In a response on his blog to a reader's comment regarding New York Times games writer Seth Schiesel calling Ebert an inspiration during a round of Slate's second annual Gaming Club, the film critic explains that while games are getting better, he would rather follow other dreams.

I am still not sure video games can be "art" in the sense that we use it in this thread, but I am convinced they are getting a lot better. However, if I had at the beginning of my career been told I would spend the next 41 years playing video games, I would have taken up professional knitting.

Aha, but his hypothetical conversion to professional knitter would have eventually led him right back to the world of video games! Gaming is everywhere, Mr. Ebert. There is no escape. Join us.

Roger Ebert's Blog [Chicago Sun-Times via MTV Multiplayer]

What I found intriguing about the movie was the lonely self-sufficiency of Agent 47, his life without a boyhood, his lack of a proper name, his single-purpose training. When Nika comes into his life, he is trained to guard against her, but he cannot, because she is helpless, needy...To the degree the movie explores their relationship, it is absorbing.

Other scenes, which involve Agent 47 striding down corridors, an automatic weapon in each hand, shooting down opponents who come dressed as Jedi troopers in black. These scenes are no doubt from the video game...It has a high body count but very little blood and gore. I wish it had less. It's the people we care about in movies, not how many dead bodies they can stack up. "Hitman" stands right on the threshold between video games and art. On the wrong side of the threshold, but still, give it credit.

Anyone see it yet?

Hitman Review [rogerebert]

Maybe the Detroit News, who is quite down on the flick and writes that it's "peppered with gratuitous nudity" like that's a bad thing. Or maybe the Boston Globe and you agree that Hitman watches like a "computer wrote and directed it." Golly! That'd be keen, if true!

Maybe you'll agree with Roger Ebert, who actually quite liked it, but devotes a paragraph to regurgitating his crusty opinion that Hitman somehow "serves as an excellent illustration of my conviction that video games will never become an art form." Oh, Rog! We've already ruled your opinion on the matter as archaic and out of touch, no need to trot that old horse out again.

For those who put such weight in things, Hitman is currently sporting a 7% positive rating at Rotten Tomatoes. However, it may have been boosted by the errant inclusion of a review of Disney's Enchanted, which the Dallas Morning News says is a great "screwball comedy". Guess I'll be seeing that!

Hitman Reviews [Rotten Tomatoes]

I think it stems from a very old idea of high art and low art that we've had in this country and actually originates, I think, in England. Very snobby idea about the fact that it's as much as anything about the people who produce the art as there is about the art form itself. The assumption is that the people who write comics are really people who simply can't write novels... Those high arts feel a little threatened when this other stuff comes along. I believe eventually there'll be a War and Peace of gaming. It'll happen.

Ebert is an incredibly intelligent man—a movie scholar and a master of the English language. And as a Chicago-born movie fan, my feelings on art were spoon nipple-fed from his teet. But while his responses are well-thought and even better written, knowing his arguments just leads me to disagree with him more.

So just as Ebert took the time to respond to Barker, I would like to take the time to respond to Ebert.

Ebert: The word "prejudiced" often translates as "disagrees with me." I might suggest that gamers have a prejudiced view of their medium, and particularly what it can be. Games may not be Shakespeare quite yet, but I have the prejudice that they never will be, and some gamers are prejudiced that they will.

Ebert: A reviewer is a reader, a viewer or a player with an opinion about what he or she has viewed, read or played. Whether that opinion is valid is up to his audience, books, games and all forms of created experience are about themselves; the real question is, do we as their consumers become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, philosophical (and so on) by experiencing them? Something may be excellent as itself, and yet be ultimately worthless. A bowel movement, for example.

Ebert: [Barker] is right again about me. I believe art is created by an artist. If you change it, you become the artist. Would "Romeo and Juliet" have been better with a different ending? Rewritten versions of the play were actually produced with happy endings. "King Lear" was also subjected to rewrites; it's such a downer. At this point, taste comes into play. Which version of "Romeo and Juliet," Shakespeare's or Barker's, is superior, deeper, more moving, more "artistic"?

Say you were to move a picture in that room—then the art may change and, at some lowly level, you may be an artist, too. But in games, that picture cannot be moved unless programmed to move. The interaction with such rules is not the creation of art, but the exploration of art—as if studying a painting in a different light—the art is not changed, just the perspective of the viewer.

Ebert: If you can go through "every emotional journey available," doesn't that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices. If next time, I have Romeo and Juliet go through the story naked and standing on their hands, would that be way cool, or what?

But the real issue at hand—the true divide in this discussion—is the lack of experience that Ebert has had with the medium. Games in their various incarnations represent a much wider gamut than film, but Ebert, like many, hasn't played enough games to believe it (or for us to offer concrete examples that will mean a thing).

But hey, our contact is on the side of this page. We'll be happy to shoot him some recommendations.

Art brings joy - but a joystick? [rogerebert]
Roger Ebert Strikes Back [kotaku]

At the recent Hollywood and Games Summit, keynote speaker Clive Barker gave his opinion on Mr. Ebert's views, defending the "games as art" side of the argument admirably. Obviously these two Hollywood heavy hitters have quite different opinions on what makes art. So, after a few weeks of ruminating, Mr. Ebert finally fired back with his rebuttal, and by and large I felt his answers were fairly sensible (with a few exceptions). He takes Barker's comments one by one and gives his answers to them stating most often that his opinion on games as art is just that, his opinion. As an interesting side note, Mr. Ebert has apparently lost the ability to speak and can only express his views on this matter through writing.

While you might not agree with his views, you should take the time to read his answers and see that maybe he isn't as much of a pompous windbag as we all thought. (Just maybe like 50% ) He's a just a man with his own opinions like we all are. Just because I don't like FPSs doesn't make me an idiot, it just makes me a man who likes to form his own views on something. And if that view doesn't jive with yours it doesn't mean I'm wrong, it just makes me, Me.

Art brings joy — but a joystick? [RogerEbert.com]
[Thanks, Sunjammer]

Back in 2005, film critic and Beyond the Valley of the Dolls screenwriter Roger Ebert stated why games were inferior to books and movies. His rational? Games force people to make choices. Making choices is bad, apparently. Novelist Clive Barker took the critic to task at Hollywood & Games Summit today in Los Angeles today. Years late, but hey, we'll take it Clive! Here's what Barker had to say:

That's bullshit. This is a medium that's barely 2 decades old, and he (Ebert) is saying oh, there's no War And Peace yet — of course there isn't! ...You have to come at it with an open heart... Roger Ebert obviously had a narrow vision of what the medium is, or can be. It seems so high-handed. A lot of very very smart people, here in this room, are working to make these experiences extraordinary.

...We can debate what art is, we can debate it forever. But if the experience moves you, some way or another, even if it just moves your bowels, I think it's worthy of some serious study... Games mean something to a lot of people... Games aren't about reviewers, they're about players.

Clive Gives Keynote [Gamasutra]

The Producers Guild of America just announced that the 2007 Vanguard Award will be presented to Will Wright. Past recipients include George Lucas, James Cameron, Pixar Animation Studios and AOL Chairman and CEO Jon Miller.

Wright, recently named by Entertainment Weekly as one of the 100 most creative people in entertainment, was selected for his innovative perspective and because he helped revolutionize the gaming industry.

PGA Awards co-chairs, Mark Gordon and Hawk Koch commented, "Will Wright is the icon of the gaming industry and one of the great producers of entertainment content. His creations have transcended into feature films and continue to entertain a global audience. We are proud to have him be the first Vanguard recipient from the gaming universe."

"The PGA's decision to honor a game designer is a big moment for game designers such as myself, and those who would like to follow in our footsteps. The PGA is signaling that games are an integral part of the entertainment industry, and an art form worthy of recognition," said Wright. "For that reason, I am incredibly honored to be the first game designer to receive the Vanguard award."

So, to summarize, Roger Ebert is a tool. Brian Crecente

2007 PRODUCERS GUILD AWARDS TO HONOR VIDEO GAME PIONEERWILL WRIGHT WITH VANGUARD AWARD

December 14, 2006, Los Angeles—The Producers Guild of America is pleased to announce that the 2007 Vanguard Award will be presented to celebrated game designer Will Wright whose creative vision has inspired some of the most critically acclaimed and popular video games in the short history of the medium. The Vanguard Award, which recognizes outstanding achievement in new media and technology, will be presented to Wright at the 2007 Producers Guild Awards on Saturday, January 20th at the Century Plaza.

Deemed by Entertainment Weekly to be one "the 100 most creative people in entertainment" Wright draws on academic and artistic sources as the original producer of games such as the

classic urban planning game, SimCity, and most notably, The Sims, which became the best selling PC game in history. As the originator of the "God Game", Wright introduced the concept of allowing players to control simulated individuals or groups of individuals by serving as an omnipotent entity that influences various scenarios within a game. This innovative perspective changed the face of the video game model and revolutionized the gaming industry. He is currently developing Spore—an epic journey that takes players from the origin and evolution of life through the development of civilization and technology and eventually all the way into the deepest reaches of outer space.

PGA Awards co-chairs, Mark Gordon and Hawk Koch commented, "Will Wright is the icon of the gaming industry and one of the great producers of entertainment content. His creations have transcended into feature films and continue to entertain a global audience. We are proud to have him be the first Vanguard recipient from the gaming universe."

"The PGA's decision to honor a game designer is a big moment for game designers such as myself, and those who would like to follow in our footsteps. The PGA is signaling that games are an integral part of the entertainment industry, and an art form worthy of recognition," said Wright. "For that reason, I am incredibly honored to be the first game designer to receive the Vanguard award."

The PGA will also honor Ron Meyer with their Milestone Award. Doug Wick and Lucy Fisher will receive the David O. Selznick Achievement Award in Theatrical Motion Pictures and Jerry Bruckheimer will receive the Norman Lear Producers Guild Achievement Award in Television. Ken Ehrlich will be honored with the Visionary Award, and the Stanley Kramer Award will be presented to An Inconvenient Truth.

Previous recipients of the Vanguard Award include George Lucas, James Cameron, Pixar Animation Studios and AOL Chairman and CEO Jon Miller.

The Producers Guild will announce their 2007 nominees for Producer of the Year in Theatrical Motion Picture, Animated Film, Long-Form and Non-Fiction Television on January 4th, 2007.

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]

I missed one heck of a debate yesterday at University of Colorado at Boulder. Apparently Roger Ebert came for the 58th Annual Conference on World Affairs. One of his panels was titled: An Epic Debate: Are Video Games an Art Form?

The funny thing is that for his "debating" partner they had Jim Emerson who is, of course, another film critic. But he's not just a film critc, no even that might offer too much possible contention for Ebert. No Emerson is also the the founding editor-in-chief of RogerEbert.com.

Wow, that must have been one heck of a debate. Ebert and his biggest fan. I'm sure a lot of interesting ideas were discussed, like how AMAZING Ebert is and how he is also so SUPER COOL.

I'm guessing someone like Henry Jenkins might result in much pant wetting on Ebert's part. So at least his clothes were spared that indignity by this sham of a debate.

I'm hoping to find someone who was able to attend the event and please, oh please, can prove me wrong with much interesting details about what improbably turned into an exciting debate

Roger Ebert Schedule