Roger Ebert says video games can never be art

[JUG]

bdbdbd said:
@r505Matt: In Wii Fit Plus, the MET values are shown and it uses them to calculate the calories burned.

Actually, the study said the same as i did: it depends what and how you play Wii Fit (notice that they were averages on how people played it). If you want to lose weigh, you're likely not going to play the yoga games or balance games, but likely to take the aerobic excercise and/or muscle excercise.
Since you have played Wii Fit, you likely know how you can play Hula Hoops without making a big deal out of it, or exhaust yourself compleletely with it (i tend to do the latter).
Then there are the free step/free jogging that you're supposed to do while watching TV.

Wii Fit Plus added cycling, among few other things, where you can cycle around the island as long as you want to.

But, you are right, that the loading/starting/etc. times lower the effectiveness of the session.

However, only by looking at one quality we are not getting the whole picture of the advantages of Wii Fit. For example (this is pretty random, i know) the Hula Hoops in Wii Fit is the best thing ever happened to my back, even better than thaiboxing or physiotherapy.

By negating what the topic is about, i was looking at Ebert again, not what the posters posted. Ebert is talking as an authority, as someone who knows what art is, but if art is subjective, then there's no authority and nobody can say what is art and what is not - unless talking about ones personal dislikes and likes.

Looking at popular opinion among critics, art definately is something that's understood only by few and when something is made entertaining and/or popular or as business, it can't be considered as art. If you notice, Ebert actually pointed both of these out in his blog post. However, this is where i agree with him. I see art made with creativity in mind, instead of entertaining people and making money.

And, i was thinking black and white, as strictly entertainment vs. art.

I do think there are "universal ethics" to an extent, but in order to understand them, you'd need to take a class in evolution psychology instead of ethics class.

Very controversial. I don't think anyone's put it better than David Hume when he so poignantly asked how exactly can an "ought" be derived from an "is"?