Video Games aren't art? Anything is art.

Roger Ebert is quoted as having said that "Video games can never be art."  His logic for this is that you cannot take the pinnacle of its creation and compare it to the great works in filmmaking, art, poetry, literature, etc.  To use a metaphor quoted in his blog about this, video games are much closer to the chicken scratches on the inside of caves than they are to the Sistine Chapel.  This is an incredibly idiotic statement.  Actually amazingly idiotic, rarely does  a critic say something that makes me wish I could actually talk to the guy face to face and really see why he thinks this.  Perhaps he thinks that this will keep his fading reputation in with the pretentious bigwigs of the art house scene, or this is just last ditch efforts at staying relevant.  Regardless there are many reasons as to why this is just a purely flawed statement.  Firstly, no one can say what is or isn't art.  You can fully have the right to say something is bad art, or terrible art, or something even a third grader could do, but you don't have the right to say that something somebody put their hard work and soul into "ISN'T" art.  If someone considers what they are doing art, then it is art and no one can say different.  Secondly, saying something has to have reached its apex to be art is also idiotic.  Since the Sistine Chapel was achieved that means that all painting is art? Merely because one person was great in that field that means all others who could never hope to achieve that level are creating art because one person was great in it?  How about graphic art?  No offense to anyone in that field, I have seen a lot of quality work, a lot of really great work, but I have yet to see anything that belongs in the Louvre.  Does that mean that it's not art?  According to Ebert it does, and I don't think anybody in their right mind believes that Graphic art and design isn't a form of art.  Even in my field of art, photography, there have been many greats, but I don't think a single photography has reached the transcendental level of Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Joyce, Van Gogh, Etc.  Is that any less art because of this? NO its not.  And to follow on that line of though, I am a moviephile, I appreciate good movies, and I would doubt that 1/10 people I know have even seen even close to as many movies I have. I know cinema history, theory, and I know the great movies of all time.  And the greatest reason why Ebert's logic is flawed is because his field is no more art than video games are by his theory.  In no way shape or form has there been a movie made that can match the pure genius of the great works of art.  Hell, a large portion of the "greatest" movies of all time use Shakespeare as the direct basis of their screen plays.  The point is very few things can rival the beauty and awe inspiring nature of the works of the masters, saying that a field has achieved that mastery to be art is going to prevent most fields from being considered art.  And then saying because one great person practiced an art makes all of that form art regardless of who does and quality is also just pure idiocy.  Video games are developing as any art.  REGARDLESS of what you think about video games even in its beginning its essentially animation.  Its developed with hand drawn concept art.  Notice the term concept art.  Well, wait a minute Roger, since the sprites are rendered by hand generally first doesn't that make it art?  Then it tells a story.  Just like a movie does.  In fact most games nowadays are movies broken up by periods of time in which you blow shit up, or hit it with a sword , or driving around looking for stuff and progressing to the next point in which the plot advances.  The recent game "Heavy Rain" is a an example of what video game as art can be.  It is an incredibly detailed plot driven game that allows for virtually all aspects of the plot to be controlled.  It is cinematic, story driven, and has a better script than 60% of the new movies coming out.  Not all scripts for video games are great, but several games companies have been telling a great story for many years.  I was affected more by the death of Aeris in Final Fantasy 7 than I have been by any movie by that point in my life.  The story of Chrono Trigger was amazing and that was on a 16 bit system.  Ever heard of Final Fantasy 3/6?  That game has more detailed characters with more nuance than most movies could ever hope for.  And Square Enix is not the only game company that can tell a story.  Bioware's Knights of the Old Republic had a better story than the Star Wars Episode I did.  Rockstar hit it out of the park with their tale of revenge in GTA IV.  I can go on and on.  Video games can hold a narrative, tell a compelling story, and provides often awesome displays of CGI.  If James Cameron can make Avatar (which has a far inferior plot to most video games) through out a bunch of CGI and get praised for his "art." Then its absolutely idiotic to deny video game there place as an art.  It may not be quite to a level of a Sanjuro or an 8 1/2 but its getting damn close.