I'm irritated by the fact that Ebert is focusing on assorted definitions of art and games, which are themselves not truly nailed down nor universally shared, then attempting to classify specific examples as one or the other based on their attributes, as if the definitions were set and agreed before the debate started. He might be worth listening to if he was commenting on Flower or Braid or really any other game at all after having *played* them. To discount them based on another person's mere description of them indicates an unwillingness to expand his understanding of the medium that is far greater than any internet full of screaming apologists' ability to change.