Roger Ebert says video games can never be art

[famousringo]

Grahamhsu said:

You want to see me breakdown SotC or Flow? Fine I will, SotC kill bigass monsters by stabbing the weakpoint, Flow: eat smaller organisms and move up in levels. Tell me how that is art?! How is that aesthetics? There is a golden triangle which is the most pleasing triangle for a human eye to see, that is art. Art is not subjective, and the golden triangle AS WELL AS other GOLDEN shapes prove that it is not subjective, as the human mind has an idea for what it believes sounds/looks beautiful. Same in music, you think it's random chaotic notes? No there is a structure, and chords that are more pleasing to the ear than others. The only thing subjective part in art is your own viewpoint. Whether you think this piece of art is ugly, meh, or the most wondrous you've ever laid eyes on.

You talk a lot about the importance of gameplay to a game, so you surely must allow that some gameplay is good and compelling while other gameplay is bad and repulsive.

There is your aesthetics. Good gameplay is beautiful, and bad gameplay is ugly. Whether there is some universal structure to what constitutes good gameplay or whether it's entirely subjective is a seperate issue, but good gameplay and bad gameplay can be just as attractive and repulsive as good music and bad music.

And you ignored my point that the rules in a game influence the emotions that players feel, instead segueing into other games which are simply designed to amuse. The fact that most games are designed to amuse is a common argument against games as art, which I find odd because amusement is also an emotion, and one which isn't always so easy to stimulate in others. A song doesn't cease to be art simply because the lyrics make us laugh.

If you like, I could cite other examples of game rules influencing emotions.