The TL; DR version of Ebert’s argument goes a little like this: you can “win” a video game, thus it is a game and not art; and that there is no true masterwork of video games on the same level as the great masterworks of painting, or sculpture, or music, or cinema, and thus it is not art; and most importantly, Ebert himself has decided it is not art, and thus it is not art.
My personal opinion is twofold: first, that art is purely subjective, and any definition of art would be arbitrary; and second, that Ebert is completely wrong. I can’t really define art, but do know some of its features. Art is designed to evoke an emotional response, and art provokes deep contemplation.
Shadow of the Colossus and Metal Gear Solid 4. These are definitely games, but they stand out in my mind as art.
