Not much here, and a lot of the (overwrought) commentary comes off as stilted/immature: > Rather than say something sensible like, “art isn’t defined by merit,

Not much here, and a lot of the (overwrought) commentary comes off as stilted/immature: > Rather than say something sensible like, “art isn’t defined by merit,” or, “not all art has to have a message behind it, art can simply be,” nerds insisted that the most beautiful and meaningful games were in fact works of high literature, rather than just corporate art intended to profit from nerd cultural taste, in much the same way as a Marvel film. I also felt like the author gave a pretty limited view of the current video game scene. It seemed ironic for the article to open with a mea culpa of reopening an old argument while not actually mentioning many modern games - or grappling with the modern question of what a game even is. Ebert contended that a game ceased to be a game given certain conditions, which is silly from today’s views IMO: > …a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Even the older game selections could have been better: That Dragon, Cancer or Journey make for far more illuminating comparisons vis a vis games-as-art than some PS4 launch title, and both received a lot of press back then. In terms of modern art games, look no further than Disco Elysium.