Comment by mcmoor

I really appreciate this article. It continues some series of introspection [1] that emphasizes a part of game that's ironically very underrated, gameplay. A game can be good not (just) because of its visuals (you can just see paintings), not because of its plot (you can just read books), not even because of both (you can just watch movies). But it's the interactivity that can elevate a game beyond the sum of its parts, and it can be done despite mediocre visual or plot.

Realizing this, it can be very disappointing that some discussion about video game art do only emphasize plot or visual, because that's what we understand as art. In this way, Roger Ebert is right, video game can only be art the more it resembles movie or book. But I hope not, and in time, this discourse can be moved especially when there will be more interactive medium out there to be invented (somehow). The treasure is the journey afterall.

[1] Ones I have seen are A Core's ["Can Game Mechanics be Art"] (https://youtu.be/a33ITEZDQwg) and the last parts of Mandalore's [Pathologic 2 Review](https://youtu.be/E7uKUgire7Y)