Don't fall into the trap, as this Santiago has, of arguing that games are art because they have become really good. First, your opponent can counter with "I do

Don't fall into the trap, as this Santiago has, of arguing that games are art because they have become really good. First, your opponent can counter with "I don't find them very good", and the productive part of the discussion is over, especially if you are arguing with Ebert. Better yet, they can argue that subjective quality is irrelevant to the definition (the point you should be making). If bad art is nonetheless art then good non-art is nonetheless non-art. As another commenter pointed out, the whole discussion is a tactic of misdirection. It doesn't matter what's art, it matters what's good, and this quibbling over semantics is a diversion from that asymptotically complex matter, which old farts like Ebert would rather not face. Ebert argues that games are not art because they have failed to motivate him to ever experience one for himself. If you need more than that fact to win the argument, you are probably over thinking it.