Give it 30-50years, eventually it will be classed as art, and it will join the other genres that have had similar attitudes when they were first started eg. Pop Art.
My question is this: are we counting games as art because of the story, or because of the visual appeal? As far as the story goes, Ebert is somewhat correct, but largely seems misguided to me. Generally true. It's not really a game by any definition if it has no rules or goals what so ever. What bothers me is that he brings in the word "outcome". To some extent, some game have no true outcome. Situationally there are outcomes, such as defeating an enemy, but the game may have no ulterior motive (Mortal Online comes to mind). Alternatively, do stories, novels, movies, dances and plays not have outcomes? An outcome can easily be defined as a conclusion of any sort, a final act. Another thing that bothers me: are novels, movies, plays and sometimes even dances not simply stories told through different mediums? Is the story not the true art, and the medium simply a way of conveying it? Games are a "representation of a story" by design, just like any traditional form of art Ebert mentions.
I just read Penny Arcade's response to Ebert today and it actually made me laugh with glee. http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/4/21/ Quoting here in case the link doesn't hold up: Tycho's response is typically verbose but fairly spot-on, I think. Gabe's response was the part that made me laugh and I think it hits the nail on the head but just from a different angle. Blow that out your ass, Ebert.
That's the discussion over, really. Games have an audience and a creative force behind them, and a huge culture of critics, developed styles and tropes. By the institutional definition, they're art. Bad art, in most cases, but there you go.
Ebert is far too old to appreciate video games. The fact of the matter is, almost everybody in this current generation (as well as the previous one) are or have been gamers. Christ, even my dad used to program for the ZX Spectrum. What's changed is that, 20-30 years ago, you were often considered a nerd or a geek if you were into video games. These days, it's a given; tech & gaming is the norm, everybody has a console or a PC, and games are more accessible than ever. As an example: when I was younger, I got one of the first batch of playstations in the UK. For a few years I was the only one in my circle of friends with a PS. I'm about to move in with a few guys next term, and 4/5 of them have an Xbox 360 or a PS3. Bottom line is, games and gaming in general is becoming more accessible. They are far more capable of involving you in a storyline than a film, simply by virtue of you participating in them. Once video game graphics approach realism, I honestly believe movies will begin to fall by the wayside and games ('interactive movies') will become the norm. For an example, contrast the number of people who have seen the LoTR trilogy with those who have read the LoTR trilogy...