You wouldn't think people would try and claim a form of expression couldn't 'be' anything, but following a very ill-informed piece from legendary film critic Roger Ebert called "Video Games Can Never Be Art" in 2010, it ended up inciting plenty of other critics to follow suit, from The Guardian's Jonathan Jones to Radio 5's Mark Kermode. The basic idea seemed to boil down to the idea of authorship, and the question that (paraphrasing here): "If the player authors their own experience, moving through a world and interacting with items in their own time, then they take that ownership away from the original author". It gained quite a lot of traction at the time, although Ebert and co. completely overlooked the fact that to play within any respective world or game, there are parameters put in place by teams of developers, artistic visionaries and creatives at every turn. At no point can you make someone like Nathan Drake suddenly sprout wings and fly over the landscape - you are always bound to the ruleset put in place by the design team. Once that was out of the way and more creative works of introspective, nuanced fiction like Gone Home and To The Moon came out, it cemented the notion that games weren't all blood-drenched blast-a-thons anyway - something that despite titles like yet anotherAssassin's Creed releasing this year, remains true to this day. What other well-known gaming facts are long-overdue being debunked? Let us know in the comments!