People say videogames cannot be an artform.
THIS BEGS TO DIFFER! Amazing, short and brillaint in its art form.
Anyone else know of other pieces of videogame art, free or otherwise?

I would wager that Every Extend Extra qould qualify for the game-as-art category.
Beautiful visuals coupled with music that was unique for every stage and whose tempo would increase or decrease with the amount of speed bonuses you got in that game. Another point towards it qualifying as art is the fact that your character can combat the enemies in a stage with kamikaze tactics.

games aren't art, and any game that tries to be is full of itself. games can be artistic, but they aren't art. they're a game.
i don't care how many times you've "made people cry."
games are not art, the way you interact is what stops it from being so.
and some other stuff, which I forget now.

ANY form of expression can be seen as art, whether it's text, imagery, physical form, speech, speechless audio, or code that may create any or several of the previous forms, interactive or not. Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder (although I'd be hard pressed to see any beauty in the beholder's eye).

Are Films art? is Music? When is a photograph art, and when is it just a photograph?
Edit: The Eye of the Beholder?

I think you're the one who's full of yourself, Wec ;-)
Noone has ever been able to agree on what "art" is. There is no official definition that everyone must subscribe to. Most people have their own ideas about what is and isn't art. Wikipedia's definition is interesting, and allows for a very broad interpretation. As far as your statement that nothing interactive can be art, that is, pardon my expression, complete and utter bollocks.

I see anything that makes me feel as art. And games make feel, its art.
People hitting me with a baseball also make me feel, t hats just //bad// art. (

song aren't art, and any song that tries to be is full of itself. song can be artistic, but they aren't art. they're a song.
movies aren't art, and any movies that tries to be is full of itself. movies can be artistic, but they aren't art. they're a movies .
Do you see the hole in your argument?

driving a car gives you a feeling, is that art? having sex gives you a feeling, is that art? no but it can be beautiful.
farting gives you a feeling, is that art?
not everything that inspires feelings is art.

Meh. I played this "game" this morning. It's more like a barely interactive book. It was -OK- but nothing mind blowing. Interesting use of a raycaster though.

games aren't marketed as art, aren't sold as art, or developed as art. the majority of games are created as a reason for you to spend cash money, not to "make you cry" or "make you laugh."
games are developed for the sole purpose of profit. not to "make you feel."

As are many songs, books and movies, probably sculptures and paintings as well. Things like those that are made for the sole purpose of profit isn't art either, but at the same line, games that are made because the creator(s) want to express something other than what's mass produced can also be seen as art. Then a crapload of clones may become mass produced because the original inventive game was a success - the clones aren't art, the original still is.

Most of what we call "fine art", such as the Mona Lisa, were works done on commission, i.e. solely for the sake of profit. The fact that something is created for money does not invalidate the creative expression as art.

In fact, one of the usual measurements of how great a work of art is, is how much money you can get for it. Supposedly, the price should reflect the quality, but since art is such a subjective matter, it often ends up working in reverse. "That painting costs 15 million dollars, you say? It must be great art, then".