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

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Azisien

A) I mirror the view of "Why are we so concerned that games be considered art?"

B) If games are art, which I might say only a minority are, then they're pretty shitty art. And I say that on top of being heavily biased in thinking art is really, really boring.

C) Robert Ebert liked Knowing. Fuck that guy.

A) You say that, but I again direct you to the comics example. By applying a blanket statement over a media that prevents it from being considered art, you crush it. Then it never will be, and people will never take it seriously. Yes, "artistic" games are few, but the same could be said for movies. Yet movies are considered an art form. The ability to call a work art brings a respect and acceptance to it.

B) Again, the same could be said for movies. Or anything for that matter. 90% of everything is shit. Take Persona 3. A wonderful game, not particularly graphically advanced compared to other titles, but absolutely dripping with symbolism. If it were a movie, Ebert would likely praise it for the set design, music, and message. It's definitely in the 10% of things that are good. It is art. Maybe not "artistic" in some snooty sense, but the sum of the whole is a masterwork about loss and mortality and living on.

C) He gave Glenn Beck both barrels, though, so he's not ALL bad.