Roger Ebert has passed at the age of 70.  Now, I ask, how much does the above statement (the threads title) matter. I mean, no one was able to convince him otherwise.  But, we here are all aware that to make a good game, you need good artists with a good vision.  Comments?

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/roger-ebert-dies-70-following-battle-cancer-194457663.html

games are science!!!!

R.I.P Whoever you were. I consider them art. Deal with it

Everybody considers art different. For me games are art because it's extremely difficult to bring a made up world to life with music, artist, characters and good gameplay. I don't consider paintings like this http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nN4X_z40N0U/T0D-DZIdEkI/AAAAAAAACSk/2gJtrX4SAdU/s1600/Pollock_no-5.jpg as art because boring people see things that aren't there. (FACT: this is the most expensive painting ever).

I consider them art but to be fair he was a movie critic and almost all movies based on video games are bad art.

for games are a collaboration of art and science or rather technology.

- yoshis island
- Vib Riboon
- Okami
- Zelda Wind Waker
- Muramasa Demon Blade
- Shadow of Colossus
- Journey

These games to me are playable art.

well he never played a video game i wouldn't think he would, he was an old fart who was born when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

Games have art in it in many forms, just because it isn't painted or sculpted doesn't make it not art.

Not to mention his craptastic reviews. It makes no difference really.

Absolutely its art. A great game brings lots of different art together. Visual, music, architecture, fashion, writing, acting, directing, story telling, and because games are interactive it makes the experience more intimate than just a movie or painting.

Games are not just art. They are the amalgamation of all art forms put together, plus software development practices.

Game design by itself is certainly art, and one unique to games, but only a part of what makes a modern game.

RIP Ebert.