Flikery

I actually went and preordered the game after playing the demo. I did have some graphics glitches, but the combat felt really great to me, especially after sneaking, aiming arrows, and summoning fire atronachs in Skyrim for the last zillion hours. And the game world looked pretty big to me: http://reckoning.amalur.com/en/r/game/world the top map is the world map, the bottom the region map that contains the one area the demo is in. I was able to spend my full 45 minutes in the region pretty comfortably; could have spent more, but let's start there on average. I count 9 areas. If each of the 5 regions has 9 areas, that amounts to 45*9*5=45^2=2025 minutes, or, 33.75 hours. Sounds fine enough to me; I don't need every game to be Skyrim-long. I also liked the potential for the crafting system, as well as the non-combat abilities you get to put points into. Maybe I am just looking for something more arcadey than Skyrim, and this seems to be set up to scratch the itch for me.

A little friend adding would be pretty sweet

Can't...break...from...Starcraft...

If you can resist buying games while you have an MMO, then Kombat's advice seems the most pertinent; I have problems with that kind of video game buying self control. If you are like me, I would suggest buying some long, deep, older games that you have not played and get into them, like Persona 3 or 4, Oblivion, Final Fantasy Tactics, or even a Final Fantasy like 7, 8, or 9 that you can find on PSN. If you can get into those kind of games, you can squeeze tens to hundreds of hours of entertainment from them. Or just borrow games off of friends :-)

Love the art style; if the Wii wants to compete directly with the other guys, they need to compensate for its lack of graphical power with unique and creative looks like this. Good work on the article, GB!

Sighs for no Last Guardian; Infamous 2 Approved

SOTN will last you a good solid amount of time and Super Stardust is pretty solid, so I think you are getting the most bang for your buck there.

Enjoy listening to Vin Scully? 
Know Charlie Haeger from Casey Blake? 
Love watching the Giants lose?  (Especially like they did on Sunday?)
 
Give me a little sound off! It would be nice to hear from some Dodger folks, as I am stuck in Arizona for graduate school and don't get to hear too much.. Though I have to say that MLB.TV is a God-send :-)

@Bruce 
 
I agree the debate is not really important; being defined as art or not changes nothing in your life or mine. Mostly I wanted to find the crux of Ebert's argument and point out that I think the definition of "game" is as important as the definition of "art" to the debate, something I hadn't seen elsewhere (though maybe it is and I am just not that thorough :-) ).
  
 I think you are right that it is probably an all or nothing definition for video games as art, but I think we have similar feelings about what to consider art; there are plenty of works out there in other mediums that I may not understand or think are not too great, but I still would define them as "art". I am pretty inclusive and willing to give the benefit of the doubt. But people labeling works they do not like or don't understand as "not art" has happened for a very long time. Just a matter of perspective I suppose. I do believe that people can judge (for themselves) what is good art or not. In that case, I think more people would consider Okami as better art than Madden, but both considered art. That is a world I am perfectly fine living in, and just my opinion.

In the long run, adults scoffing at our hobby is not important; if enough young people think they are art and carry it forward, the definition will change as they get older and todays adults disappear. 
 
What are your personal feelings about it? None is ok, as we already seem to agree on the lack of life-relevance this subject has :-P

 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.