Ebert was correct and had a perfectly valid reason for it. In art it is the emotion and agency of the artist that is being conveyed to the static observer. The observer has no input into the piece beyond their own observations of it. Whereas video games are all about the players agency. They flip the relationship. It is no longer the creative "artist" conveying their experience and emotions to the observer. But rather the observer is now the one in the drivers seat determining their own experiences. Video games are not art. They mat include elements of art. They may provide a framework by which art may happen. But the core experience is very very different from art. Not everything that brings emotion is art. A Personal Journey is not art. You can hike the Appalachian trails or Continental Divide and experience the greatest beauty in the world. Have your soul altered and inspired and emotions wrung out. But it isn't art. Video Games are like those journey's. They tell the users stories, the users journeys, not the artists. They simply provide a framework by which the user can have those journeys. Someone like Bob takes offense at this because he feels it excludes him from the cool kids club. "It must be art, because cool kids are artists. I am a cool kid therefore I art". Needless to say at this point, Bob is a shallow idiot.
