I don't know that it makes such a big difference, but I'm trying to figure out what's going on in Ebert's brain. (Personally, I disagree with his thesis.)
That's the thing though. You're bedroom could be art.
No reason it couldn't be.
I think his fundamental challenge is you don't experience a game as much as you play a game. You don't play art as much as you experience art.
My question is, why do we need to define games as art? Games are so much more than art. So much more engaging. They offer so much more than mere art.
Games, at their core, encompass so much more than experience, that to limit themselves to just being art is almost an insult.
Games have been around far longer than art. Games have taught us far more than art. Games continue to push human kind forward. Games are our past, present, and future.
Undeniably many video games Contain lots of really cool art. But so does my bedroom.