It's not all as black and white as I like to make it out to be – a video game can contain artistic moments – but from where I'm standing it's not the game itself that has anything to do with it. Take an advert. Its job is to sell you a product. If it manages to tell you something about human nature tangentially related to the good advertised, it's not necessarily adhering to the nature of an advert. Likewise, the game's contributions amount to providing structure and mechanics (objectives, gameplay). Those elements that counteract, imitate, supplement etc. are interactive, but they're not dependent on that structure – they have to overcome it. I think that sort of work needs a different name. "Video games" is often assumed to be synonymous with the medium, but interactive creations can be much more than just games.

As for developers making art – any hollywood blockbuster can convey a story or paint a picture. Perhaps, in a roundabout way, the writers and directors can relate to Shia LeBouf beating up giant robots. A lot of stories can be well written and be full of twists the same way a lot of scenes can be breathtaking. I don't think that it indicates artistry (unless we're using the everything goes definition, which I find counterintuitive).

"1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature."

That statement right there supports the fact that video games are art in more ways than you may ever know. Does that definition apply to all video games? No. But it applies to many, many, many games.

Do me one favor, go on the PlayStation Network, or go to a friends house who has it, or for that matter simply Google the PlayStation Network game "Flower", and watch a few videos. It is 100% nature, it is 100% human effort to imitate a work of nature. While I wasn't particularly impressed by the gameplay, as many others around here were, it is a masterpiece.

I do however agree that not all games fall under that category, but at the same time, if you're saying that video games aren't art, then neither is an artists painting, because in all reality, that's all developers are doing, is painting a picture, conveying a story, retelling a lifetime. In some way, shape, or form, these developers can relate to what they are making, and THAT my friend… THAT is art.

Allow me to regurgitate an argument I made yesterday:

Games have been around for at least a millenium. At no time has any successful argument been made in their favour. Along come video games, and people who've grown up with them want legitimacy. They want recognition – their hobby is not just mindless entertainment! Video games are merely an evolution of sports, board games and playground activities. They've adopted the aspects a game must have: fun/challenge, a set of rules and objectives etc. and put them into digital form.

The argument made for Braid is that each frame could be printed and hung up on a wall. Sure it would look pretty, but it'd be shallow beauty, not art. What meaning could a reasonable person discern from each and every frame of Braid? Similarly, people dissect films like this, claiming that each frame is majestic. A film isn't meant to be looked at as a series of photographs, even if that's what it is composed of. In fact, if it's made out of cleverly framed shots with *just* the right lighting, it's probably a mechanical monstrosity devoid of life. If art is as simple as something that is visually pleasing, why bother arguing about it? A lot of games/products/films/books/music are made using "creative imagination" and a degree of skill. Art is meant to be a prestigious label. If you want artistic legitimacy for something, don't strip the word down to encompass almost anything and everything. Games are first and foremost made for profit and for entertainment. If a *game* is frustratingly bad, controls poorly or fails to engage, it has failed as a game. A game has no room to comment on the human condition when it is preoccupied with zombie slaying.

Which brings us to a definition of art I've always loved:
"1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature."
from http://www.answers.com/art

I grant that it seems somewhat vague, but it looks to me like a definition that simultaneously establishes a noble purpose or intention to create (as opposed to simply being creative), removes the artifice of stories and characters (as opposed to emotions, moments and people, which this definition supports) and encourages understanding by making art relatable to all (nature and human relations are experienced everywhere as opposed to commentary on a war or violence experienced by a subset of people).

I don't think it's enough to simply make you "feel" something. Clever manipulation (e.g. Hitchcock) can make even the manly men weep, but that's puppeteering, not art. "Clever" metaphors don't make something art, either. I'd argue that they hinder it. We're taught semiotics at school, but doesn't it seem like an overly simplified approach? Even in artworks with no metaphors, these people will find them so they can decode the meaning and be able to pat themselves on the back. Braid takes the metaphorical approach – substituting what could have been actual comments and ideas for stupidly simple images and actions that are supposed to represent those comments and ideas. I don't know, to me, it seems like cheating for both the creator and the interpreter.

I mean, you say it's all about perception, but isn't it logical to, when seeking prestige, look at art as something special that should be strived for, rather than something simple that almost anything can claim? If not, then know that a distinction must be made between pretty products (a synonym of art by this watered down definition) and "high art" (art that can help us understand human emotion, human relations and the world around us), which is something Pong or Tetris could never achieve.

"I can personally appreciate the beauty in truthfully portraying the miseries of human experience in both movies and video games."
If a video game does this and rids itself of distractions or detriments to that truthful portrayal like killing monsters or scoring points – things that destroy the overall artistic message – then it ceases to become a video game. There are a few creations that have achieved this, or at least come close, and two of them come from Fumito Ueda and Team Ico.

I'm probably fighting the wrong people, because I have a feeling we may agree on some points. The interactive medium (which video games are apart of) has as much artistic potential as all other media, if not more. I just think that an interactive work has to break past the boundaries of games and entertainment if it wishes to be respected, and we've a long way to go.

I think it should be "Video Games are a FORM of Art". Just as music, movies, writing are FORMS of art. I don't consider music, movies, etc to be art in it's traditional most core sense. Even by the definition above: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic OBJECTS… decorative or illustrative elements in PRINTED MATTER…

Video games aren't printed or tangible items save for the actual disc or cartridge that the game comes on. The fine art drawings and illustrations and sculptures that go into making a game could count as art, the final game then isn't art. Not as I think. Though I am an art school grad using the term art in a very traditional sense.
Art can be objective to many people and thus defined in many ways. But just saying video games ARE art (or aren't) isn't quite correct. When in fact you talk about each frame being viewed as a painting, then it is no longer a video game anyhow. Now print that frozen screen out and hang it on a wall…