That clears it up nicely, thank you.
I don't have any particular gripes with what you're saying, but I couldn't know for sure until I actually knew what you were saying
I think my conclusion from all of this discussion and from Ebert's thoughts is that games are just a different kind of art from other mediums- instead of the developer expressing himself, it's the player expressing himself.
From his post, I expect Ebert is equally disdainful of abstract forms of art, as they follow similar paradigm- it being the observer's job to derive meaning from a work of art rather than the painter's job to deliver it. Ebert thinks too much from the painter/developer's viewpoint, instead of from the observer/player's viewpoint (which is a bit strange, considering that he's a critic of movies and not a director/writer of them).