Bitmob.com

Roger Ebert has stood strong behind his opinion that in our lifetime video games will never be worthy of being considered an "art form". Looking at an argument presented by Kellee Santiago of ThatGameCompany I counter Ebert's argument and maybe even persuade him to pick up a controller and give gaming a try.

It's been beaten to death, but I'm throwing my hat in the ring.

Are video games art because Roger Ebert blatantly says so?

How can a compilation of art not be "art?"

I continue my three-part look at some of the problems that may be holding back the videogame indyustry from gaining the respect it deserves, this time focusing in on devlopers and what they can do to help fix the problem.

The first in a 3-part series looking at what kind of activities hurt the image of the videogame industry and how we can fix said problems. For the first part, I'm looking at you, the Fans.

Google Pac-Man changes the way we look at everything, including change.

Fully aware that I'm late to the party, I provide an artfully artsy take on Ebert's article.

After Ebert posted his commentary, I was sullen by the responses to his claim. People either wrote to ignore him or pleaded with him to try out some games. Since no one bothered to tackle his arguments directly, I thought I would attempt a rebuttal.

The comments from all corners are beginning to feel stale, but now we have a "real art philosopher" finally chiming in through the gaming media...and his answer is ultimately as vague as everyone else's.

In this very special edition of the Community Spotlight, we highlight what Bitmobbers have to say in the debate of games as art.

The fact we’re even giving the energy to battle this out with Ebert confuses me. Why bother quarrelling at all? (I understand the irony of me stating this and subsequently writing a blog arguing it). Sadly, some people can’t help but feel passionate about the topic and can’t help but add fuel to the fire. In the end, giving Ebert more power.

The "Video games as Art" debate has, for some, been played out. For others the discussion has really only just begun. "We" examine movie critic Roger Ebert's role in the debate as compared to our own industry pundits. Is Ebert "ill-informed or troll-tastic"? Do his words "ring true" or is he just "a voice among many"?

What does the gaming community have to benefit from talking to Roger Ebert about art, anyway?

This has nothing to do with the "games as art" debate, but everything to do with the people discussing it. Ebert's diatribe has really brought some distinct characteristics to the surface of many people. I analyze those characteristics and throw people into some very arbitrary "types" based on a few moments in their lives. Join me.

A response to Roger Ebert's statements on whether games may ever be considered art. Mr. Ebert was responding to a TED presentation from Kellee Santiago, an indie game developer, who may not be the most appropriate representative from the world of gaming to be debating Roger Ebert on the subject.

By now it's likely that you have read Roger Ebert's most recent commentary on the "games as art" argument that seems to always swirl around his personal thoughts on the matter. I'm not really sure I can add much about the article itself that hasn't already - the blog post has gathered north of 500 comments in less than two days.

A four point take on the fallout from Roger Ebert's latest games are art thoughts and why the discussion has importance.