Thats some bullshit...i have actually thought about this subject, and i can tell you that games can,are and will be art.
But obviously not all games,as not all movies are art,or all books...
The definition of art is hard to come by, but it would be a creative effort,and if you tell me that games arent creative, you can just go f*** yourself, Bioshock had an amazing atmosphere and story, fallout 1 and 2 of course need not be mentioned, Max Payne, Kotor, Mafia,Metro 2033,Stalker,The Witcher,Far Cry 2 (and these are just that come to mind). Now,games can be great in gameplay,story, atmosphere, graphics, music.And when games are great in all those areas how can they not be art?
Sir Roger Ebert is a snob fool, he probably regards Andy Warhol as one of the greatest artists, yeah a can of fucking tomato soup, good job. Now i have a special hatred for modern art,but modern art and new art are 2 different things.
In the end,the most simple,and i think the most accurate description of art is whatever blows your mind away, so why not games?What Mr Ebert's conclusion comes from the many,many, many shitty games out there, but should the few great ones be deemed badly because of the many bad ones?
In any case this has gone on long enough and to end this i will give you an example.
Mad Max,we have all watched it, great movie, and it is art, imo great art.
Fallout, very similar to Mad Max, hell in Fallout 2 you get a guy named Mel attacking you if you attack Dogmeat in the special encounter, the leather armor is almost identical these are just 2 similar things among many others.
So if Mad Max is regarded as a great movie and as great art why not Fallout?
One more thing.
My dear Roger,i hope you get arrested sentenced to 10 years in a maximum security prison, where the only thing you have to look forward to is being raped by 2 guys named Jamal and Jesus in the showers for the reminder of your sentence.
Sincerely the guy who thinks (some) games are art.