Ebert very recently stated that he considers video games to be inferior to movies and books, because of an inherent flaw in the way games approach narration. Simply put, he says that games suck because the "author" has less control over the story because he is forced to give the player choices.
Full thing at this link; scroll down:Roger Ebert wrote:Yours is the most civil of countless messages I have received after writing that I did indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.
I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.
<A HREF="http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... 0051127</A>