After getting back from Boulder, Colorado, Jim Emerson wrote up quite a lengthy explanation of how he researched and formed his opinions for his debate with Roger Ebert about the whole "are video games art" question.

He was even kind enough to link to Kotaku's coverage of the event and my saying that it was bound to be a sham.

His response:

Hey, I am a big "fan" of Ebert's, otherwise this job wouldn't interest me. Trust me, I wouldn't want to be the editor of michaelmedved.com or geneshalit.com. But, as actual readers of this site know, Roger and I don't always see eye-to-eye ("Million Dollar Baby," "Crash," "Fight Club," "Mississippi Burning," and so on) — any more than any other two people on the face of the planet do.

Going in to the video game panel, I'd been hoping the audience (mostly students) would be fired up about the subject and challenge the panelists, but they were unfortunately pretty passive. Maybe they were intimidated by the rather formal (for Boulder) theater setting, I don't know. Ebert began by explaining why he felt a game (particularly the shoot-shoot, point-scoring kind) was not an experience equivalent to that of reading a great novel like, say, "The Great Gatsby," because games don't delve very deeply into what it means to be human.

The story is well worth a read if you have any interest in this topic.

Video games: The 'epic debate' [RogerEbert.com]

Send an email to the author of this post at .