Matt Sakey's latest 'Culture Clash' column for the IGDA is on the oft, oft, oft-discussed throwaway Roger Ebert comments about video games not being art.

The article naturally concludes that games, like any other creative medium, have artistic elements to them, but also contains the following somewhat flamebait-ish section:

"The fact that the art evolved later has led to the misconception that there is no artistic value in games – something many developers hold to today, limiting their creative potential. Dubious creativity has repeatedly threatened the business. There are industry people who refuse to accept the idea that games are art, to the point of finding that suggestion personally insulting. Others, like industry albatross Rockstar, believe in the art but, perversely, spend their days struggling to abase the medium."

Why would game developers self-consciously rule art out of the games they create? Why does Rockstar's choice of subject matter 'abase the medium' in any way? And why does a non-developer have a column on the IGDA website accusing developers of lacking creativity, even in an offhanded way?

Apparently, it's an angry Saturday here at GameSetWatch, but sometimes it seems like that those picking at problems dysfunctionally from the inside do far more harm than the Roger Eberts of this world (also see: the debate on video game journalism.)