Roger Ebert claims "video games cannot be art"; molests children.

[01d55]

Originally Posted by Krylo

In much the same way as I don't argue with doctors, so long as there is consensus in the field, as to the best way to treat appendicitis, I do not argue with art critics, professors, etc. etc. on what is defined as art.

You can draw arbitrary lines if you want, but it's about as ridiculous as arguing with Hawking about Quantum Mechanics.

They know more than you, you are wrong.

You don't have to like all art, you don't have to find it tasteful or particularly valid. However, to say that it ISN'T art, still makes you wrong.

Well I might not be a professor myself yet but I am an undergraduate majoring in Computer Game Design and the consensus among my professors here at UCSC goes something like this:

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

For literally centuries chess has been the medium through which people have experienced revelations about themselves and others and the broader nature of humanity and interconnected human society, guided by a simple set of interactions nonetheless allowing for variations of infinite complexity.

That shit is art as hell.

Basically if you talk to people who say they study "art" but actually mean they study "music and painting and drama and maybe movies and television" then it's a crapshoot if games are or aren't art, and they're going to focus on shit like "is there a story." If you talk to people who study games (They're called ludologists) then you get a consensus: "game rules are art."