Roger Ebert says video games can never be art

[Kasz216]

The Ghost of RubangB said:

Metallicube said:
“One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome,” Ebert said. “Santiago might cite a [sic] immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.”

Ebert nailed it with this quote. Games are not art.. they are GAMES. Do you call Yahtzee art? Do you call Monopoly art? I suppose you can put art INTO games, but the games themselves are NOT art.

The game industry is trying too hard to be like Hollywood, and Ebert can see through this.

I'd uh... I'd actually call Monopoly art.  The creation of Monopoly was designing gameplay rules, and a way to win, for an artistic endeavor.  It was a social commentary on the way capitalism forces regular people to become selfish landlords who will stop at nothing to destroy their neighbors, who are now "opponents."  It almost always results in somebody crying or throwing the board.  It's almost like an interactive film in a way, always ending in the horrible defeat of the many and the glorious rise to power of one evil fat cat.  And if Monopoly is art, then Monopoly on the NES is art.  And other games that force you to go down a certain path for a certain feeling or lesson can be art.

I thought monopoly showed that economics were boring... and that halfway through most people just want to quit and play some Connect 4.

Also the way to get ahead in life is to be more stubborn then your opponent in "no-win" if you both don't act situtions.