Ya know what...
I think Ebert's comment has been taken out of context by too many people with no free time. Let's read his blog, shall we?
Roger Ebert said:
Anything can be art. Even a can of Campbell's soup. What I should have said is that games could not be high art, as I understand it.
How do I know this? How many games have I played? I know it by the definition of the vast majority of games. They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in "Myst," and (3) player control of the outcome. I don't think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports.
If you can go through "every emotional journey available," doesn't that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices. If next time, I have Romeo and Juliet go through the story naked and standing on their hands, would that be way cool, or what?
Even as a gamer, I have to agree with Ebert's view. A game, no matter how advanced the graphics, no matter the gameplay, can't be put on a shelf and enjoyed by the masses like a Picasso or Da Vinci. They really weren't made for that.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, when I see the entire thing with Ebert, it kinda bugs me how people rag on him for sticking to his guns that games aren't really high art (which they're not).
OT - The comic wasn't bad... But this one falls flat to an overthinker like me. Once I saw Ebert, it's almost like putting chum in the water for sharks. You can see the punchline a mile away which really detracted me from this one.
Oh well, let's pray for the next one.
