Leave the poor guy alone.

this guy gave kick ass a 1 star review just because of the violence

See me trollin', they hatin'.

Rogert Ebert should lay off the drugs first.

Santiago has a vested interest in games as art, since she needs to promote ThatGameCompany's work, often depicted as "artistic." Ebert has a long-term vested interest in movies not being overtaken by games, especially now when games are closing the revenue gap with box-office hits.

It's nice to hear their opinions, but neither of these is a source I'd recommend when talking about the subject. I think that Santiago is nearing a good point in that it's still a feat to just figure out this generation of graphics, and later on we may not be in that situation - maybe one person will have an easier time (aka not spending hundreds of thousands in their own money and countless years in their basement) making their own work of art using this type of tech.

But, like a good publicist, she's glazing over the core problem of "What is art in the 21st century?" by using a Wikipedia definition. It's not a bad place for it, since volunteers probably fought over this definition for years, but it still isn't going to work. Doesn't a work say something even if it doesn't appeal to the senses? Does it have to say anything? Since she doesn't have to deal with that, she can use two other examples and then promote Flower, and therefore the worth and potential of her company, using that definition.

But yeah, the general consensus in the argument of "Are games art?" is that anyone that brings it up can't truly define what art is. Even now, many of us think of paintings or sculptures when talking about art, but that's only the classic visual arts. We have a much bigger problem as both consumers and creators of art - we couldn't tell you what it actually is without shutting out new forms. So far.

Without wanting to be brutal about somebody who I've never met, Roger Ebert talking about videogames is like a chemist talking about mechanical engineering.

Thinking yourself to be good at giving a review of one kind of entertainment doesn't necessarily that you'll be great at giving a review of all entertainments.

Unlike films, videogames don't necessarily rely on pace, plot twists and characterisation. Some may but they are not prerequisites unless you are consciously trying to ape a Hollywood style film with your game.

Nobody will have heard of Roger Ebert outside of America unless you are a geek like me. Our equivalent of him would be Barry Norman who has wisely never tried to review videogames as far as I can tell.

In the age of the internet, where may people have been given the opportunity to give lucid reviews of their own, no reviewer should be especially well known or regarded any more. I'm afraid that it's a relic of an earlier age. It must hurt to see your line of work rendered redundant to some extent.

I don't like to be harsh but I'm sure that he has made a good living out of talking what is pretty much rubbish about videogames.

art1   [ahrt] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

thats art DEFINED. according to aesthetic principles of what is beautiful, these principles must be what lead the mongrol to make such a statement. but, since those principles themselves are not defined, it is truly a matter of opinion, in the eye of the beholder one might say. he forgot to mention that games will never be art in HIS OPINION, which makes him a B*tch. from the definition, it is clear that games are ever as much arrt as any painting or sculpture.