I don't know about you guys, but I would rather change someones opinion on games than to tell him he's wrong and has no idea what he's talking about. As a writer and editor *along with my love for philosophical discussions* I think talking to someone who is as entrenched in media, and art by extension, as he himself is would be amazing to discuss what makes art and if video games can play off of the intricacies of it's his sordid history and mechanics to become such.
Much like a lot of paintings and films sometimes it takes someone who knows the history of the medium to actually understand why something is so remarkable and well put together.
You can't just walk up to a van gogh and expect to understand what really makes it good. For such insight you really need to understand why this piece of work was so refreshing and well done in the medium.
You just can't go and play bioshock and expect those that don't understand mechanics in video games to see why gameplay has such a critical part to play in it. You can't just expect Ebert to sit down with bioshock and know that going through a video game normally either gives you freedom or plants you on a linear path. Then to come to a game where you can explore every inch of the level and gives you a sense of freedom in this space. To only find out that you really had no choice on what you did because much like game development you become so used to being told how to work a game so you don't question anything when a character is helping you understand a new environment.
These things are very indicative of our medium that there are some things that you cannot do outside of video games and get the same resonance. You inhabit your character and rely on knowing that you control all of his actions even if it is self deprecating to his character.
I would write more but I'll have to save that for another or later.
