Roger Ebert says video games can never be art

[superchunk]

I don't want to read the multiple pages of other comments, so I'll just give my 2 cents and see if anyone cares/agrees/detests.

Ebert is right.

Video games are no different than football, chess, tag, etc. They are all games that are created for the sole purpose of entertaining the player and potentially their respective crowds of viewers.

Video games are also moving to be within the realm of cinema with deeper stories and developed imagery. However, it is still a user-defined experience that is purely for financial gain through the creation of entertaining experiences.

You may go to a Art museum or visit a Gothic cathedral and have a sense of being entertained. But more importantly, you are also generally invoking wonderment at the details and actual feeling/culture that is spilling out of the art you are admiring or disgusted with.

Video games don't do this. They create excitement and many times push your intellect to derive solutions to the problems presented or create strong competition as you try to outscore your opponent.

However, I would argue that some, very few, games do have artistic qualities via their music (which is not the game itself but a song) or potentially the graphical subtlety in games like 'flow' or 'Okami'. However, these games are actually mimicking real art styles and again, its not the game that is the art, but one small tool used to present the game.

The same goes for movies. Most are not art, just entertaining. However, there are arguable few that compel the right mixture of music, visual ques, and more importantly a remarkable story that pulls so strongly at your soul that it can only be considered art. When I have to pause a game so I can admire its entirety, especially the story, then I would present that to Ebert and others as true art.

Video games do not have a Mona Lisa.