This is a letter I just sent to the "Movie Answer Man," Roger Ebert, regarding his recent article, "Games vs. Art: Ebert vs. Barker"

"Video games are a way for people to entertain themselves. They have visual and audio elements, and they are interactive. That, in a nutshell, is the definition of a video game. There are many, many things that can be considered a "video game." I think that your view of what a video game is may be a little narrow. A more open view is needed, because games are already much more than you may think. We're not in the days of "Pong" anymore. I do believe that in the future (and even now) games can definitely be considered art. Of course, that depends on what the definition of art is. And art is so broad that any one person's definition will be different from someone else's. Maybe my view is that art is anything that tells a story. But that wouldn't include the works of Da Vinci or M.C. Escher, as those works don't tell a story, but many people believe that those are not only works of art, but very important works of art. Okay. Let's say that art is something that makes you feel emotion. Yeah, that sounds right. But then, is Die Hard considered art if it makes me feel tension? Is a corny romance novel considered art if it makes me cry? (It never would, if you were wondering. Just hypothetically.) Many people don't think of those examples as art. So we need another definition. I've got it. Anything with social or political commentary in it is art. No, wait. That wouldn't work. That would again exclude many famous paintings and other artworks. Let's see. Maybe a broader definition should work. Let's say anything that has a visual element. According to your opinion, this wouldn't work because video games are not art, and all video games give you something to see. But it also wouldn't work because it would exclude a great deal of pieces of art in the form of music. I really can't think of appropriate guidelines to determine what is and what isn't art. And that is why you cannot argue that video games are not an art form. I could just as easily argue that movies are not an art form, because just look at Pirates of the Caribbean or Mission Impossible. They do not have any important points to make about society, they do not make you think deeply about anything, and they are just examples of mindless entertainment. Just harmless entertainment, that's all. But then, why were the 1st movies made? Why were the 1st graphics novels (another 'art form' in my worthless but completely correct opinion) made? Why were the 1st games made? To entertain. The first movies ever made weren't like the movies in theaters now. It took some time for films to become as emotionally involving or thought-provoking as they are now. But those very 1st films are now considered art, are they not? Perhaps now games may seem like just something else to do while waiting for your plane ride to end or to tune out the idiot riding next to you on the bus, but soon they will be so much more. In fact, they already are much more. "Call of Duty," a WWII shooter, is more involving than most movies out there because of the way video games put you into the experience. As the bullets whiz past your head and you hear your fellow soldiers screaming to get away from a huge tank, you don't think, "Wow. This is all very convincing. The gun noises are extremely realistic!" You think, "Oh my god, I've got to get the hell out of here." Video games are evolving at an extremely fast rate, definitely faster than movies evolved from their humble beginnings. Because the technology used for video games is always changing and always getting better, the possibility and the potential for video games is constantly growing bigger. My prediction (although only fortune tellers can say for certain) is that games will very soon be regarded as art works, and very soon the video game industry will be as big (or maybe even bigger) than the movie industry. I know this sounds absurd to you (I can picture you having a good laugh by the time you get to this), but just take into account that in the early days (and I mean EARLY days) of film, the idea that movies could be art was scoffed and ridiculed by the general public. Now look. Keep an open mind, and do yourself a favor and actually play a game or two. You may actually enjoy it."

I hope that the guy sorting through Ebert's e-mails looks at this and actually has Ebert read it so he can scoff and send it to the trash, but at least he will have read it. That was wishful thinking at its finest.