Famous film critic Roger Ebert has spoken ladies and gentlemen: Games are not art.

Ebert said on his blog: "Perhaps it is foolish of me to say 'never,' because never, as Rick Wakeman informs us, is a long, long time. Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form."

Apparently games do not qualify as art because they have rules and points and can be won.

His argument continues: "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."

He was referring to thatgamecompany's Kellee Santiago and a presentation she gave taking about games as art. In the presentation she references Braid, Flower and Waco Resurrection as games that carry artistic expression.

Ebert's response to the citations: "The three games she chooses as examples do not raise my hopes for a video game that will deserve my attention long enough to play it. They are, I regret to say, pathetic. I repeat: 'No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets.'"

Really Roger? It all smacks of elitism.

Thanks Edge Online.

By Ewan Aiton