I see. I think a profound difference between our two ways of reasoning is that I start with the audience and their perception of a work, rather than the artist and his vision/intention. I'm sure you are familiar with the principles of reader-response theory and the creation of 'art' as experience. Not every atom of potential meaning and interprentation thereof within a work corresponds to an intent by the creator, and as such, intentions are not a central element to my appreciation of art; a game like Super Mario Bros. (a series whose early games I admire for, among other things, it's revolutionary level design, milieu and inventive postmodern elements) can be art whether Miyamoto wills it or not. Beauty (or in this case, art) lies in the eye of the beholder, as they say.

Naturally, there are still things that separate a great artist from a crook, not the least of which is consistency, and I agree that in truth very few reach the heights of, say, Andrei Tarkovsky.

I do personally consider many games to be art and can attest to the fact that they have affected me profoundly, but I also agree the medium is still in its infancy and most game creators have only just begun to explore it's potential.

As to how the concept of video games/non-games will evolve in the future, it is a subject I have given some thought in the past. I, personally, feel line between video games, interactive drama and virtual worlds will only be drawn if it is deemed necessary. As long as they contain elements of play (players, rules, goals), there is no reason not to considered them games.

Video games are just like museums. You can easily do a speedrun and miss all the art inside.

Whether or not it is intened to be the primary focus, I think many devs get the impression that it should be. This is why I think it is so important to establish that games are NOT art, because then you get these game developers who get the idea in their head that put the art before the gameplay and making the gameplay suffer as a result of focusing too much on the exterior. 

I don't think people played Pacman and pong because they were art, and I don't think anything has changed since then. Just the technology has changed. But art should be timeless shouldn't it? So how could games be art NOW, but not in the days of Pacman?

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.

You haven't actually said why games are not art, outside of "games are not art". That's not actually reasoning for the point.

I agree that cetain directors need to be broken of this mentality, not beause gams aren't art but beause trying to mimic art from other media makes games less fun, which ruins the whole point of the art in the first place.

Nobody plays games because they are art - few people do anything solely for the sake of experiencing art. But they do do things - including meaningfully consume art - for the sake of experience. Therein lies the important thing: Pac-Man is still art because the essential experience of it has not changed and has not been diluted over time.

When Shakespeare was writing his plays... people did not go see them because they were art.

They went to see them because it was something to do and entertaining to watch.

Honestly, a lot of what makes shakespeare art now, is that nobody gets all the dirty jokes.

If Shakespeare were alive today, he'd rather watch an Adam Sandler movie then a silent film.

I don't think you quite understand metallicube's perspective, for me and metallicube it's not that games are a set of rules, it's that gameplay is a set of rules. For metallicube and I, everything non-essential to game function is stripped off. For example, you can play Mario Brothers while muted, but than you're missing out on the artistic music, but you're still essentially able to play the game correct? For MGS4 you can play without watching any cutscenes, or reading any of the text, (as I said story is an artform) but essentially you're still able to play the game right? Now take LBP, if I were to make a completely blank canvas world, could you play LBP in it? Yes you could, would it be enjoyable? Probably not. Is there art still involved, yes there's art in the graphics of the sackboy. From our perspective a game isn't the culmination of all these items, but rather these items are added on for additional enjoyment of the game.

Storytelling has always been an artform, it stimulates the ear, and in the form of a play it stimulates the eyes. When you are reading shakespeare do you not see the characters form in your mind (this is why I say there are 7 senses in art). The second the characters are re-created in your mind to your standards you have played with aesthetics in sight.

Games are not art.. because games are games. I know that sounds simplified but I really don't know how to explain it beyond that. You can INCORPORATE art INTO games, but games themselves are not art.

I guess what it boils down to, it just depends on your perspective of the very definition of art, and that is something that cannot be definitly answered.. But art from my view cannot BE games. Only used IN games. It's like saying porn is art. I suppose you can say you can make "artul" porn, or incoroprate artistic features into porn, but I think we can agree porn itself is not art, and its primary purpose is not to be art.

I think if you start blending the term art with games, it begins to be a slippery slope, because then nearly everything could be considered a form of art. I think you have to draw the boundaries somewhere, or the term art loses all its meaning and its value.

You can, of course, experience cinema while removing either the sound or the visuals and still enjoy it perfectly well. I've seen a project where a blind person is playing through Wind Waker based on nothing but sound and memory. I don't see the point you're making here.

Gameplay does not preclude art, which seems to be your primary point. "Games cannot be art" is specious because it is needlessly reductive concerning what art is.