As the "games as art" debate roars on, film critic Roger Ebert finds his name in the headlines again, this time after a lengthy attack on the gaming industry in a recent article entitled "Video Games can never be art." In it, he claims that games can't be art for a number of different reasons, none of which deviate from his traditional slander on the medium. More recently, however, he has found himself defending his opinion on Twitter.
In the days since his article went live, many have apparently claimed Ebert is simply too old to "get" video games, an argument that he was quick to rebut: "Over and over, the gamers tell me I am too old to appreciate video games," he replied, "Not a one is too young to appreciate art."
Apparently, gamers hit a nerve. Since then, he issued another statement, claiming, "I'm not too old to "get" video games, but I may be too well-read."
This is a claim that should make anyone to ever pick up a game controller cringe. While he's not literally saying that he's too smart for games, he's... sort of saying exactly that. In his wave or Twitter rebuttals, he even went as far as to post that he was surprised that the gamers arguing against him were "literate," another desperate swing by an out-of-touch man.
This condescending statement will obviously do little but further aggravate those who are against him, which might be his point to begin with. He's slipped out of relevancy in the film industry, so he apparently has to get his kicks by randomly assigning qualifications to the completely subjective term "art." In his article, he even finds time to say that Flower isn't a game, meaning he's even taking time out of his busy schedule to qualify "game" as well. Lucky us. What would we ever do without him.