The debate over whether or not video games should be considered art won’t be won with words. It will be won when somebody finally crafts a gaming experience whose artistic merit can’t be denied. Roger Ebert and Kellee Santiago would appear to believe differently.

Ebert is a fine writer and skilled at making an argument, but when it comes to the subject of gaming, he is largely ignorant. Here, he makes his point by examining the descriptions of a few games. Apparently, he also watched some footage on YouTube to help him reinforce his opinion. I am curious as to which games he has actually played, if any. By the sound of things, his current argument should hold about as much weight as if I were to take a stab at summarizing modern dance in 500 words:

Her next example is a game named “Braid.” This is a game “that explores our own relationship with our past…you encounter enemies and collect puzzle pieces, but there’s one key difference…you can’t die.” You can go back in time and correct your mistakes. In chess, this is known as taking back a move, and negates the whole discipline of the game. Nor am I persuaded that I can learn about my own past by taking back my mistakes in a video game.

While I don’t disagree that Braid’s presentation takes itself a bit too seriously, if you have actually experienced its gameplay you will recognize how absurd this criticism is.

I may still be unsure where my own opinion lies on the subject of game as art. What I am sure of is that my opinion won’t be influenced by Roger Ebert.

(via slashdot)