Originally Posted by FrozenImplosion
Well I understand where you're going with that, but saying Jumper is artistically equivalent is like saying that all fine art is equal as well. Like I agree that either all games are art, or none are. But I don't agree that all games are on equal levels of artistic value.
Sorry, excuse the late reply, been a while since I'd last thought to visit this site
I'm not saying they're equal in any way other than in being good examples of art. Being a good example of art does not necessarily mean something is an example of good art (and of course, what makes something "good art" is completely subjective.)
What I was trying to imply in my first post is that a list of gaming's paragons will not do much to change the mind of anyone who denies gaming's craft (unless the dissenter is a moron, and only labels that which suites their tastes as art.) When the likes of Roger Ebert opine that they don't think games were/are/will ever be art, they aren't implying that there isn't yet a game that has reached some kind of standard or level of quality required to be considered art. They are saying they think that the elements that comprise this medium and make ALL video games unique from other art (unparalleled interactivity and immersion, control, and (probably most importantly) things like engine and logic performance(and hell, I still don't think I've listed them all)) cannot now, and never will be, considered an art form; Excellence in conception, arrangement, and execution be damned.