With all the production values some modern video games have, it's silly to disregard them just as "games".

Bioshock 1 & 2, Assasin's Creed 1 & 2 and a several other games.

And it's like in music and movies, some people will get just the surface and don't care a lot about what else is inside, but there are other people who will really enjoy that part.

Yeah, I agree with that. But that's subjective (like all art). It's just not worth getting upset if someone doesn't agree.

I felt like I was playing a movie in both Uncharted games. And AC2 felt like a whole second season of an awesome series. That to me puts them on par with film and TV respectively. I'm not offended if Roger Ebert doesn't agree.

Ebert's theory....you can not even call movies art then.


I love movies. I would not be on dvdtalk if I did not. I had a Laser Disc Player as a kid, before anyone had vhs players. I own near 6000 dvd movies, including HD DVD and Blu-ray. I think Seven Samurai is one of the greatest works of "art" ever made. The Godfather has moved me to emotional highs and lows. I have fallen in love many times growing up as a teenager with an actress because of writing and her performance. I remember waiting in line for Star Wars ANH, and bouncing up and down in anticipation for a movie I had seen with my dad 10 times already.

With all of that, I can honestly say I have never been as engaged with a movie as much as I have been engaged with a great video game. I would argue by their very nature, video games are more "art" than movies, because they can draw you in more. They pull you in more because of the interaction. A simple pixel with no voice (just a simple midi) in Final Fantasy 6 (opera scene) tugged at me emotionally more than the goodbye in Casablanca.

There are a lot of crap games, and a lot of good games that entertain but are not "art" There are also games that are more emotional involving, finely crafted, and brilliantly executed than even the best Oscar winner.

Isn't that to be expected when you make such a provocative statement?

I would argue that an uninformed opinion can never be correct, regardless of the conclusion.

I think you can think video games are or aren't art all day long. However, Ebert coming from a place of ignorance on the matter makes his point entirely irrelevant to me.

It sounds like he doesn't seem to understand that, with many modern games, winning is synonymous with experiencing the end of a lengthy narrative. That or he's saying, 'video games can't be art, because once they reach that level, they're really just a story, novel, movie, etc.'

Here's the crux of where Ebert screws up:

He basically defines everything other than the gameplay mechanics as "not game," and therefore the game parts can't be art.

I'm not sure I even buy that -- there's art to a well-played chess match, or a well-made play in baseball, or a well-done solution to a Portal level -- but he's basically begging the question.

Same with me.I used to rewatch movies over and over and now when i go look thru my dvds i think "do i really wanna spend the next 90 to 120 minutes doing this?" and after that i usually play a game.

It's a pointless question because it presupposes a definition of art, which doesn't exist. It's fundamentally subjective. Art, as any artist will tell you, is in the eye of the beholder.

"Blindly biased when it comes to politics" = "Doesn't agree with awil1026". Just in case anybody cares.

Ebert has defended animated films as being more than just kids films and can be adult animated movies and art. He's basically saying the same things his opponents of animated movies are to Videogames.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9PnHzD1gPak&rel=0&border=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9PnHzD1gPak&rel=0&border=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

So my supposition that Ebert hasn't played a video game since Pac-Mac wasn't too far off the mark.

Siskel and Ebert can Time Travel?!

Seems like video games fit that definition.

Obligatory YTMND link: http://suckonthisroger.ytmnd.com/

That's a very good point. Ebert points out that he didn't find sports or sports players to be art, but I'm willing to bet some diehard fans (or maybe even some players themselves) would say that it is indeed art.

Especially when things like Ice Skating and gymnastics are evaluated on grace and artistic form. The same for the slam dunk contests in basketball.

I get what you're saying and I too disagree with his conclusions but it's not the end of the world if he is so missinformed. It's not like he's sayinhg video games make you gay (an old accusation against the Street Fighter series back in the 90's) or make kids homicidal maniacs (pretty much every shooter ever made gets accused of this).

I didn't know you could do so well at video games in 1993 by having an epileptic seizure while playing it. That is the only way I could describe that. Why in the fuck are they kicking, this is boxing not UFC. Maybe he just doesn't like games since he naturally sucks at them lol

Thanks for assuming the worst about me (that I'd label someone as blindly biased just because he/she happens to disagree with me). As a Libertarian, I'm used to people disagreeing with me. I probably disagree with every celebrity I follow on Twitter who happens to post about politics but he's the only one I follow that I'd label as blindly biased. I'd post some examples but it's late, I'm tired, and I have a neurodegenerative condition that's slowly killing me (which makes it hard for me to convey my thoughts). (I really shouldn't be posting anymore at this stage. Check out his feed if you're interested in seeing what I mean, though. If you do, feel free to PM me and let me know if you agree or disagree.)

I agree with you awil1026. I'm not bothered that Ebert is a diehard liberal. Actually, I would have been surprised if he wasn't. But almost every time he brings up politics, he comes off like an obnoxious ass. It's gotten really unpleasant. After 20+ years of relying on his opinions, I barely read him any more.

I too think it is a pointless question. Though, I tend to agree with Ebert's point that video games haven't progressed to nearly the level that many gamers think it has. Most of the storytelling in games is horrendous. Even the best examples people use are only really good for games, not compared to other mediums of storytelling (books and movies specifically). Though, the quality of art assets has certainly gotten much, much better this generation of games.

I agree, but there's more to the artistic value of games than just the storyline: visual design, sound design, music, etc.

I would also say that a truly good video game storyline generally won't work well in other media, and vice-versa.