Thanks for drawing my attention to this. Linda Holmes' article was great, and I'm actually surprised at how low some of those reviewers went with their stereotyping.

It's sad that someone who actually complains when a movie makes the audience laugh gets paid to criticize those movies.

To me, when I read reveiws like that, all I think about is a 58 year old disgruntled nobody who hides behind their computer in their small dank city apartment, mad at the world and the youth of today for enjoying life so much more than they ever could. If they want to sterotype me as a 12 year old gamer with no life, ADD and, on top of it all, a dork, then I have no reason to not sterotype them right back.

These people should be forced to sit down and watch someone play games who actually knows something about them. Sit them in a dark room and fire up Bioshock or Limbo. Let them sit back and watch someone else play for all I care. The first ten minutes of either of those games are example enough. I've never played SotC, but I'm sure it's just as, if not a better example. Seriously this would take them 2 hours max, but they can't be bothered because we're a relatively new medium.

I don't think showing people Bioshock would really sway their ideas on games. All they will probably see is some faceless person shooting a bunch of crack heads with fire, and guns. Nevermind the story behind it.

In order to break the sterotype we would need them to watch/play a game that breaks the defined sterotypes.  Meaning they would need to see a game that doesn't fall into the same themes of kill everything on sight while getting story, or something that looks/feels like a old game but with a 'deeper' story.

Truthfully a game like Heavy Rain could have been one of those games. Since it was based on interactions, and passive with active parts. But the story brings it down.

'the game industry grows while other media stagnate. Developers continue to innovate while filmmakers languish in creative voids.'

Lets take a look at the busy holiday periods output.

 

Medal of Honor 12 (yes 12, reboots still count as sequels), Fallout 3.5: New Vegas,,Halo 5, Fable 3, Force Unleashed 2, Rockband 3, Gran Turismo 5, Call of Duty 7, Assassins Creed 2.5, Driver 4, Crysis 2, DJ Hero 2, Fear 3, Max Payne 3. The list goes on. 

 

Original IP?  Epic Mickey, a Def Jam Rap game and errr.... yeah I'm struggling.

 

I like video-games, I really do, but to say they're innovating while movies stagnate when they're both based off exactly the same business model is ludicrous.

As much as I loved the Scott Pilgrim movie, I can understand that it has very limited appeal. Heck gamers could be equally divided on it, depending on what games they play. This article basically boils down to, people are criticizing our "art". I think gamers have major insecurity issues when it comes down to other people's view of their "obsession"/"passion", especially when it's been inherently negative.

Weird. I AM a dork, I DON'T have a life, I DO have ADD AND it's been said that I act like a 12 year old. Maybe they're onto something...

@ Joe -

Where's Jason Rohrer in your argument? Where's the discussion of glasses-free 3D technology and the continuing strides in the development of haptic interfaces? Get beyond the titles - sure the video game industry suffers from the same AAA malaise as Hollywood suffers from Summer blockbuster-itis, but film hasn't made any leaps forward in decades.

Look at the video game industry in its entirety, not just in terms of the titles, and look at the film industry in its entirety, and not just the movies. Video games stand on the brink of breaking out of the AAA title production cycle as independent production looks more and more viable every year when coupled with digital distribution. You'll never see the film industry make that kind of leap forward as long as they're stuck to the theater distribution model. We're not just talking about technological innovation, but economic innovation, that the video game industry holds over the film industry.

@ Keenan -

Third paragraph: "I am in no way suggesting that we should allow these people to define our collective sense of self worth."

Seventh paragraph: "Moving a discourse into the larger world is the only way to legitimize the language and discussion of enthusiasts."

You'll notice we get a lot of people on here who bemoan the state of video games purely on a design basis. They think that game design is repetitve (see the comments I responded to above). They think that no one is pushing the mediium forward. Part of the solution to this problem, if someone really cares, is to engage the critics and thereby help legitimize video games in the public eye. When that happens, we might see more people like Kev Levine, who's a pretty educated and well-rounded guy, turning to video games and saying "Huh, I wonder what *I* could do with this medium?"

Imagine "creative people" as a mass. They get drawn in all different directions to different kinds of artistic endeavor. Literature, painting, sculpture, poetry, writing...film is in there, as well, but it's kind of new. Once film was taken seriously, a huge wave of innovation and inspiration hit the medium after World War II, and the whole game changed.

The same thing, I am convinced, will happen to video games eventually. Someday the art will be legitimate as a matter of course, and that's when we'll see new, fresh, creative minds enter the field and start taking advantage of all the technologies pioneered by the first wave of developers and creating some truly groundbreaking video games.

My point is that, to anyone who wants to move this forward, or who is concerned about how video games are perceived in the greater consciousness, I just gave them four targets. Four people to engage with, and hopefully making the point that this is something to always keep an eye on.

In the end, this isn't about the Scott Pilgrim movie at all. I haven't seen it, nor do I intend to. Not interested. Holmes' article wasn't about the film, either. Did you read it? It was about how the reviewers were reviewing the audiences, not the film.

Honestly I didn't read the article, because it doesn't matter to me what critics think of gamers or the ones who see a movie like Scott Pilgrim. These critics don't really GET games, so why should it matter? In terms of game design as a whole and creators, I'll be honest I've become jaded, to the point where I find myself more and more distant with gaming/gamers. Of course that is probably most of my own doing. But that's another topic entirely.

Totally check out the article. I don't think it's what you think it is. It's actually a really good piece, and Linda Holmes is an excellent writer with a great rep. It's worth reading just for the good read, never mind the other issues it's tied to. :)

"Alongside film and popular music -- taken purely as entertainment -- the game industry grows while other media stagnate. Developers continue to innovate while filmmakers languish in creative voids."

This is a great quote. I know it's been challenged earlier in the comments, but I agree with the rebuttal. You can't say, for example, that painting never moved forward because there was a time when almost everyone painted in an impressionist style. When considering any art or form of expression, you have to look in a much broader sense--over the scope of decades, at least, and in terms of overall experience instead of franchises. Of course, this isn't as easy to do as games are still a relatively young medium, but if games continue to evolve with the same speed they have over the past 30-40 years, by the time we're in our golden years there should be much more to go off of.

I wouldn't say Ebert "changed his mind" so much as he realized that the debate was threatening to swamp his regular routine of spoiling the endings of movies he doesn't enjoy.  His response article seemed less reconciliatory and more "get off my lawn."

That said, I looked up my local tabloid rag's review, and was pleasantly surprised to read the first sentence: "At last, a video game movie that doesn't suck."  So at least one writer out there has a positive view of gamers, or at least gives us the benefit of the doubt.

I am indeed offended, but I think as a community (not only as a culture) we need to teach these "critics" by representing ourselves in more common and broadly viewed ways.  I know that videogame culture is in everyones faces if they like it or not, but we need to stand apart from the media and carry ourselves for the purpose of "example".  To teach the general public of our culture we need to interact more in social events.  Jason Statham was aways offended by video gamers until he waas in the dungeon siege movie.

Most people have no idea about us until you lecture them for awhile.  I hope in a couple years we wont have to be refferd to something as esoteric as a culture but it seems this is still a far ways off.  

I am indeed offended, but I think as a community (not only as a culture) we need to teach these "critics" by representing ourselves in more common and broadly viewed ways.  I know that videogame culture is in everyones faces if they like it or not, but we need to stand apart from the media and carry ourselves for the purpose of "example".  To teach the general public of our culture we need to interact more in social events.  Jason Statham was aways offended by video gamers until he waas in the dungeon siege movie.

Most people have no idea about us until you lecture them for awhile.  I hope in a couple years we wont have to be refferd to something as esoteric as a culture but it seems this is still a far ways off.  

I've suddenly realized I never commented on this awesome post!

So I have to now, if only to let you know that my Composition class on Film is using it as one source in a Case Study we're working on.

PS While most of the class thinks you're a nerd, you convinced them that it's wrong to stereotype gamers and that video games can be art, haha!