You may recall last year's spirited debate touched off by film critic Roger Ebert's assertion that games are not art
. He's once again touching that nerve, this time stating that he was too loose with his words. He points out that 'a soup can' can be art; what he meant to say is that games cannot be 'high art'
. Says Ebert: "How do I know this? How many games have I played? I know it by the definition of the vast majority of games. They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in Myst, and (3) player control of the outcome. I don't think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports."
The critic goes on to discuss comments from Clive Barker from last year, a gent who took great exception to Ebert's view.