The Video Game Critic

ICO (PS2): art
someone 1CCing Gradius III: performance art

It doesn't really matter to me if the public considers games to be art or not. I'd say it is if you want it to be.
I'm of the opinion that a creation doesn't need to be uncommercial, nor have a purpose or speak a message predetermined by the author to be art. And I think that the creations themselves aren't art, it's what happens in the human interaction with them that is.

I'm all for developers trying to tell us new things about ourselves and our society through games though, as long as they are fun to play.

I would never consider the Bioshock game "art", but I would consider the picture in the opening post to be art.  Strange but true!

Probably 'art' is whatever we arbitrarily agree that 'art' consists of. So if you want video games to be 'art' then so be it. It's not like there's some platonic concept set in stone somewhere.

I also think that people tend to associate the word 'art' with snooty sophistication. Thus video games as a popular entertainment isn't sophisticated enough for a lot of people to classify it as such.

The problem is, video games are designed to entertain, but that is not necessarily the case with art.  If game designers decide they are making games for personal reasons, we as gamers will suffer!  Just look at the art out there - most of it is hard to stomach.  But it wasn't even designed to please us - it was a way for the artist to express himself.

It's bad enough that game producers have already begun to act like movie directors!  Nothing annoys me more - see Metal Gear Solid 4!

But Critic, isn't art something that brings emotions out in people? I look at anything that can make us feel or make us think as art. Some of the biggest albums in rock history can be seen as art, by many. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Tommy by the Who. Even in more modern times, Gish-Machina-era Pumpkins. Which is why sometimes bands are referred to as "artists," I suppose.

I understand what you're saying, to a degree(either that or I'm taking it the wrong way). It has become so easy for something to be labeled as art. I knew this guy, a few years back, that loved to brag himself up as a writer. As somebody who takes his writing very seriously, I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to the writings of other people. One night, a large group of us were hanging around this guy's apartment. I asked him to show me something he had written, so he pulls this marble comp. pad from under the couch. I took it out on his patio, went through about a half-pack of cigarettes(a nasty habit I'm hoping to drop soon) struggling through the Hallmark-cheesiness of all of it. He asked me what I thought, after coming in. "Well," I thought aloud, "it rhymed." After reading some of his "choice cuts," I never thought of him as a writer again. The same way that some may see a difference between games and art, I see a HUGE difference between writers and people who write from the cracked womb of a petty dose of puppy love every so often.

It's bad enough that game producers have already begun to act like movie directors! 
I agree - and maybe MGS4 is the poster child, but lets face it an entire genre has fallen off of that cliff.

Recently I have been playing that RE4 Wii edition it was $20, but I already kinda regret buying it - the cutscenes and 'video phone chats' are a huge turnoff - half the time I can't stand them anymore so I quit half way through.  

I know a lot of people here liked this game 'immersion factor' but for whatever reason it just keeps pushing me away, I have completely lost faith in game cinema. Its kind of a strange game anyway - you shoot some zombies, run out of bullets, run away cause they are real slow - search a hut, find 10 rounds, kill some more zombies, rince repeat. The wii controls I think are poorly done as well....but I digress.

It is a good point that games are more about entertainment than expression, but I think there is enough of both. I guess when you combine the visuals, the music/sound effects and the control, I think there is art there.

That is a pet peeve of mine to. I think it depends on the originality

Most of Nintendo's gems are art and are practically made from something that inspired Miyamoto

Pikmin came from gardening love

Legend of Zelda came from his adventures in the mountains of Japan

Star Fox started with a statue

And so on and so on. Most of the fun games made I find were actually self-indulgent.Then again there are those games that are not remotely original and end up with a result like Metal Gear Solid 4.

I agree that the individual components that make up a game: graphics, music, sounds, and story are (or can be considered) art. A game, however, is not. It's like saying Monopoly is art. Sure, it can be said that the line drawings of Mr. Moneybags on the Chance cards is art, but the experience of playing the game is not. I think that once you throw interaction into the mix the product as a whole ceases to be art. I think the box art for Warlords (Atari 2600) is art. That doesn't make the game art.

IMHO

[QUOTE=BanjoPickles]But Critic, isn't art something that brings emotions out in people? [/QUOTE]

So does PMS, but I don't think even in the depths of hell it would ever be considered art.