for Paul and for the Gamers

Paul, I thought your conclusion was especially convincing, and the idea of that moment when the gamer has to turn off the video game to win the game seems like this legitimately lovely and moving moment.  You do a great job of basing your argument in a debate that is totally relevant to us today and using historical background to support that, especially with the idea that Shakespeare's plays are today's video games in terms of people's views on their cultural value.

Some suggestions:

I was a little confused by the series of paragraphs in your introduction because I wasn't sure if I'd missed the thesis until I hit it, which begins with "I will argue..."  The examples you use to establish the legitimacy of your argument are really interesting, but I wonder if you could incorporate them into the body of your argument, like the video game saving the boy's life, or just leave them out to make your introduction shorter.

A couple of times I thought your topic sentences could be more clear about what was in the paragraphs.  For example, in the paragraph beginning with "In the rest of The Tempest, the word art keeps popping up," you seem to mention the importance of art popping up in the middle of the paragraph instead of mentioning, at least briefly, in your topic sentence why it matters that art pops up.  The importance of that seemed to me to be that "Shakespeare knew well the debate surrounding his own works and his medium, and while he may not have been..."

The paper was really engaging and felt relevant.  I think I need to think more about my views of video games.  It's interesting that Ebert did his criticism of video games and later admitted to never playing them, which I feel like is something someone should do before they start criticizing them as not being art.