Much as I respect A-list film critic, Roger Ebert, I think this jounal entry of his shows that he does not understand videogames in the slightest. His argument is specious, and I find his conclusion rather patronizing.

Obviously the debate on this forum will be rather one sided, but I think anyone who has played a good selection of videogames will affirm that they are, indeed, an art form comparable to film, literature, theatre, architecture etc.. If, however, you think Ebert's argument is sound, then feel free to say why below.

The following is a summary of Ebert's article from "That Videogame Blog":

Famous film critic Roger Ebert has spoken out about the medium of videogames once again and his opinion has not changed. Ebert focuses his argument on why “videogames can never be art” in response to a presentation given by thatgamecompany President Kellee Santiago (creator of PSN games flOw and Flower) who, as expected, thinks the contrary.

Ebert starts by comparing videogames to various other outlets including cave drawings, chess and classic movies, continuously noting Santiago’s views and then following with his own counterpoints.

“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.”

Three games that Santiago brings to the table in her defense of videogames as art are Waco Resurrection, Braid, and her own title, Flower. Ebert diminishes each title by comparing Braid’s written story to that of “a wordy fortune cookie” and Flower’s visuals to having “decorative interest on the level of a greeting card.”

The discussion wraps up with Ebert asking a question that is possibly more thought provoking then the main subject at hand.

“Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren’t gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves?”

At the end of the article you will likely either be clenching a fist or nodding along to Ebert’s opinions. Either way, videogames being escalated to this degree of examination shows a level of importance that is hard to deny.

(I was most definitely clenching my fist!)

At the end of the day, it all depends on what definition of art you're using. And since everybody has their own definition, we will never come to a satisfactory conclusion.

I'm going to let ebert be on this. He recently had his entire lower- jaw surgically removed for some medical reason, and I think that it might be cancer. He isn't fat these days either.

Either way, it's just a generational conflict as I see it, the old being pretty judgemental over the ways of the young. I still respect ebert but disagree.

I fully agree with this

I'll just add that here we have a clear example of some dude trying to protect the "superior quality" of the field he's working on... I'm quite sure there were plenty of guys denying the status of art to movies in the beginning of 20th century

“Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren’t gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves?”

This was a good ender.

"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.”

This is actually a good point.  A title like Heavy Rain might fit into Ebert's views but then again I've heard a lot of gamers say that Heavy Rain isn't a game.

I agree, but I can't think of any reasonable definition of art that would allow for the inclusion of all the media that Roger acknowledges and yet exclude videogames, unless you just arbitrarily decide that interactivity entails lack of artistic merit.

When Ebert says videogames can never be art, I think he is implying that they can never be the subject of sensible critical review (in the same way that there are art critics, film critics, literature critics). This is plainly false, and the snobbery of the implication infuriates me.

as always it depends on your definition of "art" it changes depending on who and even when you ask, as such video games are art and at the same time not art. I would argue that many modern pieces of "art" are not does that stop them being art no it doesn't, as long as someone considers it art that is what it is just because some people don't consider it art doesn't mean it's not.

cause im sure all the great artists all throughout history lost sleep wondering if their art would be accepted by Roger Ebert

Sounds like he's just arguing semantics. Can you even define what "art" is? As far as I'm concerned art is something created by human creativity. The rest is completely subjective. A lot of stuff that developers create I would say is "art" and a lot more relevant today than stuff I've seen in art galleries like the Tate Modern.