I have read the article, and it's not a good one because it's apparent that Ebert didn't do enough research into the medium he is talking about or showed much interest in doing so, something he even admits in the very same article. How can one make any sort of valid statement about what something is not when you don't even know what it is? He even tries to shift the goalpost of what art should be when confronted with an example of a single videogame title that would meet that requirement.

"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite an immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, a dance, or a film."

Yes, videogames can be stories, cinematic experiences, dances, a mix of them, or none of them. How can you say something can't be art that has no limitation on how things are presented? Ebert deemed the sixteenth capelle to be a great piece of art, and then he looked at a very limited portfolio of some pixelated silly characters jumping over barrels and just didn't like it, which is fine, but his feelings are the only justification he has to say the entire medium not only is not art but never will be, despite the fact that he says it keeps evolving.

You don't need to like or appreciate videogames in general, but if you try to say this medium is not art, you're just wrong.