Wednesday 5 January 2011

Ebert and Limbo.

It's not often I get the opportunity to prove someone wrong, but I think today I might well have found the perfect chance to do so. I was sat in my room, avoiding work as usual, when I came across as an article by a man named Roger Ebert. Roger is an acclaimed film critic and screenwriter who I'd heard about from someone or something so, when I came across this article I was immediately intrigued and ever so slightly enraged. The piece speaks about how Ebert believes that videogames, in all their shapes and forms, can never be art. I don't want to have to go into detail as to why he's wrong, the thousands of comments at the end of the article by disgruntled gamers sees to that. Rather, I'll give an example. Microsoft (makers of my dear Xbox 360) recently had a Christmas sale, the headliner of which was arty arcade game Limbo. On release the title had been praised and admired and adored by critics, with review collator Metacritic giving it an overall rating of 90 out of 100; so I picked it up to have a wee gander.


 It's kinda difficult to put it into words but Limbo's creators description adequately portrays the game's somewhat ominous tone - "Uncertain of his Sister’s Fate, a Boy enters LIMBO" (capitals were their choice, not mine). Put simply, you're a little boy running around in pitch black and everything is trying to fuck you up. The whole thing is an intense, atmospheric, shit-scary experience. I played the thing in the dark, on my own and jumped more times than I care to remember. The game's engaging, clever and consistent throughout; and even though the narrative simply provided a setting, the game somehow managed to be emotive as well. It's titles like this that prove Ebert wrong; videogames aren't just for bedrooms and lazy people anymore, they're for galleries and intellectuals as well.


P.s If you thought Limbo was pretty you might want to check on some of these - 123, and lest we forget 4.


No comments:

Post a Comment