Now that his comments are long past and even though he has retracted his statement with a backhanded apology, we can look back to see how much Roger Ebert's comments have influenced the way gamers and reviewers view games.

Roger Ebert wasen't just speaking for himself. His infamous statement gave voice to a large collective of people that don't play or understand videogames, therefore not recognizing gaming as a legitimate art form. You know your uncle that asks if you are "still playing those videogames", and that new friend you met who says "aren't videogames for kids?"

Before his comment was made many people have said a lot of bad things about gaming, but never has a comment hit the very core of what it means to be a gamer. Gamers everywhere were offended like a Philadelphia Eagles fan being told football wasen't really a sport. After hearing this gamers dug in hard, exaggerating how great the story in the games we were playing was.

Three games come to mind; Alan Wake, Heavy Rain, and Uncharted 2. All three of these titles were well recieved and boosted by gamer's collective desire to have their past time seen as a legitimate vechicle for storytelling on par with film and literature. But go back and play those games. Really think about the stories, characters, and presentation while playing them.

Heavy Rain was touted for it's emergent gameplay, character realism, and most of all story. Comparing this to a book or film, what would we think in Seven if during the hunt for the killer the heroes ran across a junkyard operator with a dead cop in his garage, another crazed serial killer who drugged them and tried to kill them, and another killer who owns a nightclub. Then after facing numerous serial killers it turns out that Morgan Freeman is actually the killer, proving it by having a cheesy flashback that tried to fill all the plot holes and prove to the audience that it could be true. Instead of applauding a story like this, Seven would have been viewed as a crappy B movie.

Uncharted and Alan Wake both suffered from crappy third person gameplay. In Uncharted a game supposedly about climbing and exlporation, the player was confined by invisible walls, and could only climb a specific route the developer had chosen. It not only had the play battling a helicopter, but a tank with conveniently placed rpgs around it to destroy it. How fresh and exciting. Everyone said it was like watching a movie. It was like watching a movie in the sense that this is what would happen if Micheal Bay was given the go ahead to direct the next Indiana Jones movie. Seriously how many times did the characters turn on each other, or leap across a chasm only to be caught with one hand by a women who "didn't even have to take her top off to get what she wanted". That is some great writing.

Alan Wake was the most repetitive, frustrating game to play. The game mechanics sucked and that guy "dropped his gun and his flashlight" so much between scenes that AW2 limited edition should come with an empty holder for a gun and a flashlight but with nothing in them. There was no story in that game other than it's an ocean.

Why these three games? Well all three wouldn't have been so well recieved had gamers and reviewers not felt the need to vehemently defend their hobby. Why can't we as gamers just accept the fact that most people will never understand or experience what makes gaming so amazing. Let's all ignore the Roger Eberts and negative comments from all the other uninformed people out there. Gaming is punk. It's rock and roll. It's the coolest thing ever for those who enjoy it. It's a special club that outsiders don't get. Let's be proud of what we do and know what we're doing is legitimate. Let's not give games that are mediocre a free pass just because we want our hobby to be understood by people who will never understand.