So Roger Ebert has, in his day, written several different pieces on how he believes that video games can never be art.
He has, no surprise, gotten a shitload of responses from people who disagree with him. I imagine most of said responses have consisted of 1. Asking if Ebert has actually ever played a video game and 2. Telling him to play a certain one, which will no doubt change his mind. I'm sure they were all really articulate and well argued. Needless to say, he has yet to be convinced.
Reading his posts and the reader comments (some of which are actually pretty well written and researched) only confirms my suspicion that it's a really interesting time to be studying cinema. If 3D movies, DVDs, online streaming, and On-Demand video weren't enough, we can now add video games into the mix. Whether or not I agree with Ebert is mostly irrelevant, because as many people have already pointed out, his argument seems more about one's definition of 'art' than anything else. There's more to this discussion than that.
It's incredibly frustrating that such an interesting topic is clouded by the constant bickering over whether or not video games are 'art.' From regular jagoffs, I'm not surprised. People are defensive of what they like. They want validation. But Ebert? I have to say, I expected more. What a noob.