Roger Ebert says video games can never be art

[famousringo]

Metallicube said:

Like I said, there could be art IN games, but the games themselves are not art. It is never the primary focus of games. Games are related more closely to math and physics than art, in that they are based around rules and specific mechanics. The "art" in games is just the exterior. Monopoly may have an artistic message as you say, but it is not the central focus of the game. People play monopoly to have fun and use their mind to make decisions themselves, not to be moved emotionally or get political messages.

Art and games serve different purposes. Art is meant to "do all the work" for the person experiencing it so to speak. It is meant to move people emotionally, to send a message, comment on society, or wow people visually. Games are meant to entertain people through interaction, and to make the user be maker of the outcome. They give the user an array of options and let the user logically and strategically select from these options what they think is the best outcome to "win" the game. You cannot "win" art.

In a sense, games are really the anti art. Games give an array of options and lets the user provide their own course and experience, art provides it for them.

I absolutely cannot agree. Audience interpretation is a factor in every artistic medium, and not just in videogames. Art often evokes thoughts and feelings that are completely distinct from anything the creator intended. The creator can attempt to guide the experience of the audience, but s/he absolutely cannot define that experience for them. It's this interaction between the artist's creation and the audience's interpretation that makes art so fascinating.

Abstract paintings are about as far from a rigidly defined experience that "does all the work" as you can get, but I rarely see somebody claim that they aren't art.