Just a note about Roger Ebert's blog post regarding games as art. Found at: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html 
 
For those who haven't read it, he believes solidly they are not. I won't get too much into it; I don't care overly much about his opinion on the matter. The key for me seems to lie here:  

 "One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.  " 
 
Most of the article is focused on the definition of art, but I think it really comes down to the definition of a game. If we define a game abstractly as a set of rules, actions, outcomes, etc, then it really is hard to see the art in them; with this passage, Ebert is assuring himself that anything art-like he might find in a "game" is not a game, supporting his argument. If this is how he defines games, then I at least see where he is coming from. 
 
I think ignoring all the non-abstract components of a game is a mistake, as I am sure many of you would. Story, visuals, music, and presentation are all part of a game to me along with the rules and goals. I would like to think Ebert would agree that, at least when taken separately, some of these parts are themselves art. Then I have at least identified our difference of opinion, and am satisfied. 
 
Your thoughts?