Roger Ebert seemed pretty set in his thinking that video games are not, and cannot be art. I think that his thinking is pretty flawed, and Kellee Santiago did a terrible job in defending her point that video games are art. First, both people talk about what the definition of art is. Santiago comes up with a pretty solid definition, but then says sports aren’t art, even if their rules are elegant, which is a contradiction to her definition of art. Ebert then never really says what the definition of art should be. Ebert says that video games can’t be art because you can win a video game. What Ebert fails to realize is that video games, usually, are just interactive stories. Playing a video game, the gamer sees an entire story played out and gets to interact with the story. In a way, video games are kind of like those “choose your own path” books.

Another part of our readings (and videos) for this week talked about the good that video games can do for the classroom and for the world. I think using a game to help learn is a great strategy. Children are now growing up in a world that is heavily visual. I can’t think of a better way to teach visual learners than with an interactive and very visual method, like a video game. I also enjoyed the video about using video games to help solve world problems. Gamers are problem solvers; they are meticulous, paying attention to every detail, and they are relentless. Gamers will spend hours to solve problems in game. By making games that mirror real-world problems, I think it’s very possible that many of the world’s problems could be solved, or at least get on the right path to being solved.