Ebert’s “Video games will never be art” acknowledges the ignorance present in the wording of its own title. He knows that “never” may be a little harsh. I agree. However, he continues to support the idea that video games should in no way be considered an “art form.” After reading Ebert’s citation of points made by Kellee Santiago, I find myself torn.

She also acknowledges the weakness of her argument. Santiago quoted Ebert’s statement, “No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with great filmmakers, novelists, or poets.” This may be true, but I have to wonder if this statement is rooted in preference. I also have to agree with Santiago that “chicken scratch” can still be considered art.

Despite my curiosity and slight agreement, I still see video games as video GAMEs. The simple fact that you can play a video game and win it suggests that it is not an art form but instead a product that involves participation. As Ebert mentioned, you “experience” the game. Some say that you “experience” paintings, concerts, and a good read. I agree, but I do not in any way believe that it is the same type of experience. You experience the simple beauty of art, but you do not in your own actions participate in its outcome.

One thought that restricts me from making my decision is that a video game slightly resembles a play. The players are acting as a character and moving as a character (virtually of course). Also, of course, this is a very grey area.