Earlier quoted context omitted.
It still boggles me that that's Ebert's position. I've played plenty of games which were significantly better narratives than the vast majority of movies I've seen, much less that's out there. A good game can be far more immersive and emotionally powerful than a book or movie, unless you've set yourself up to not notice it.
I'd agree if you said some book or movies... But I can't find any game (or movies) that is as immersive as a great book...
And, ultimately, at its most pared down, a game can be essentially identical to either a movie or a book, because there's an easy reduction to either (no feedback = movie, no feedback + no visual aside from text = book). That Ebert claims that something which can be either cannot be art like either must be hinging around the feedback, which is what many people get hooked on. He's basically saying that art can not react to you, or it ceases being art. To which I say "ignorant bullshit".