Waste your time and read my post!

I think I'll start by saying that any article containing acronyms like "IMHO" or "LOL" or anything of that matter is probably not one of the most academic articles you can find. Furthermore, emoticons and such further the lack of usefulness to the academic community. That being said... what I am about to write is probably not going to fall under my own definition of academic articles.

O.o ... What am I reading?

... IMHO... in my honest opinion... what! Does that imply that up until now you have not been honest, or perhaps have not been presenting to us, the reader, your own opinion? Whose is it then?

Well Mr. Ebert, in my honest opinion, I think that you're compensating for your own lack of creativity by making the claims that you do. To go even further, and- correct me if I am mistaken, sir- but you are giving this critical analysis to an industry that is completely outside of your area of pseudo expertise.

Don't get me wrong, you have made several excellent points. I find that the error in your logic is that your points have very little to do with your claim. If anything, you've proven that the definition of art isn't defined at all, and can really be bent to include anything as a form of art. Despite the evidence that you bring forth to support this, your claim still aims to be that video games aren't art just because they aren't. Rich Stanton said it first... that's a circular argument.

What then determines what is art... in your honest opinion? Is it whatever you think is art? Shall you be the judge then, of every single thing and whether or not it is a work of art. I have a word for people who apply this logic: elitist. It seems to me that you just don't think anything in the video game industry is "worthy" of being art, but really only in your honest opinion.

What else can I say? Oh yes... that the argument you tried to pick apart isn't that great either. No offense to the TED talks, which are, normally, filled with some of the brightest minds I've ever heard talk.

You know what, though? I congratulate you. I haven't met or heard of a single internet troll that can spur up more pointless argument than you can. And completely by accident, too? Bravo, sir troll.

Now what do I have to say about the debate myself? Hmm... I don't care. This is one of those debates that simply will not end for a very very long time, probably longer than I have to live. Furthermore, the industry is plagued by such horrid, terrible gaming companies (terrible in the sense that, well... in my honest opinion... are evil), and for that reason, I don't think a lot of games out there should be considered artwork.

Or maybe they should be... It's not like some of the greatest artworks of all time, the Sistine Chapel for example, weren't funded by people who are not currently considered of good moral standing. At any rate, it's an argument I don't really care for. Do note, though, that pretty much every single form of media ever has eventually found its artistic side.

So... instead of wasting a few hours taking part in this trivial debate, I advise that anyone reading close this window, open a new one, and go to ArmorGames.com and enjoy one of the few moments where playing video games will be -more- productive than writing.