Support NeoGAF

[Arthrus]

One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.

Is it still art if I am the one performing the dance, and am restricted to the breakdancing?
What about if I'm in a breakdancing contest against other people, where there is a winner?
Olympic figure skating, for example. I would argue it is an art for the individuals performing it as much as it is for the passive observers.

His position is very narrow-minded in my opinion, but I'll agree nobody should be comparing games to history's great novels, films, structures, paintings, etc.

 

[GhaleonQ]

Did this get posted?

Ron Gilbert's blog post about Ebert's article.

Yeah, we need better public defenders.

The whole culture would have to do a 180 in the opposite direction it has been going for the past 20 years. Could it happen? Sure. Will it? I dunno. All I know is that the longer it takes to change, the harder it becomes to turn the boat around.

...which is why I will post links to Moon: Remix RPG Adventure and Love-De-Lic until it does. Bludgeoning people with their comparative failures is the only way to instigate change!

 

[RelentlessRolento]

Bullshit is the best response to both sides to this. I'm an art student and have video games as the focal study of mine as research on if they qualify as fine art.

So based off what I know and understand:

Bullshit.

 

[HK-47]

i'm already doing it. anyone that requires a macbook to communicate is already a joke.

Big man here

 

[Fafalada]

art is made by an artist....
you're manipulating an image in a predetermined scenario that a group of developers created.

The % of artists among that group of developers is at LEAST as high as in an average movie (and many modern movies have comparable numbers of software engineers on them as games, so this paralel goes both ways).
If this is your entire argument then you just proven that games are art by the same definition movies are.

 

[HK-47]

Who does this Ebert guy think he is? One of the world's top critics of an artistic medium? Pah!

I think he's someone who has never actually played a game, and thus has no basis to speak about them.

 

[Sqorgar]

I think games are on a whole different level than art. Why should games lower themselves to something as trivial and petty as a passive aesthetic? Games are more than that. They have form and structure, but as rules which describe thousands of potential forms and structure. It is like creating a painter instead of a painting. Creating an architect instead of a building. A director instead of a movie. Games aren't art. They are the artist, with each play session a work in progress.

 

[blame space]

I know I'm quoting something from page 1, but wow this guy doesn't seem to really understand it.

Basically we have 'Art is made by an artist' and then 'video games are played by players', but why doesn't he talk about how 'art is watched by your average person (who's most likely not an artist) and 'the visuals of a game are made by an artist (who makes art, as his first sentence says)'.

I know this guy is probably just a troll, but I couldn't help but replying to this.

Either way, this topic is something that we will never get to agree with everybody. Mostly with old people who just can't grasp the idea of games becoming something quite 'big' and really good artists (much much better than many of the actual "artists" displaying their "art" in modern museums, imo) are working for it.

the whole playing part. you know, what makes up video games.

 

[C4Lukins]

I love Ebert, but he continues to miss the point on this one. That is partly due to him defining art in a very specific way it seems, and by his definition it just does not permit video games to be art. I think it is silly to define art in general. To me it is creating something original that others can experience and judge accordingly, but again that is just me defining art and I think the term cannot really be qualified with dictionary definitions. Whether or not games are art unto themselves, there is no doubt that there is a ton of art in them. Whether it be original music, storytelling, or just visuals.

I visited a modern art museum, and one of the displays was just a bunch of candy spread on the floor, and everyone was encouraged to take one piece. So the image that was created was not that of the original artists, but all the people that came in and interacted with it. Now I think it was pretty stupid, but to me it was art, silly art, but art just the same. That is what videogames are in a lot of ways. You are taking the artists product, and physically maneuvering it and creating something original. It is simply interactive art.

 

[jdogmoney]

Who does this Ebert guy think he is? One of the world's top critics of an artistic medium? Pah!

Do you think Simon Cowell has the authority to judge architecture?

 

[GhaleonQ]

Also annoying: I know he's sickly enough not to use his time to learn new things or have extended arguments, but he's like a professional troll at this point. He'll make a stupid comment about politics/a friend's comment/whatever, go on a Twitter or blog war for a day, and then move on to something else tomorrow. He's already done with video games again.

 

[Liquid Helium]

There is no agreed upon definition of art, but I would think of art as something created that passes on a message, meaning or an emotion. When I played flower I took a meaning and some emotion from it, therefore flower was a piece of art to me, therefore video games can be art.

 

[Demigod Mac]

Ebert's sticking to his argument that video games have not yet reached the level of prestige that great works of art and literature have. No video game equivalent of say, Da Vinci, Mozart or Citizen Kane. Fair enough.

But this argument is flawed for three reasons:

- Traditional artwork (and to a much lesser degree, film) have been around for centuries and even millennia. Video games have been around for what, almost 40 years? It's still in its infancy. It's still trying to learn to walk. It hasn't yet found its unique voice as a medium.

- As Kojima said once, even if you argue that games as a whole are not art, they contain artistic elements like music, graphics, story.

- He assumes there is a quality threshold in which something suddenly becomes "art". This is a very dangerous assumption. Where do you draw the line between "Art" and "Not Art"? Are children's crayon drawings not art simply because they aren't good enough? Art can be bad, certainly. But bad art is still art.

 

[Monocle]

I think he's someone who has never actually played a game, and thus has no basis to speak about them.

I've never played the guitar. Do I lack a basis to say that Steve Vai probably plays better than most of the guys on YouTube?

Do you think Simon Cowell has the authority to judge architecture?

I think he has the authority to judge voice acting, whose similarity to singing is rather less than that of film to video games.

Edit:

Ebert's sticking to his argument that video games have not yet reached the level of prestige that great works of art and literature have. No video game equivalent of say, Da Vinci, Mozart or Citizen Kane. Fair enough.

But this argument is flawed for three reasons:

- Traditional artwork (and to a much lesser degree, film) have been around for centuries and even millennia. Video games have been around for what, almost 40 years? It's still in its infancy. It's still trying to learn to walk. It hasn't yet found its unique voice as a medium.

That's why Ebert qualifies his claim by saying there may be a time when video games become art, but none of us will be alive to see it.

- As Kojima said once, even if you argue that games as a whole are not art, they contain artistic elements like music, graphics, story.

Are shakycam recordings of movie screenings art? They contain all the elements of the movie, after all.

- He assumes there is a quality threshold in which something suddenly becomes "art". This is a very dangerous assumption. Where do you draw the line between "Art" and "Not Art"? Are children's crayon drawings not art simply because they aren't good enough? Art can be bad, certainly. But bad art is still art.

Where in his post does he make this assumption?

 

[robor]

“The most important thing in art is the frame. For painting: literally; for other arts: figuratively - because, without this humble appliance, you can't know where The Art stops and The Real World begins. You have to put a "box" around it because otherwise, what is that shit on the wall?” - Frank Zappa.

 

[SlipperySlope]

This. 100 times this.

But after reading that I have to think that Ebert will never change his way of thinking. Not only is he stubborn, but he doesn't even play the games he is critiquing. Ebert would not read a synopsis from someone on a movie and judge the product by that alone. Shame shame.

This article made me loss a little bit of respect for Ebert.

I was thinking the same thing. Have him play Silent Hill: Shattered Memories! But came to the same conclusion as you. He didn't play any of these games. He heard a description, and decided not to play it.

If somebody told you the whole story to Silent Hill: Shattered Memories before you played it, it would destroy the whole reason to play it in the first place. If somebody asked me what the game was about before playing it, all I'd say was "You're a guy named Harry, who got in a car crash. Your daughter disappeared after the crash and you're looking for her." That's all I told my mom before she played it, and she was better off with that brief description.

That description would turn Ebert off. Yet if he actually played the game all the way through, I just can't see how he wouldn't call the game art. The game is about discovery of the story, and you just can't be told that. There is no way to get the same level of impact.

I beat this game a month and a half ago, and I still think about the story every day. I can't say that for any movie I've ever seen.

 

[chicken_ramen]

I've never played the guitar. Do I lack a basis to say that Steve Vai probably plays better than most of the guys on YouTube?

Wrong example.

Are you equipped to analyse the songs from a musical theory point of view?

You can appreciate this work, but can you deconstruct and analyse it? Do you know the tools and techniques of musical construction? If not, then your opinion is as valid as anyone else's unversed in music theory, inappropriate from the perspective of people who actually study music.

That's the only distinction. You can have an opinion, but it is significantly less useful to the discourse of music theory than on from a person versed in that discourse.

 

[Monocle]

Wrong example.

Are you equipped to analyse the songs from a musical theory point of view?

You can appreciate this work, but can you deconstruct and analyse it? Do you know the tools and techniques of musical construction? If not, then your opinion is as valid as anyone else's unversed in music theory, inappropriate from the perspective of people who actually study music.

That's the only distinction. You can have an opinion, but it is significantly less useful to the discourse of music theory than on from a person versed in that discourse.

One of Ebert's main points was art is an issue of taste.

 

[jdogmoney]

I've never played the guitar. Do I lack a basis to say that Steve Vai probably plays better than most of the guys on YouTube?


I think he has the authority to judge voice acting, whose similarity to singing is rather less than that of film to video games.

Edit:

That's why Ebert qualifies his claim by saying there may be a time when video games become art, but none of us will be alive to see it.


Are shakycam recordings of movie screenings art? They contain all the elements of the movie, after all.


Where in his post does he make this assumption?

No.

Not happening.

This argument is like killing the freakin' hydra. Games aren't art because they're interactive. It's perfectly legitimate to judge that interactivity without actually interacting. Because Ebert's well-versed in something vaguely similar to some aspects of the interactive experience, he's got the credentials to judge the entire movement as a whole. Said judgement is okay, because someday, some unattainable glorious day, a video game that somehow defies the parts of the definition of art that games today lack will appear, count as art, and yet still be able to be defined as a video game. Some day. Until then, which will be far enough away from today that you will be dead, video games are toys, and silly little distractions from real art, like Beyond the Valley of the fucking Dolls.

Bullcrap.

Movies were the same format when they were invented (minus sound) as they were when Citizen Kane came out. Citizen Kane is "art" because it's a really fucking good movie. It's still a bunch of lights flickering on a wall somewhere. Maybe gaming hasn't found its Citizen Kane yet. I'm fine with that; I'm sure the best examples of what the medium can do are yet to come. I eagerly await them. But to say that we don't, RIGHT NOW, have examples of art that happen to be video games, you're belittling the designers, you're belittling the games themselves, you're belittling the people who play the games. Yeah, our culture right now isn't considered high-brow. The culture is there, though. Look at PAX. If you think the gaming culture needs to be more pretentious before it's art that's worth a damn, that's another (stupid) argument. Games are art. I dare someone to prove to me otherwise.

But hey. Art's a matter of taste. Even though we of the GAMES AR ART school are wrong, it's only a matter of opinion.

We're still wrong, though. Obviously.

 

[FieryBalrog]

And yet a room with a light inside that turns on and off is art.

I think he would have a point if 99% modern and post-modern art was erased from history. As it stands, a urinal can be art if sufficient celebrity lies behind it.

 

[Safe Bet]

Games aren't art because they're interactive.

That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.

Bullcrap.

What the fuck is wrong with my reading comprehension lately?

Sorry Dude...

 

[teruterubozu]

I agree with Ebert on his last point: Who gives a fuck if it's art.

 

[Night_Trekker]

I think he's someone who has never actually played a game, and thus has no basis to speak about them.

He wrote a pretty positive review of the original Myst (IIRC) a long time ago. Seriously.

I agree with Ebert on his last point: Who gives a fuck if it's art.

Not Ebert! That's why he keeps bringing this up.

 

[Safe Bet]

..but I'll agree nobody should be comparing games to history's great novels, films, structures, paintings, etc.

No one kills themselves over the Mona Lisa, War and Peace, or the Sistine Chapel....

Unfortunately, it happens with D&D.

You tell me which "medium" is more powerful...

 

[zoukka]

No one kills themselves over the Mona Lisa, War and Peace, or the Sistine Chapel....

Unfortunately, it happens with D&D.

You tell me which "medium" is more powerful...

You are kidding rite.

 

[Safe Bet]

You are kidding rite.

Why?

Artists brag about being able to make the audience laugh or cry.

Games do this, and they do it better.





PS

Gary Gygax > Michelangelo

Edit:

That's a little unfair considering Michaelangelo represents the zenith of a medium and Gary the public debut of one, but you get my point.

 

[zoukka]

Why?

Artists brag about being able to make the audience laugh or cry.

Games do this, and they do it better.

Yeah. You just kinda compared D&D and the Sistine Chapel...

Yeah.

 

[Safe Bet]

Yeah. You just kinda compared D&D and the Sistine Chapel...

Yeah.

Yeah..

I did...

D&D (by this I mean any mathematical rule set used to express an abstract idea) has "had an impact on" more people than the Sistine Chapel.

 

[Night_Trekker]

They already lost that debate. Now they've moved on to saying that games haven't made it to "good art" status yet. A claim no one even made.

Sure someone has. Someone has surely written to Ebert to tell him that Shadow of the Colossus is equal to any great piece of art, and that convinced Ebert he was right because if he were wrong, wouldn't other intelligent, educated people have told him so? ("Intelligent and educated" here being people who appreciate art instead of wasting time on games.)

I remember seeing a reader-submitted email on Ebert's Chicago Sun Times site years ago in which the writer was expressing support for Ebert's (illogical and obviously wrong) stance on games. The writer used, as part of his defense, the bullshit argument that art evolves, but what makes an FPS a great FPS, for example, would always be the same. That's obviously nonsense to anyone with any experience playing FPSs (or any other game genre), but it supported Ebert's stance so up it went on the site.

I realized a long time ago, after reading everything Ebert had to say up to that point on the issue, after watching him backpedal to other arguments when it was clear he was wrong in the preceding argument, that Ebert's stance anti-game stance just sort of sprung into existence more or less fully formed. His lack of knowledge or experience on the subject be damned, he's made up his mind. When he discusses the subject now, he's basically looking for things which support his stance and poopooing/ignoring things that don't. There's no convincing (or even discussion with) someone like this. And yet he, and other people, keep wasting time talking about it.

Really, the guy, like everyone on the planet, is fallible and clearly flat-out wrong in some areas. (His bizarre issues with David Lynch's earlier films are a good example.) Why can't this just be one of them? Why can't the world just accept that he has some sort of mental block he isn't going to get past and let it rest?

 

[zoukka]

D&D (by this I mean any mathematical rule set used to express an abstract idea) has "had an impact on" more people than the Sistine Chapel.

Like the Bic Mac.

 

[Government-man]

Discussions related to art never ever go anywhere. The definition is too blurry.

I however find that the most useful definition is that art is what is considered art by the ones who consider art. The ones who consider art are normally critics and intendants etc, but ofc everyone has the ability to consider art. Thus what you consider to be art is art. Society does though gravitate towards trusting art-connoisseurs.

Video games are not normally referenced to as art. However, if I put a video game in an art exhibition, then it is art. Both because the one creatively in charge considered the game art and chose to put it there, but also when looking at it in an exhibition you view it differently. Like the debated "Fountain" (the urinal famously put in an art exhibition). You would never consider the urinal as a work of art when going to the bathroom. If you see it in a museum maybe you would.

Some things like paintings, music and movies does not need to be put into an exhibition to be considered art, they have earned that status in society (not all of paintings, music and movies are by default considered art though, which is usually true for overly commercial products) and I trust video games eventually too will earn it. Video games become art when the definition of what art is changes. And this is where Ebert is wrong. The definition have changed several times and will continue to do so, and I'm not talking about your subjective definition, I'm talking about what society as a whole considers art.

 

[RadarScope1]

Ebert is pretty much the best troll on the internet.

Dude is a movie critic. Caring about his opinion on video games is like asking a Blockbuster employee to change your oil.

I don't know why anyone would be so obsessed with the opinion of someone who hasn't even bothered to experience the works he's criticizing. He clearly has his mind set and it cannot be changed. If Da Vinci rose from the grave, made a video game and said it was his greatest work, Ebert would still not be convinced it's art.

Best, most succinct way to put it. Nice.

 

[Arthrus]

No one kills themselves over the Mona Lisa, War and Peace, or the Sistine Chapel....

Unfortunately, it happens with D&D.

You tell me which "medium" is more powerful...

At my university there was a building that was constructed backwards, such that the beautiful front entrance faced the wall of another building and the back entrance faced the main road. When the architect found out they ruined his magnificent plan, he committed suicide. So apparently people do kill themselves over other kinds of art on occasion.

I'm sure many more tears would be shed if any one of the things you listed were destroyed than if D&D were somehow wiped off the face of the earth. Part of what makes them great art is their significance in history (what they represent, the fact that they've been preserved so long, reflections on culture and values of the time, etc). Gaming hasn't really existed long enough to be compared to things with those qualities, although I don't mean to say only old stuff can be art.

To restate my general opinion, games don't yet have their Citizen Kane or Mona Lisa or Pride and Prejudice or whatever, but they are art. And if people disagree, they at least have plenty of artistic elements that I appreciate. This thread leaves a taste in my mouth which can only be removed by cookie dough ice cream, so I'm gonna bail.

 

[Safe Bet]

Two gamers arguing over a nerf/buff makes two critics arguing over Picasso/Manet look tame.




PS

Just learned on the John Tesh show Seniors who play board games more than 3 hours a day have a 75% less chance of falling into dementia.

 

[Jex]

Oh man, now he's quoting Carmack in his twitter. Yikes. Now he's comparing games to poker. Wow. I'd swear he's trolling, but I think he really believes it.

I realized a long time ago, after reading everything Ebert had to say up to that point on the issue, after watching him backpedal to other arguments when it was clear he was wrong in the preceding argument, that Ebert's stance anti-game stance just sort of sprung into existence more or less fully formed. His lack of knowledge or experience on the subject be damned, he's made up his mind. When he discusses the subject now, he's basically looking for things which support his stance and poopooing/ignoring things that don't. There's no convincing (or even discussion with) someone like this. And yet he, and other people, keep wasting time talking about it.

This is exactly the problem, which means even if hundreds of people argue that he's wrong it will have no effect on him. It's even worse when he bold's poorly formed arguments that call people who play games 'nerds', and opening is article with that picture. I'm guessing the last game he played is still Myst.

It's clearly difficult/pointless to argue 'Can games be art?' but really easy to dismiss Ebert's terrible arguments. His bias is so overwhelming it makes the need for any debate void.

 

[outlawedprod]

Instead of trying to prove to Ebert that games are art intrinsically perhaps we could get him to approve that playing games taken to the extreme could be considered performance art

Gaming Simcity 3000 with math. The ultimate min/max
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/04/15/look-upon-his-works-ye-mighty-and-despair/

For those who don't read the comments on that link I'm going to point this one out I saw on there.

"Someone recently built a working programmable 8-bit computer in Dwarf Fortress completely out of gears, pressure-plates, pumps, and switches:
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=49641.0 "

 

[charlequin]

Oh man, now he's quoting Carmack in his twitter. Yikes. Now he's comparing games to poker. Wow. I'd swear he's trolling, but I think he really believes it.

All the best trolls on GAF really believe the idiocy they spew, why shouldn't Ebert?

 

[Mael]

- As Kojima said once, even if you argue that games as a whole are not art, they contain artistic elements like music, graphics, story.

:lol :lol that's kinda rich coming from him

Instead of trying to prove to Ebert that games are art intrinsically perhaps we could get him to approve that playing games taken to the extreme could be considered performance art

Gaming Simcity 3000 with math. The ultimate min/max
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/04/15/look-upon-his-works-ye-mighty-and-despair/

HOLY MOTHER OF GREAT ZOMBIE RAPTOR LORD!
That's art if I ever see one, I don't mean the video I mean the actual city is perfection incarnate or at least what the guy is trying to convey.
I mean sure it's harder to prove a game is a work of art, then again games are much more collaborative work than most.
I mean they actually NEED the audience to even be experienced!
Something like Super Mario Bros 1 IS the epitome of art by design, heck you can go earlier and look at Pong or PacMan if you will, but still there's so much going on in the design of even theses simple games and when a good player actually run it, it's artistic form can be seen by all.
It's like a theatre you can only watch with the right actor, or inthe case of the player.
He IS the actor, he IS the one making the plot advance and all.
My point is : don't look at the most complicated game to see art, they're full of useless fluff that doesn't help your case, the most simple ones are most easy in seeing the art permeate through

For those who don't read the comments on that link I'm going to point this one out I saw on there.

"Someone recently built a working programmable 8-bit computer in Dwarf Fortress completely out of gears, pressure-plates, pumps, and switches:
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=49641.0 "

This on the other hand doesn't work for me, I mean I can't seem to reach the url

 

[chicken_ramen]

Gaming Simcity 3000 with math. The ultimate min/max
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/04/15/look-upon-his-works-ye-mighty-and-despair/

That was frightening for some reason. Notice in the final city no one lives to the age of 60. How does he achieve this? What happens to them all?

 

[Mael]

That was frightening for some reason. Notice in the final city no one lives to the age of 65. How does he achieve this? What happens to them all?

they're sacrificied to the autel of Efficiency since they're no longer of any use to society

edit : that's what the stadiums are for!

 

[Count Dookkake]

While I agree with most of what Ebert has to say, he really should check out No More Heroes.

 

[Safe Bet]

So now Ebert's saying Poker isn't art?

 

[Mael]

While I agree with most of what Ebert has to say, he really should check out No More Heroes.

NMH is not exactly the most successful example of a game ever, I mean they exists for ONE reason only :
entertainment.

you can say that's the same for movies and we don't discount movies for being boring but interesting social commentaries!

Than again there's already plenty of games doing social commentaries : first and foremost Sim City, Civilisation and the Europa Universalis games.
Heck the last one is probably the best tool for history unless you really like going through the national archives of all the countries involved!

Heck SMB is pretty much Alice in Wonderland for video game (normal guy enter a world through a hole and discover a wonderful uncharted new world, ok maybe that's more Zelda but it still does fit).

Every argument against games can be used against movies, novels and all the crap the art guys fawn over in their fancy diners.
And if we do that we're left with a word that has literally no meaning and no use for since it won't describe much.

 

[ronito]

I typically agree with Ebert's views on movies. But in this he's just being close minded. His logic is also circuitous. Games can't be art because no artists will call it art. But when presented with games, his logic is "no artists will call it art".

I mean if games ain't art, why we still got Shadow of the Colossus?

 

[Mael]

I typically agree with Ebert's views on movies. But in this he's just being close minded. His logic is also circuitous. Games can't be art because no artists will call it art. But when presented with games, his logic is "no artists will call it art".

I mean if games ain't art, why we still got Shadow of the Colossus?

Keep your OT question in OT thanks

 

[Dan Yo]

Sure someone has. Someone has surely written to Ebert to tell him that Shadow of the Colossus is equal to any great piece of art, and that convinced Ebert he was right because if he were wrong, wouldn't other intelligent, educated people have told him so? ("Intelligent and educated" here being people who appreciate art instead of wasting time on games.)

I remember seeing a reader-submitted email on Ebert's Chicago Sun Times site years ago in which the writer was expressing support for Ebert's (illogical and obviously wrong) stance on games. The writer used, as part of his defense, the bullshit argument that art evolves, but what makes an FPS a great FPS, for example, would always be the same. That's obviously nonsense to anyone with any experience playing FPSs (or any other game genre), but it supported Ebert's stance so up it went on the site.

I realized a long time ago, after reading everything Ebert had to say up to that point on the issue, after watching him backpedal to other arguments when it was clear he was wrong in the preceding argument, that Ebert's stance anti-game stance just sort of sprung into existence more or less fully formed. His lack of knowledge or experience on the subject be damned, he's made up his mind. When he discusses the subject now, he's basically looking for things which support his stance and poopooing/ignoring things that don't. There's no convincing (or even discussion with) someone like this. And yet he, and other people, keep wasting time talking about it.

Really, the guy, like everyone on the planet, is fallible and clearly flat-out wrong in some areas. (His bizarre issues with David Lynch's earlier films are a good example.) Why can't this just be one of them? Why can't the world just accept that he has some sort of mental block he isn't going to get past and let it rest?

Ebert's evolving stance on the issue:

Games cannot be art.

Games can be art, but not high art.

Games can be high art, but won't be high art until all of you are dead and never able to see it.

 

[HK-47]

I've never played the guitar. Do I lack a basis to say that Steve Vai probably plays better than most of the guys on YouTube?
e acting, whose similarity to singing is rather less than that of film to video games.

audio medium versus audio visual INTERACTIVE medium.

 

[HK-47]

NMH is not exactly the most successful example of a game ever, I mean they exists for ONE reason only :
entertainment.

you can say that's the same for movies and we don't discount movies for being boring but interesting social commentaries!

Than again there's already plenty of games doing social commentaries : first and foremost Sim City, Civilisation and the Europa Universalis games.
Heck the last one is probably the best tool for history unless you really like going through the national archives of all the countries involved!

Heck SMB is pretty much Alice in Wonderland for video game (normal guy enter a world through a hole and discover a wonderful uncharted new world, ok maybe that's more Zelda but it still does fit).

Every argument against games can be used against movies, novels and all the crap the art guys fawn over in their fancy diners.
And if we do that we're left with a word that has literally no meaning and no use for since it won't describe much.

No, NMH is a comment on gaming culture itself. And who said that wasnt part of the entertainment of games? And Mario is not Alice in Wonderland. Mario fucking lives in the Mushroom Kingdom.

 

[Prince of Space]

He's absolutely right about Flower. The game's a glorified screen saver.

 

[PseudoPrime1979]

I am glad Ebert has taken it upon himself to be the gatekeeper for what can and can't be considered art.