Games can have great stories and games that immerse you in their world are better for it but comparing a video game to Schindler's List is just taking it too far. We are talking about a fictional story versus one based on real life.
I do encourage understanding the nature of the controversy by searching out the news story or watching the video (in spite of my reluctance promoting Sterling).
The reviewer in question was stating the sense of dread he felt playing TLOU2 was similar to the sensation he experienced watching Schindler's List (and made no suggestion that one or the other was better or worse in any way). That is the beginning and ending of his statement and Twitter took it to the furthest extreme and scoffed at the very notion you would dare compare the works as though one is sacrosanct (granted, the film is top grade). On that point reasonable minds may differ, but it strains credulity to think an artistic interpretation housed in film based on a true story (but not biographical) is somehow ineligible to be compared against a work of fiction housed in a computer-based depiction that shares many similar elements, particularly with respect to its content. Perhaps it does underscore the broader societal attitude that games - due to their interactivity and dependence on player input, as well as traditionally being viewed as juvenile and mindless - are not valid pieces of art for higher intellectual conversation.
EDIT: For full context, I am quite certain this is the exact quote from the review that sent the internet into a dust-up (please correct me if I'm wrong):
"When I finished the first game, I thought about a quote from Steven Spielberg’s film,
Schindler’s List, about the German man who saved Jews during the Holocaust. It says, “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.” That quote came to mind as I finished the game. Joel saved a life, and he said the world be damned."
Review by VentureBeat