Roger Ebert says video games can never be art

[Metallicube]

Khuutra said:

Metallicube said:

Bingo..

The biggest problem I have with people saying "games ARE art!" is that it implies the art in games is the primary focus and very REASON for the game, and if the art is primary, that means the gameplay is secondary. The focus of games, or the "reason" games exist if you will, is to entertain users by letting the user interact with the medium, over a set of given rules. Art does not serve this purpose.

Let's turn this around, and say that "art ARE games." Now is that statement true? Most artists would take offense to that, because art is it's own entity, with its own purpose. Art are not games, and games are not art. Games are centered around user created fun based on a set of rules, giving the user interactivity. Anything else is exterior.

Art need not be the primary focus for a work to be art. I said that some time ago: believe me, I got your point from the start, and already addressed it specifically.

Art can exist just to entertain! That's all Shakespeare was.

Also, that's immensely ridiculous. Let me draw you an analogy.

"Humans are mammals!" is true.

"Mammals are humans!" is not true. Do you see?

Games and art are not mutually exclusive.

I guess that's where we disagree then. I think as specific terms, they ARE mutually exclusive, unless you're using "artful" as a way of DESCRIBING the medium.. For instance, you can have an "artful" game, or "artful" porn, or "artful" baseball player, or artful anything for that matter. But the game, porn, or baseball player themselves are not "art." That's my interesting take at least..