Making L.A. Confidential interactive doesn't transform videogame into art. Ebert's points still stand.

Ebert's definition of art is flawed. I'm as big a film buff as the next guy, but I don't find the obtuse arthouse films that tickle his fancy any more artful than Indiana Jones or LA Confidential.
Moreover, many wouldn't even consider film a "fine art"--more like "kitsch."
I'm a huge fan of Limbo, but I don't consider it inherently better than mass-market offerings like Uncharted 2 and Mass Effect 2. I'd settle for gaming be accepted as a legitimate artistic medium, on par with movies, TV, and books.

I'm going to give LA Noire prop for  seemingly 'streamlining' the not-point-and-click-anymore adventure genre. There seems to be no environmental puzzles with completely arbitrary solutions to them and they've added RPG elements to it.

Ebert's complaints were surrounding the fact that games are interactive, the actions of the gamers are arbitrary and not directed by an authority as in a film. This episode of 'Hey Ash Whatcha Playin ?' pretty much explored this theme.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/heavy-rain-hawp/62938

Can we just give this discussion up already ? Games are not art.

Roger, Ebert's definition of art rests on the assumption that we are all passive observers of culture, which is definitely not true. While films are not interactive in the same sense as video games, they can certainly be interactive experiences in that they engage our minds and ask us to explore the images, meanings, and ideas therein.

Just because a game is interactive does not mean that it is simultaneously incapable of presenting meaning.

But, yes, I agree that L.A. Noire's [sic] induction into a film festival does not refute Ebert's position.

Rob says it better than I could. I don't think a movie's passivity makes it art any moreso than I think gaming's interactivity makes it a harmful influence on young minds.
Lest we forget, there's many distinct interpretations of popular movies. One person may "see" a multilayered critique of environmental policy, while another might see a straight-forward action flick. I'd argue this makes film just as personal an experience as gaming.

Games are not art , because by the time you put interactivity in them, the emphasis of the form becomes completely different.

For example a scene in Schindler's List , where Lieutenant Amon Goth shot reluctant or seemingly-idle workers of his camp from the balcony of his resident. Videogames would put interactivity in this as a shooting level, where the players,assuming the role of Amon, have to shoot appointed targets. The purpose of this scene ,that is to introduce the severe ruthlessness of Amon,and cushion on the vigilant behaviour of the rest of the characters (Schindler, Stern,etc because anybody can die by his hand) towards Amon, would have been completely annihilated by putting the emphasis on the action itself, namely the shooting.

The shift from perceiving (as audience) to executing (as gamer) annihilates the artistry of the work. The work itself still can be 'touching', but it is not art anymore by definition.

Roger, it's clear that video games are not an appropriate medium for exploring certain genres--dramas for one. Games can have dramatic elements, but the demands of level progression and other gaming tropes puts the emphasis on action. Thus, games are best at replicating a good action or adventure movie.

Schindler's List (with its associated horrors and idiosyncrasies) is a fine film, but no better or worse IMO than a mindless action flick like The Rock.

Besides, we cut gaming short by assuming that the best it can do is emulate movies. Inspiration is great (Uncharted's debt to Indiana Jones and Mass Effect's to umpteen sci-fi flicks is well-known), but gaming can accomplish a lot more.

LOL. Storytelling has pretty much reached the final product. Theater has been around for 4 centuries, and cinema is pretty much the final evolution of theater. 3 major novels, namely The Tin Drum by Gunther Grass,Berlin Alexanderplatz by Alfred Doblin and Great Expectations by Charles Dickens (King Lear even has its cinema counterpart,namely Ran) have been succesfully made into movies. You really think some nerds who spent most of their lifes sitting on their lazy asses, collecting stars and mushrooms or playing capture the flag instead of cultivating love for storytelling by reading books or watching movies or going to theatres can think of something that will surpass the result of 4 centuries of hard work and passion ?  I'm having a laugh riot.

Roger, in case you may have missed, gaming now employs professional writers (in the case of Homefront, seasoned screenwriters). We're long-past the days of the do-it-all game designer. And again, this assumes that gaming *must* emulate film in order to stay relevant, or that only mediums structured like film can ever be considered art.
You're making some broad generalizations by assuming that nerds are uncultured boobs who'd  never think of reading a book, attending theater, or going to the movies. I don't know what sorta nerds you're acquainted with, but the ones I know are all voracious readers. An argument could be made that nerds prefer Sci-Fi over the "classics", but it's silly to paint all nerds with one broad brush. 

Um, i thought you were suggesting that videogames could unearth an uncharted storytelling territory that is completely detached from the development of performance art (theater,cinema, musical) .

Sci-fi writers never won Pulitzer, Nobel, or Man-Booker, Sci-Fi books don't count , they are garbage, another shitty escapism  reminiscent of  videogame.

What I actually said was that games needn't emulate movies in order to be relevant. They're a great source of inspiration, but not a necessary component.
There's more to performance art than storytelling (at least in the strictest sense). There's the emotions engendered by it, the actual performances themselves, and other technical artistry (musical score, cinematography, etc.)
And no one suggested that gaming must *surpass* the established standards set by theater, film, or literature.

As long as they are as one-dimensional as solving, winning, suceeding or progressing , they will never become art. One can argue that Barcelona's football is imposing,beautiful and elegant as a 'form', but no one would classify it as art, although it is relevant and influential.
 

I thought we all agreed this argument was to happen in 2010?

Roger, I will say that you are absolutely right that games, as they exist now, cannot  be art, but it will take time for game developers to explore what works.  Imagine if, for the first forty years of cinema, that entire industry had been driven by action movies.  That's where video games are coming from.

That scene in Schindler's List, if it were made into a game level as you describe it, would be an absolute travesty.  Imagine, though, that instead of playing that level as Amon Goth, you were playing as one of those jewish laborers.  Perhaps the game would have you doing your work when someone stops to say "Hi" to you, only to have them get shot right in front of you, then the "level" (or maybe I should say "scene") ends when the player character gets shot as well (then moving on to the next scene).  I am not suggesting that that would be an improvement over the movie in any way, but look at that as perhaps a hint of what could be possible in a video game.  And that is a clumsy example from someone who has no experience in any form of storytelling, imagine if a game director were as skilled at telling a story as Spielberg.

While I would not describe myself as a film-buff, I do enjoy movies, and I will say that I don't think any movie has made me think about moral choices in the same way that Dragon Age: Origins has.  Because of its interactive nature, it makes you make choices that will leave you wondering what the most moral choice would have been.  Do I kill the Desire demon and the innocent templar thrall defending it, or do I let them both live in an illusory happiness?  That is, I think, the area where video games can most set themselves apart.  By embracing the interactivity in a way that makes people think.  That is, in my opinion, the most important thing that any art form does.  They make you think and see things in new ways.

Are video games art?  Not yet, but that is largely due to the emphasis on "game".  As other people note, cinema started out as just filmed theater -- and with the added limitation of no sound, at that -- but over time filmmakers developed the techniques that set film apart as its own medium with its own capabilities.  I have faith that video games will see the same evolution over time.