This from the guy who obsesses over every bit of CGI and animation that is placed in front of his face.

One mans art is another mans trash. Yet I bet if they showed him a scene of a CGI looking game character running down a hallway with a bunch of explosions going off and the character making some cheesy pun as he escapes, and lied to him saying 'James Cameron made this', he'd be all TWO THUMBS UP BEST THING EVER! ...until they told him it was a game.

Also, I'm not even going to touch the whole 'what is art' debate.  Suffice to say, nearly everything throughout history has been snuffed by those who consider something else art, only to later be deemed 'art' because it became popular.  'Art' is just in the eye of the beholder...and the labeling of the general public.

I don't believe Ebert believes all films are works of art. As I said before there is art involved in making a game. In the case of MGS the giant and long CGI movies can be considered art. But when it comes down to it the "GAMEPLAY" which is what makes a game a "game", there is no art at all. When I sneak by an enemy in MGS is that considered art? When the command prompt pops out and asks if I should Attack, Defend, or Magicks, is that art? What about headshotting some poor sap in MW2 art? 

However when an RPG drives me to keep playing from it's story, there is art in the story, but that art itself stems from the power of storytelling and not gameplay.

I disagree. If you change the gameplay mechanics, you change the experience.

Take Silent Hill: Shattered Memories as an example. The game designers wanted to create a sense of fear and helplessness in the player, so instead of empowering the player with weapons and making it a fight for survival, they provide the player with escape routes and make enemy encounters a flight for survival.

You change the rules, and you change the emotional content of the game. The rules of interaction are what differentiate games from other media, and they are a tool of expression and subject to different interpretations just like music or imagery.

well some people live games in a sense that they make them or want to some day make them so why not take something like games seriously if you want them to live up to their potential in the eyes of everyone. I for one am in school for game design and consider the process of making a game art but its all in the eye of the person experiencing the product i guess.

You are speaking of Level design (I consider it art), not gameplay. In music we take away all the unimportant notes in a chord to understand it's function and meaning. Same idea applies in this, strip silent hill of music, level design, graphics, and story. By doing so we enter the core of the game, which is essentially killing monsters with a knife/pistol/whatever weapon exists in such game. So are you telling me killing monsters can be considered "art"?

Finally, we have all been Waiting For Roger Ebert To Tell us If Games Are ART or not...

I lost all respect for his opinion when he blasted Braid for allowing you to undo your mistakes. The whole point of the game (as anyone who has played it through to the end can tell you) is that you CAN'T actually take your moves back. No matter how much you run after her, you will not end up with the princess in the end.

As someone who has never played the games in question I don't think he's qualified to judge whether or not they are art, just like someone who had never seen a Van Gogh painting would not be qualified to intelligently judge Van Gogh's quality as a painter.

They said the same about cinema in the early 20th Century.

Dont worry this guys opinion counts for nothing !

My Ebert review: -1/10

Despite my appreciation for the medium of video games, at the end of the day I gotta agree with him in at least saying "Who cares?" and then go and enjoy my hobby.