I promoted this article not because I think that he's correct, but because I think this article is a brilliant example of a highly intelligent person getting something dead 180° wrong. Ebert is obviously quite intelligent, and a damn fine writer, but he misses much of what makes video games a compelling and beautiful medium for art. Just because one can embed poor prose or low-budget animated cut scenes doesn't mean that the medium is limited to just such things.

Don't tell me that the surreal landscapes of NiGHTS into Dreams weren't art-- I spent many hours as a kid exploring every nook and cranny of those levels all while trying to run away from the dreaded alarm clock. The start of the fourth level of NiGHTS forces you, the player, to make a choice that ultimately draws you into the game even more-- you must trust that you have enough control of your environment to jump off of that cliff and fly. Don't tell me that there isn't art in that beautiful moment when you realize that the rules of the game have changed so beautifully.

Anyone who has played Metal Gear Solid knows how Psycho Mantis' blurring of the fourth wall stretches how you think of playing the game. You, the player, have to make a physical action to get through the battle. Throughout the rest of the game, you are continually making choices about how you get through each challenge-- choices that other characters are aware of and will react to. The impact, ultimately, of such choices is that you empathize with Snake in ways that would not be possible in any other medium.

Others have given many other good examples, and will undoubtedly continue to do so. For my part, however, I will be content to share my 2¢ on the matter and to point attention to this important conversation.