Ebert apologizes.

He writes:

“My error in the first place was to think I could make a convincing argument on purely theoretical grounds. What I was saying is that video games could not in principle be Art. That was a foolish position to take, particularly as it seemed to apply to the entire unseen future of games. This was pointed out to me maybe hundreds of times. How could I disagree? It is quite possible a game could someday be great Art.”

Well, when you say something like that “Time is not your enemy, forever is.”  But, while Ebert is correct that he ought not to have said that because there will be games that are Art in the future, he fails to realize that there are already games that are Art, which I listed here.

He goes on to say: “If I could save the works of Shakespeare by sacrificing all the video games in existence, I would do it without a moment’s hesitation.”

Well, I suppose there’s no accounting for taste. But personally, I would gladly sacrifice the works of Shakespeare to save the works of Chris Avellone.

But never mind. You’ve made a good start, Ebert.

What's your stake in this, cowboy?