Curious how many people even read what he wrote.
Overall, I agree with Ebert, and he really took Santiago to task. I may disagree with his premise that a game can never be art, but most of what he wrote in his article is correct. Her talk was utterly unconvincing.
In order to discuss this, you first have to separate the work from the medium. A movie, as such, is not art. A game, as such, is not art. I think this has to be the basic foundation of agreement, or else almost any argument is made pointless.
(By the way, Ebert doesn't argue that all movies are art, either -- I'm not sure why people are making comments implying such an argument.)
If we accept that premise, then we can talk about whether something is Art or not, and of course it will be different from one person to another. For my part, I am most interested in games that communicate something in a way that can only be done in the interactive space. A cutscene can be Art without the game being so, and in fact I would say it would be even easier to do because it's already been done in movies (a cutscene is effectively a movie... a linear, scripted, wholly composed series of moving images). Same with writing, same with painting, etc.
The reason I make this distinction is because I think the argument about games as art needs to be specific to what makes a game a game.
Indeed, if Braid or Flower are going to be the games we put forward and say, "Look at these, they are Art," then I would agree with Ebert in that they are pathetic. Furthermore, I would say they even damage the cause of expressing things in a way that only interactive mediums can. I feel on this case Ebert's reaction is apt... Braid's story IS "on the level of a wordy fortune cookie."
Maybe with Flower I can make my point clearer: one might argue that the visuals are Art (though I would disagree). One might argue the music is Art (I would actually agree here, I find Diamante's compositions are extremely expressive and evocative). But is the game itself, the way that you manipulate or trigger those individual pieces art in of itself? Absolutely not. On a game level Flower is mundane and says little of interest.
If we want to argue that games are Art, I would more readily accept that a game such as Shadow of the Colossus has merit, or Legend of Zelda. Super Mario Bros. would fit the bill. Why? Because the gameplay says something. It evokes a response that you cannot get unless you play the game yourself.
In the end, I would agree that even if games are Art, we don't have our Great Art. We have our Great Games, though. Santiago mentions that the works of art of the gaming world "are being rewarded by audiences by high sales figures." Then perhaps it would be best to look at the most successful artists, people such as Miyamoto, who quickly say that games are not art (much to the chagrin of many, I'm sure). There is of course a huge discussion to be had regarding "art" and whether a product can be art, as games undoubtedly are in most cases.
By the way, Ebert nails the whole point of this discussion when he asks: "Do they require validation?" The answer is without a doubt "yes."
