Over the course of his career as a film critic Robert Eberts has become well known and respected in that field. With his influence and knowledge in the industry he is able to convince people to trust his opinion and take his words as fact. This is clearly represented in the article “Video Games Can Never Be Art”. Robert Ebert's article is not effectively written, due to the lack of substantial evidence. Ebert uses his biased opinion to influence readers' opinions. He uses pathos by using aggressive words to support his biased opinion. Ebert ultimately uses Ethos, using his credentials and influence in the tritic flow of the film as proof. Using his credentials and influence he ends up contradicting himself throughout the article, thus making it very effective. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Ebert starts with examples from a convention, where a lady named Kellee Santiago gives examples of video games that she says are representations of art. Ebert responds to Santiago's speech by saying: “The three games he chooses as examples do not raise my hopes for a video game that will merit my attention long enough to play. They are, I'm sorry to say, pathetic. I repeat: "No one on or off the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets." This comment reveals that Ebert believes that art can only be art when it is recognized by society. What happens to bad artists? Aren't they artists yet? Abstract art was once not accepted in the art community, but now it is famous throughout the world. Therefore Ebert is biased because he only believes that “good art is art”. Later in the article Ebert writes “Some of these paintings are masterpieces, most are really bad. How do you notice the difference? We know it. It's a matter of taste, yes. ”, yes, it's a matter of taste. Couldn't you argue that video games are art, given that's your taste? This statement reveals that the only reason he doesn't believe video games are art is because they don't match his tastes. The only thing Ebert actually writes about in this article is his opinion which, in fact, is biased. While reading this article, Ebert uses pathos in his vocabulary. Throughout the article he uses words like “mindless” to describe video game players. By using this type of language, Ebert is able to (hopefully) influence readers into believing that video games make you mindless, thus embarrassing video game players. As much as Ebert shows his disgust for the industry, he still doesn't provide any kind of evidence as to why they can never be art. "Nowadays, she says, "adult gamers" hope for games that reach higher levels of "joy, or ecstasy... catharsis." These games (which she says are already in the making) "are rewarded by audiences with high sales figures. “The only way I could experience joy or ecstasy from his games would be through profit sharing. Robert Ebert states this regarding the video games he was describing. This is in fact Ebert once again expressing his opinion. Furthermore Ebert is using his credibility as a well-known critic. Saying that he discredits video games for anyone who relies on Ebert's opinion. None of Ebert's arguments explain and provide any evidence of why video games are not art effective way of this article is Ebert convincing the audience that in reality he does not.