I thought we already settled this discussion months ago:
http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/its_official_video_games_are_art_the_smitsonian_says_so

Well the whole point of my post was really just to say I think games can be and then to take the piss out of CoD

I wouldn't say games are art, since their primary function is education/entertainment. But games do consist various forms of art. The graphical design, the soundtrack, sometimes the writing, the cutscenes et cetera, may be considered art, and i believe they should.
Art for art's sake is just one of the philosophies.
I for example, do not believe in art that carries a statement, for example, a political one, nor do i believe in art that's[?] primary goal is gaining wealth. But i wouldn't go to such extremities, as to say "art exists only for art", that BS. The primary function of art, is of course it's artistic sense, but it may be "sztuka użytkowa" [if someone can help me out with the english form for that one, please], which is art that has a useful value to it, a pillow with tits, a cup with a penis, a sword with ormanents, even fashion design. And in this way, there are a lot of games, that are made, of various forms of that 'useful art'[?].
Still, if something is made of 75% of art, can we still call it art?

Videogames contain art- the music, the visuals, the story, etc., but those are other artforms. Is gaming itself an artform? I think it has a rarely realized potential to be. What makes a videogame art is not those separated elements of music, story, and visuals, but how those come together with the added element of a gaming rule system and interactive user interface that allows videogames to be a truly unique and new form of art.
Should we care? If you want to see more artistic games develop, then yes. If games can be recognized as art, then they will be approached differently by audiences and designers alike. Of course, there will always be games made purely for entertainment's sake, but if we want to see videogames that are more than amusing baubles, then the medium needs to be approached with a different mindsight from creation to interpretation and appreciation.

For those who played MGS2, this is a good article:
http://www.insertcredit.com/features/dreaming2/

I've played almost every single MGS game made (Never played Acid 2 or Portable Ops games tho) and I don't think any of them are art.
Are they entertaining? Yes. Do they tell a story, even if it can be convoluted? Yes. But I think it's just that: An entertaining story, but I wouldn't really classify it as art. Hell, Kojima himself doesn't even view games as art.

But more importantly, if you really have to state something just try to know a little more about the fucking topic you are talking about. Oh, and film critics should be burnt in acid anyway :-P

No need to apologize, I was just making an obscure joke based on the content of that old thread. Frankly, I thought the old discussion could have gone a lot further, the debate about whether or not video games are art and what actually is art can be a fascinating topic.
I still stick by my statement in the old thread, which is that art is any creative work that produces an emotional reaction in the observer. Since video games can and do produce emotional reactions, to me they certainly qualify as a form of narrative art, in the same way that books, plays, movies and TV can be art. That's not to say that all video games are art, but some (I might even go so far as to say most) can certainly be considered art.

are you an intentionalist as far as artistic meaning as well? as in, do you think that the only meaning a piece of art can have is that which its creator intended?
as for answering this thread's question: games currently are not art, with a few exceptions. their potential to become art, however, is impossible to deny. the fact is that it is possible to create--visually and audibly--anything within a game that can be created visually and audibly within other artistic mediums. therefore, we certainly do need some game developers, as navagon said, who intend to create art (although I don't think that is a definition of art)
games even have one incredibly useful new feature that other mediums do not have: they can force you to experience something, or to do something yourself. that is incredibly powerful. imagine the emotions you could illicit from someone by, say, tricking them into doing something they will later deeply regret, or any number of situations you could create within a game.
also, games can comprise entire new worlds, and can react directly and concretely to the viewer. how many other artistic mediums can claim that ability?
i intend to be one of the incoming wave of real artists creating real art games once i get out of college.
i keep coming back to this too. that's why i usually try to focus on the capabilities of the medium when making this argument.

I see art as a form of communication. As with all forms of communication, people may interpret certain things differently or see something that wasn't intended, but present nonetheless.
In the case of art, the meaning (if there is one) usually isn't as in your face as it is with other forms of communication. So that only increases the likelihood of people interpreting it differently to what was intended. I don't have a problem with that, personally.

We see a lot of pretentious arguments made on both sides of this issue, but personally, I don't have much investment in it. Human creativity fascinates me, but whenever I play a game, watch a movie, read a book, or listen to a song, I don't ask myself "is this art?," and frankly I'd feel a little silly doing so. If you asked me directly, I probably wouldn't have much of an answer for you.
I do know that all of these forms of media are capable of stirring my thoughts, emotions and memories, sometimes quite potently; they just each go about it in different ways. If that's art, then yes, games can be art. If art is something else, then I'm not sure it really matters if games can be art. Games are what they are, regardless of the labels we use to try to legitimize or marginalize them.

My opinion is still the same as the one in the old thread. Art is in the eye of the beholder but I think good art requires some skill, talent and work. I'd say video games qualify, but since the main motive behind them is entertainment and fun instead of moving deeper emotions, they're not taken that seriously (kind of like comics) as other artistic mediums.
Still, you could use video games to come up with emotional or deeply moving material, it's just that gaming companies won't see them as overly profitable so those sorts of artistic gems don't come around so often. I've played a few that event though the main objective is to have fun, they do make you think or have a style that feel very original and artistic.

agreed. i think that the creator's intentions are the most important part of the meaning, but that strict intentionalism is stupid. what we personally interpret about a piece is certainly important as well.

I will post my opinion if it's art or not at saturday, I'll be finished with my finale exams by now.
But I want to say one thing:
Games are kafkaesque