phlyte

Looks amazing :).

He's right; it doesn't matter whether or not games are art. I enjoy the hell out of them and whether they are forms of art or not is something I couldn't care less about. I'm pretty sure that most gamers would agree with this. The thing about Ebert's stance that angers us, however, is that there isn't really any way to differentiate a game from art...

I think his reasoning for why games are not art (they have "rules, points, objectives, and an outcome,") is a contradictory statement. He's trying to imply that art can't have those features and yet he is imposing those exact same things on the definition of what art is; you can't limit what art is like that you foolish man. Ask any real artist (I'm sorry Ebert, you're just another guy whose opinion is overrated) and he/she will scoff at how Ebert is trying to impose limitations on what can and cannot be art.

Ebert is just another typical arrogant guy who spews nonsense about things he doesn't know much about; play a game like Mass Effect 2 and then come back and talk. I guess this is inevitable though... *sigh*... you'll always have these kind of people resisting change. I'm sure when motion pictures first emerged they weren't considered "art" ("It moves... and it has a story... it's not like a photo or a painting so it's not art!"). Now they're saying, "It has rules and you interact with it! :O This defies art! Blasphemy!".

Ebert, retire already.

I'd listen to music, play games, and watch movies and tv with them. I'd stroke, pet, fondle, and cuddle them. I'd use my gf's head as a stand.

Specifically, I'd play MW2 (Xbox 360), listen to Loud Pipes by Ratatat, and use my Nexus One the most with these cans. YEA!