In trying to prove that video games are art, Kellee Santiago uses as examples games which are trying to be art in a way that compares with film. It's not surprising that when comparing these games to film, using that framing, that Ebert would find it lacking.

But what about a classic game like Super Mario Bros? It doesn't have a complex story told on wordy fortune cookies, it's not trying to force a particularly complex emotional experience, and it's not beautiful in the way of modern games. However, I'd still say that it's art. A different kind of art. One that's not comparable to film as so many examples here are.

Look at Mario himself: There are so few pixels to work with but not only is he clearly a human, he actually has character. From his overalls to his 3 pixel mustache. The world itself is a unique fantasy of plumbing, princesses, and mushrooms. The music, due to technical limitations, is a bunch of repetitive beeps and boops but is infectious and never gets annoying even after days, months, even years of playing. The shrubs and the clouds are the same -- something that went unnoticed by players for decades. The first 5 seconds of the game shows you, not tells you, everything you need to know to play it. It's beautifully designed. But it's not the same kind of art Ebert is critiquing here and it's not the kind of art that Santiago portrays either.