Ebert: Video games not art

Roger Ebert has said that video games cannot be art.

Many have written well on this question. What's interesting to me is Ebert's structural claim. He claims that it's impossible to have art in a game. He subscribes strongly to the French auteur theory that art requires a singular author, with a singular vision. And he argues that video games, by giving any control over the story to the player destroys that authority.

I'm willing to accept that the Bergman of video games has not yet emerged, and no art in this form exists yet. But it seems to me that it's possible to tell an interactive story and still maintain a great level of control as the creator. As an actor, it seems fairly obvious to me that the difference between watching a play and playing a video game is the difference between watching a play and starring in a play. Does Ebert believe that actors cannot have artistic experiences, because they are part of the craft? Or would he argue that a truer comparison to gaming would be performing in an improv show, where the actors have more choices?

As an actor, I have many choices in a performance. And there are poor choices, and better choices. Perhaps a game is only art when played well, and the high score is achieved?