It's not even that. He's just wrong, and like all media slop critics placed way too much value on his favorite slop treats while scorning other sorts of media slop treats. Like movies are 99+% pure slop, 99+% of all books ever written have been formulaic mass market slop, 99+% of all music ever recorded has been empty slop, 99+% of games ever made have been low effort slop, 99+% of all painted "art" is just slop commissioned to fill space on a wall.

"There are some examples of [insert medium] that are meaningful and well executed" isn't some profound thing, it doesn't elevate or transform the nature of the rest of the medium it was in, those things are just individually good and potentially meaningful. Trying to cast some mediums as somehow superior and sublime is just silly elitism that's willfully ignoring how vapid the vast, vast bulk of everything in every medium is, especially when the purpose of that medium is making people stare at it in exchange for money, but especially when the purpose of the medium is trying to make funtime reference puzzles for modestly educated special good boys who want to feel smart for getting it like what most "high art" is trying to be.