Music, video/film, drama/acting, writing, photography/illustrating are considered art so OF COURSE video games can be art since most modern games consist of these parts.
In many games, one or more of these artistic forms can actually make up the core of a game.
It takes a lot of creativity and vision to create games these days - of course it doesn't mean that every game is a visual, aural masterpiece capable of moving one to tears or deep thought which brings me to this: video games ARE art but that doesn't mean it's all good.
AND it's a broad term: film is art but it doesn't mean every director strives to create art. Just ask Uwe Boll Seriously, many are in it to make a fast buck and taking an ages old idea, copying a few tricks from some of the "masters", hiring some amateur actors and having some bimbo you just met who "always wanted to be a writer" come up with the "screenplay" does not make you an artist.
Same goes for a lot of games which are mindless, void of much depth and nothing special in terms of art design or music.
But we have plenty of games which have soundtracks, visual direction, plot/script, art design, and voice acting that rival some of the best Hollywood has to offer and is better than a majority of the summer blockbuster crap released every year.
Ebert's problem is that he has no experience whatsoever with games aside from a couple of mainstream titles he's probably heard of or seen in action (albeit briefly, I'm guessing). He's not a gamer so he really SHOULD not comment.
I'm not a film critic but I have a 300+ DVD collection of films from highly acclaimed directors in a variety of genres and if not for my other hobbies and pastimes that number would be in the thousands but alas, my funds aren't unlimited, hehe.
So although I'm not PROFESSIONALLY qualified to comment on films, I've seen enough of them, many of them numerous times, and enough "making of" and director's commentaries to feel like I can contribute, however amateurishly to a debate or discussion regarding them.
How many games has Ebert played? How many gaming magazines or websites has he visited?
In many games, one or more of these artistic forms can actually make up the core of a game.
It takes a lot of creativity and vision to create games these days - of course it doesn't mean that every game is a visual, aural masterpiece capable of moving one to tears or deep thought which brings me to this: video games ARE art but that doesn't mean it's all good.
AND it's a broad term: film is art but it doesn't mean every director strives to create art. Just ask Uwe Boll Seriously, many are in it to make a fast buck and taking an ages old idea, copying a few tricks from some of the "masters", hiring some amateur actors and having some bimbo you just met who "always wanted to be a writer" come up with the "screenplay" does not make you an artist.
Same goes for a lot of games which are mindless, void of much depth and nothing special in terms of art design or music.
But we have plenty of games which have soundtracks, visual direction, plot/script, art design, and voice acting that rival some of the best Hollywood has to offer and is better than a majority of the summer blockbuster crap released every year.
Ebert's problem is that he has no experience whatsoever with games aside from a couple of mainstream titles he's probably heard of or seen in action (albeit briefly, I'm guessing). He's not a gamer so he really SHOULD not comment.
I'm not a film critic but I have a 300+ DVD collection of films from highly acclaimed directors in a variety of genres and if not for my other hobbies and pastimes that number would be in the thousands but alas, my funds aren't unlimited, hehe.
So although I'm not PROFESSIONALLY qualified to comment on films, I've seen enough of them, many of them numerous times, and enough "making of" and director's commentaries to feel like I can contribute, however amateurishly to a debate or discussion regarding them.
How many games has Ebert played? How many gaming magazines or websites has he visited?
Last edited: