system. Get a life kid. It's clear you have nothing going on other than the ability to post here all day, every day.
This is a duplicate article and i already commented on it earlier. So if you want to disagree with that comment go ahead, because we all know you'll never agree with it (because of your inability to reason, discuss, and actually consider others peoples points of view that may be different than yours, and most of all because i go after you for being such a deranged fanboy) even though i too don't support Eberts input when it comes to games.
You don't even disagree with what I'm saying; you just have to comment in some childish attempt at making me look as juvenile as you.
Just... stop.
Basically what you're saying is you're just upset he trashed a Playstation 3 exclusive game and thankfully the folks at Sony have you clearing the air for them. Must be nice for companies like Sony who find all kinds around the globe working their little hearts out for free.
Hicken"
But there was a time- when I was a kid- where I would have listened to him on games, if only because I knew how big his name was, and knew less about games.
Others will do the same now. And that's why we SHOULD care. "
Who are you talking to and why are you acting like Big Brother who's here to the rescue? Get over yourself kid, nobody actually takes what you say seriously.
First off, don't half-quote me. Either quote an entire phrase, or don't quote it at all. Changing what I said into what you WANTED me to say is childish.
And then simplifying it into what you WANT it to mean is equally as juvenile. Ebert sucks because he sucks. He knows very little about games- something he once admitted- yet here he is praising something that criticizes games, and what he's praising is a train wreck.
I'm talking to whoever would read my comment, poor child. I said what I did because I can remember watching Siskel and Ebert. And I remember taking their word on movies as gospel. If they had told me about games, I wouldn't have taken their word for it, because I knew nothing at all on the subject, myself.
Lots of people are still just like that; they know little about a given subject, but because someone they think is trustworthy has a certain opinion, that opinion becomes their own. Ever heard of the Milgram experiment? Yeah, it doesn't even have to go that far.
Please, if you're going to call someone else "kid," it helps to not act like you're 12, yourself. You still haven't shown the ability to debate rationally, as all you do is sidestep the issue at hand. I'll admit, you're very good at that, but it got real old, real quick.
If you don't take what I say seriously, then you should have no problem ignoring it completely. Yet you're frequently trying to discredit my every word. You may try to play it off, but SOMETHING I say strikes a nerve with you, something I write is serious enough that you feel the need to respond in the same infantile way every time.
But hey, I understand if this is all you've got. Feel free to be my personal little stalker/troll. Know, though, that you'll get no more responses out of me.
... unless, at some point down the road, you're done with your therapy and can converse like an adult. Then maybe I'll waste a moment chatting with you.