I've not yet finished reading the whole essay (still intend to), but I already have found two points in which I find the whole side of the discussion to be rath

I've not yet finished reading the whole essay (still intend to), but I already have found two points in which I find the whole side of the discussion to be rather flawed. The identity of a game emerges from its mechanics and affordances, not the presentation that exposes them. Translated to paintings, this would equate to the statement that the defining aspect of paintings like the Mona Lisa are that they consist of dried dirt on canvas. If you're not willing to consider a piece wholistically, you don't even need to start a discussion like this. Also, with one of the first quoted statement, namely: As long as there is a great movie unseen or a great book unread, I will continue to be unable to find the time to play video games. Ebert pretty much disqualifies himself from the whole debate he created. If you willfully choose to be ignorant on the subject you're talking about, you have no say whatsoever in my book. Also, one thing that struck me as strange so far is the idea that the addition of something should remove the art-ness from a medium. At one point, there was an agreement that painted pictures could be art, but photography couldn't. Then, those were included, but moving pictures weren't. Now, certain moving pictures aren't, because they interact with the audience? I fail to see the reasoning there. The whole argument somehow reminds me of a text I once read, which explained that unwritten fashion rules about which dress colors should be worn during which seasons were used by nobility to "unmask" new-rich in their ranks. Sadly, I'm unable to find the source on that. Edit: As for the mechanics-based comment: I could agree with that when applied to go or chess. But this statement fails to see the merit of many video games: They are no longer limited to being a simple battle of wits, but have the possibility to convey messages, insight, emotion, impressions etc. without the need for an actual "opponent". Edit2: Thinking of it, a far more interesting point for me lies in the debate itself and where it stems from. I would be very much interested in the number of great artists that actually cared if their work was perceived as art. I would guess this number to be rather low, although I've got no evidence either way. That's why I find the more zealous participants in the discussion on the game-making side to be rather strange in an art context.