Are video games art, and why does it matter? (an analysis of the question)

Are video games art? This is a question that has been mulled to a certain extent, but not discussed often enough. I have seen articles in GameInformer about it and limited discussion online (particularly in reference to Roger Ebert's ignorant statements), but never to the depth that I think this question deserves.

For the above reason, I'm going to attempt to shed some light on (first) why I believe video games art and (second) why I believe this does in fact matter. By no means is what I'm saying necessarily definitive or absolute fact, so please don't believe otherwise. It's just my opinion on the issue. In fact, I'm very interested in hearing other peoples' opinions too, because I believe this is an important issue that should be talked about more (for reasons I will discuss later).

Ok, first and foremost, it's my opinion that video games are not necessarily art. It's hard to argue that every game ever made is (Superman 64 anyone?). In fact, most games aren't art in any sense of the word.

However, there is no need for all games TO be art. All you need is some, and some definitely are.

The main arguments I hear against games being art are that they are interactive (and therefore not predetermined by the artist), too violent and repetetive, and not deep enough. I'm going to answer each of these arguments with a game that proves them wrong. In fact, each of the three games I bring up could make a case by itself for video games being art. All together merely drive the point home.

1. First, the most common argument is that video games are not art because they are interactive and the experience you garner from them is not predetermined. The game I chose to argue this is Fallout 3. This is a perfect example of a game someone would use to actually PROVE that video games are too interactive to be art. However, in fact, by proving that Fallout 3 (such an open-ended game) is art, any games more linear fall of the map of this argument.

My response to this argument is simply that while the experience is open, the ending and story is still structured BY the creators of the game. By this logic, Shakespeare isn't art because you can choose which of his stories you want to read and get a new experience every time. Instead of looking at a game with multiple paths like Fallout 3 (the simple good/evil structured endings) as one individual game, look at it as two possible experiences in the same package, or two games (or pieces of art). Really, it becomes semantics when you claim that having multiple paths or endings or stories is different from two separate novels or movies. Then the obvious argument that Fallout 3's multiple paths take place in the same setting comes up so it apparently somehow can't be two different experiences, but aren't there multiple movies that take place on a spaceship? Or in the same city, like NYC?

Additionally, for Fallout 3 specifically, I DEFY anyone to play the game outside for five minutes and then claim that it isn't art. The desolate landscapes portrayed are easily among the best disaster-style art out there. Even if you ignore all this, there are artists who act in interactive art (Chin Chih Yang comes to mind), which debases this entire argument entirely. The bottom line is Fallout 3 (and all other games) are created and sculpted by people, and if the game is intended as art, there is no reason interaction detracts from that sentiment.

2. Games are all the same and violent, or repetetive, or something similarly biased and untrue. People argue that because games follow a common pattern (like shooting games) they can't be art due to oversaturation of similar content. This argument never made any sense to me whatsoever. I'm going to answer this game in two parts.

First, not all games fit that stereotype of video games (violent repetetive gunfests). For this argument I'm going to use the example of Okami. Sure, some video games are violent or repetetive (or goofy, or comedic, or something else that somehow makes them not art) but there are exceptions. Okami is neither excessively violent nor repetetive. Anyone who played this gem of a game can vouch, it's an incredible experience with a particularly gorgeous artistic graphical style. While you do fight, it's not with guns, or bloody, or violent really at all. You control a wolf who uses what can best be described as various shields/emblems to fight (and in a glorious, flowing motion at that). It's not repetetive, you go through more regions than most movies have scenes, and you do things from as minor as collecting clovers to painting magical designs on screen (to create things like weather effects or a cutting effect). The game plays out as an awe-inspiring adventure full of colorful creations (rivaling contemporary artists) and a delightful story (rivaling most movies or novels).

Second, even if games were all the same violent gunfests (which they aren't obviously, but I will grant this for the sake of the argument), aren't some still better than others? Anyone who believes Conflict: Vietnam is at the caliber of Halo or Call of Duty is crazy. They are all shoot-em-up games, violent, bloody, and fit the stereotype of video games. However, some games excel above others, as games and art. This flawed argument then makes movies, books, and paintings definitively not art. Why? Well I have seen plenty of movies about going to college and a person's experiences there. The movie Animal House is considered a comedic triumph, and is considered art by many. Yet, in the same vein, a movie last year was released called "College", which was potentially one of the worst movies of all time. The same applies to novels. Harry Potter and Macbeth both involve witches, as do plenty of other books, but this in no way detracts from Macbeth being a work of art. Or "all paintings are the same, they are just a random hodgepodge of colors, so since they are all similar, they can't be art." See where I'm going with this? Having more of a certain genre or style does NOT detract from the items in that genre or style that are purely art.

3. Finally, there is the argument that games simply aren't deep enough. I don't think I really need to explain why this is absolutely ridiculous, because I'm sure everyone on here has played or heard of games that are incredibly deep, and often deeper than movies or novels that are supposedly art. However, I still have to refute this blatantly incorrect argument to share my opinion. For this argument, I will be using Braid as an example.

Again, granted, not all games are deep (most not even close to deep). Most avoid being deep and stick to being simple and fun. However, you AGAIN can't judge all games by that standard). Games can be deep (and in very different genres). Take the Metal Gear Solid series (3rd person action), Bioshock (1st person shooter), ANY RTS game (RTS obviously), Ico (3rd person adventure), and the game I will be focusing on, Braid (side scrolling puzzle solving). Braid is deeper and has more meaning under the surface than almost any piece of writing, film, or art I have ever seen. I can't in good conscience reveal anything about the story, but suffice it to say that its story will lead you from confused, to startled, to heartbroken, and to plenty of other emotions through the course of this short adventure. And the most fantastic part about it is that the game reveals its story through only a few simple paragraphs of text. It's the written equivalent of a ten page book at most, but Braid effectively takes your mind and knowingly creates the certain emotions and responses that the creators wanted you to receive (much as any great work of art does). The ending twist is on par with the Sixth Sense, a movie many believe to be art, or with Romeo and Juliet's tragic ending.

With these three answers to common arguments out of the way, it's important to briefly discuss why video games in fact can be art instead of just focusing on the arguments of why they CAN'T be art. Again, this does not apply to all video games, but to the ones discussed above and many more. But...

On the mental/emotional side of art, video games are lovingly created and sculpted by an individual or group of individuals who intentionally take your mind on a journey and instill emotions and feelings inside of you, which is on par with what is commonly accepted as art. Fancy flamboyant language aside, video games are made by people to effect you in some way, the same way any other art is. Metal Gear Solid (the series) takes you through an emotional roller coaster as any classic novel would. On the physical/aesthetic side of art, video games are capable of creating incredibly well made landscapes, backdrops, designs, graphics, etc. Sound design is another point, effective and well done sound design can contribute to being art. In games like Bioshock the beautiful locale (an underwater city) immerses you with a combination of it's particularly stellar water effects and incredible sound design (the sounds of water, other beings walking around, metal clanks, etc.).

So if you took the time to read this far (thank you if you did), then you may be thinking, "Ok, I get it, you think video games are art. Who cares? Why does it matter?."

The answer to this is simple. Video games will never be respected on a mainstream, worldwide level as a respectable form of entertainment until they develop credibility. Non-gamers think of video games as simple toys intended to entertain for a brief period. We see complex, interactive realites created for our enjoyment. The rest of the world sees Pong (simple, mindless fun) while we people who play games see games like Fallout 3, Okami, and Braid (all of which are art). Being able to establish certain video games as art is an incredible step in the right direction.

Every other form of mass entertainment (movies, literature, music, and obviously art in general) has examples that are the cream of the crop that people use as an argument for what makes that medium actual art. If you talked to the average person living in the United States, they would know (or at least recognize) the movie Citizen Kane, the literature Romeo and Juliet, the music of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, and the art of the Mona Lisa. All of these are considered as shining examples of what redeem these forms of entertainment, and therefore catapult them towards a beneficial world opinion. People respect these media greatly, and this respect is that has allowed them to become as large and respected as they are, and in turn to help them grow even better. Literature has evolved from simple short stories to entire series of books focusing on multiple character interactions, deviously shifting story lines, and establishing setting. The same goes for movies, music, and art. The point of this is, video games will always be at least slightly hampered from people's perspective of them as a timewaster instead of a true form of art. While video games are developing greatly and quickly, there are still ten movie cash-in games, or ten generic run-and-gun WW2 shooters, or ten other simply bad games for every one Okami, Fallout 3, or Braid.

I believe that if we can somehow bring a sense of legitimacy into video games, the industry has more room to expand. Video games' primary demographic is still young men, and that explains the generic shooting games. However, video games have taken steps in the right direction already. The DS (and then even more the Wii) attempt to capitalize to people of all ages or gender, with games as varied as Brain Age, Nintendogs, and Wii Sports. Whether you like these games or not, it shows an honest attempt for the gaming industry to expand its sway in the world's view. By establishing certain video games as an art form, we in turn exponentially increase the rate at which gaming involves, and eventually can then establish video games as a medium as popular or widespread as movies, music, or whatever. From a gamer standpoint, this leads to more money in the industry for more games and more variety in the games that are made. Current nongamers, on the other hand, receive the same benefits, and maybe the new variety draws them into the industry, creating an upwards spiral of increased consumers, and in turn, increased amount and quality of games.

I believe video games are art.

The way I see it, art is something that gets you to think, and allows you to get creative; it allows your imagination to run loose, not only for the artist, but for those who look at the art. There are many video games that allow you to do this kind of stuff, so therefore, I believe it is art.

If you look at art as in "something that looks pretty" or 'something that is visually beautiful", then there are plenty of games that do that; Okami for example.

Theirs' is the old way. We 'know' games are art. There is no argument amoung those who 'actually play' videogames. Acknowledging videogames as an art is more of a Marketing thing anyway. Does it really matter if the mainstream (News, celebrities, Bums, Old people...etc) grasps the concept that video games are art?

But yeah I completely agree Video games are art.

Proof:

[1] Art By Definition:

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

2. the cla$$ of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.

3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.

4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.

5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art. gaming art

6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?

7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.

8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods. 9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.

10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.

11. arts, a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences. b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.

12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.

13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.

14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.

15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.

16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.

[2] Art by common opinion (Wikipedia): Art is the expression of creativity or imagination.

[3]

Example:

There is a reason Roger Ebert is a film critic and not a gaming critic: He doesn't play them, and hes old.

One should consider the opinion of a gaming critic more appropriate.

There is a reason Roger Ebert is a film critic and not a gaming critic: He doesn't play them, and hes old.

One should consider the opinion of a gaming critic more appropriate.

gam3r3OOO

Games aren't art. They're simulations. Citizen Kane is art. A Citizen Kane video game would be a simulation of art.

Games aren't art. They're simulations. Citizen Kane is art. A Citizen Kane video game would be a simulation of art.

Greatgone12

Games aren't art. They're simulations. Citizen Kane is art. A Citizen Kane video game would be a simulation of art.

The problem is that, unlike others in this thread have tried to suggest (through long lists and such), there is no objective, total definition of art. It's so murky that there's an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to trying to figure out art and what exactly it is/does.Paladin_King

I think the problem is grounded in people feeling like they have to define art in such a way that when something is able to be classified as such, it's a good thing, and makes that thing better than something that's not considered art.

I feel it's better to make art a descriptive/qualitative aspect of a work that is independent of whether or not it's even a well made work...it simply acts as an indicator that the work possesses an element of that sort of non-essential, extra layer of expression or communication it tries to transfer to the view.

In the grand scheme of things, if something is well made, it's well made, and should be commended on the basis of it being well made...but no work or craft is something that should inherently be given the distinction of being an 'art' purely on the basis of its existence, especially given how we tend to abuse that term to make it an arbitrarily positive term. Skylock00

oh I absolutely agree with you, as do most scholars and philosophers. the "qualitative guys" really are the embarassing black sheep. They try the same thing with regards to definitions of literature as well. In reading their articles and essays, I at times wonder whether they only try to make these qualitative arguments to create some waves. I think we hear a lot of "that's not art" or "that's not literature" or even "that's not music," but when those same people are pressed to actually give a definition of any of those things, i doubt any of them would say "Well, it has to be good." I think the qualitative lure, as you suggest, is really an instinctual one, for whatever reason. When argued as being an actual position, it's usually found to be untenable, or at least under attack from ten different valid directions. I mean, when made as an intellectual argument, it is pretty engaging, but only in the "oh man, I wonder how he/she's gonna argue his/her way through this one!" kinda way.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, to acknowledge this remark.

I don't want games to go on with including cut scenes any longer. There might still be people who say they want cut scenes, but I understand. They're too lazy to perform speeches in a game. So much for a really immersive experience.Mawy_Golomb

Most people in this thread aren't even talking about games as being art, but supplements to the games as being art.

Okay, we get it! Music is art! The story is art! The artwork is art! Whatever! But the game... the rules, the mechanics, the game... not art. It's a simulation, and not in that "well... just because it's a simulation doesn't mean it can't be art..." sense.

Most people in this thread aren't even talking about games as being art, but supplements to the games as being art.

Okay, we get it! Music is art! The story is art! The artwork is art! Whatever! But the game... the rules, the mechanics, the game... not art. It's a simulation, and not in that "well... just because it's a simulation doesn't mean it can't be art..." sense.

Greatgone12

Most people in this thread aren't even talking about games as being art, but supplements to the games as being art.

Okay, we get it! Music is art! The story is art! The artwork is art! Whatever! But the game... the rules, the mechanics, the game... not art. It's a simulation, and not in that "well... just because it's a simulation doesn't mean it can't be art..." sense.

Greatgone12

[QUOTE="Greatgone12"]

Most people in this thread aren't even talking about games as being art, but supplements to the games as being art.

Okay, we get it! Music is art! The story is art! The artwork is art! Whatever! But the game... the rules, the mechanics, the game... not art. It's a simulation, and not in that "well... just because it's a simulation doesn't mean it can't be art..." sense.

Senor_Kami

Let's me just elaborate: games = rule set, mechanics, code. That is all.

I think the problem is grounded in people feeling like they have to define art in such a way that when something is able to be classified as such, it's a good thing, and makes that thing better than something that's not considered art.

I feel it's better to make art a descriptive/qualitative aspect of a work that is independent of whether or not it's even a well made work...it simply acts as an indicator that the work possesses an element of that sort of non-essential, extra layer of expression or communication it tries to transfer to the view.

In the grand scheme of things, if something is well made, it's well made, and should be commended on the basis of it being well made...but no work or craft is something that should inherently be given the distinction of being an 'art' purely on the basis of its existence, especially given how we tend to abuse that term to make it an arbitrarily positive term. Skylock00

I absolutely agree with that. From my perspective, art is a communication of human values through a medium, not a value judgement. Calling something "art" doesn't make it good or bad, it just means someone is trying to communicate something on a human level through a medium.

Which medium or combination of tools are used to arrive at the expression is also irrelevant. Implying otherwise is to suggest that the presence of skill subtracts from the art when in reality the presence of skill can help the artist make his communication more effective. Coding for instance isn't by itself art, anymore than drawing is by itself art. Those tools and skills can be used to construct a work of art, and the skill level can help to make the purpose of that work more effectively communicated.

I think the "game" construct that some are trivilaizing here has a lot of potential for future works of art in the video gaming medium. When the values that are being illustrated are related to ethics, arguments can be made by allowing moral choices to reflect on the outcome in a manner that the artist himself wishes to communicate to those who play the game. Stories can also be told rather effectively through actions that the gamer himself is taking part in -- I remember a lot of the stories behind Silent Hill and Silent Hill 2 for instance were told mainly by experience, and that's just one of many examples.

Let's me just elaborate: games = rule set, mechanics, code. That is all.

Greatgone12

I think you're really confused about what "art" is, and what it's defined as by each individual person and appreciator of any medium. This wouldn't have mattered 10 years ago, but that's probably b/c games were still evolving, still more of a niche, and still played by younger folk. Nowadays there really are people playing video games that are in their 20's, and as with people growing up and maturing, they tend to analyze everything.

Sure, many argue that games such as Metal Gear Solid or Shadow of the Colossus are beautiful pieces of work, and they certainly have a deep and meaningful story that only a mature person would love and understand, as opposed to a "typical gamer" wanting to go from point A to point B in a shooter or rpg. Also your analogies aren't very effective.

Books and Movies have been around since forever, and have had more time to adapt and evolve, as well as have their own golden age (I personally find that when people say the SNES was the golden age of gaming, I find myself rolling my eyes). Books are the ultimate medium (personally speaking since books were my first and foremost passion) in developing a world and letting the reader place themselves into an imaginary place and be one with the characters.

I think games are just, you know, fun. Whether it's to kill time or to have something to do when you're not the outdoorsy type or the one who plays types of sports for 24 hours or the type to have lots of friends that you just "hang" with (talk about boring, there's a time and place for talking, but going to the mall to do just that has worn thin, on me personally, for quite awhile). This is what you do. And I find that online has both brought people together and alienated others at the same time, since while some can organize chat sessions and playthroughs with friends, others just find random enjoyment and experience it alone with other gamers online (so far shooters are the only ones that are succeeding this gen :( . Oh wooh is me.)

And quite frankly, I really don't know what "art" can be described as. I think a lot of people are desperate to put this medium in the spotlight due to mostly being haters. The interactivity, the visuals, the innovations. I mean video games can be really addicting, and a lot just can't seem to see that (those who never play).

I mean especially when roger ebert starts compare 25 years of gaming with over a century's worth of movies. I don't know what kind of "art" gaming is supposed to be, but I just know that it's the third best medium of enjoyment behind books and movies, and that they too can be emotional and captivating as the rest. We've come a long way since the basic addictiveness of Pac man and the enjoyable Super Mario Bros. Games now have voice acting, not just 8-bit text displays. And we have orchestrated music and excellent soundtrack scores in each high profile game. I just don't know what one is looking for if not for this. Oh well.

Most people in this thread aren't even talking about games as being art, but supplements to the games as being art.

Okay, we get it! Music is art! The story is art! The artwork is art! Whatever! But the game... the rules, the mechanics, the game... not art. It's a simulation, and not in that "well... just because it's a simulation doesn't mean it can't be art..." sense.

Let's me just elaborate: games = rule set, mechanics, code. That is all.

Videogames are a fine form of art that can only be understood by true gamers. if yuo dont think they are art then you can't truly be a gamer.Joshy485

Actually, you probably don't even know what it means to 1cc a game.

I've never understood the difference between art and not so

what the heck do I know *shrugs*capthavic

[QUOTE="Greatgone12"]

Let's me just elaborate: games = rule set, mechanics, code. That is all.

Skylock00

From Hideo Kojima on why games aren't art:

"The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art."

Same with opera or any play...while it's being put on by alot of people, it's originally the product of a vision by an artist creating a script/story. same with the code v. ink argument...it's not just like saying literature is just paper and ink. books are created by an author or several authors with a vision...games are the group effort of computer programmers trying to entertain customers, with artists providing game design.

I think this is one of those topics that doesn't require much serious or deep thought. Most reasonable people would say video games aren't art. Most reasonable people would say books and opera are art. That should be the end of it. Just enjoy the games, that's all they're intended for.

From Hideo Kojima on why games aren't art:

"The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art."

Same with opera or any play...while it's being put on by alot of people, it's originally the product of a vision by an artist creating a script/story. same with the code v. ink argument...it's not just like saying literature is just paper and ink. books are created by an author or several authors with a vision...games are the group effort of computer programmers trying to entertain customers, with artists providing game design.

I think this is one of those topics that doesn't require much serious or deep thought. Most reasonable people would say video games aren't art. Most reasonable people would say books and opera are art. That should be the end of it. Just enjoy the games, that's all they're intended for.

WindedSailor

Bold = Hideo Kojima

The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art.

This guy is probably god to some of y'all, but I think he's way off. He's basically saying that if something is designed to be entertaining, then its not art by default. Movies, music, paintings... anytime that an artist plans on selling this stuff, they are making it with the intention that other people will like it. Even if they don't plan on selling it, if they plan to display it publically, there is some intention for people other than themselves to enjoy it. I don't think that the definition of artists is someone who creates a work and never shows it to anybody. I don't think thats any aspect of being an artist.

I don't think that wanting to capture the hearts of 100 rather than 1 instantly discredits its from being art.

Same with opera or any play...while it's being put on by alot of people, it's originally the product of a vision by an artist creating a script/story. same with the code v. ink argument...it's not just like saying literature is just paper and ink. books are created by an author or several authors with a vision...games are the group effort of computer programmers trying to entertain customers, with artists providing game design.

I don't see how this is any different than games. Games are the products of the visions of their makers. Much like how games are a collaborative effort of people trying to entertain customers, aren't books designed to entertain the reader? Aren't movies designed to entertain the reader? Isn't music designed to entertain the listener? These are entertainment artforms. Even when it is personal expression, most people make movies, films, books, paintings with the idea that other people will like it. Thats why they display it rather than keep it hidden and to themselves.

I think this is one of those topics that doesn't require much serious or deep thought. Most reasonable people would say video games aren't art. Most reasonable people would say books and opera are art. That should be the end of it. Just enjoy the games, that's all they're intended for.

I agree that it is a topic that doesn't require much serious or deep thought. I think that the people who say games aren't art are just like people who back in the early days of film said that movies aren't art. They are the same people thank said jazz, rock, rap weren't legitimate forms of music when they first came out. I don't think that considering games as art makes them less enjoyable. Armageddon isn't the most artistic or high brow movie ever made, but I can still enjoy it and recognize it as art. High art? No. Avante-garde? No. Questioning my views on life? No. Art? Yes.

[QUOTE="Senor_Kami"]Would you say that architecture isn't art? The inclusion of science and math doesn't instantly discredit something from being art, in my opinion.Greatgone12

Let's me just elaborate: games = rule set, mechanics, code. That is all.

At its core, architecture is just physics. You create a building that meets safety standards and won't fall over or crumble when its occupied. That is acrhitecture. Thats is the rule set, mechanics, code aspect. However, the art comes in when you take it past just putting up a rectangle. When you do things like adding windows, having a curved roof, putting elevators on the outside, colored lights on the roof, etc. Those things are designed to be aesthetically pleasing.

The raw super basic game engine that is nothing but hit detection and processing, that is like pure science imo. That is the, "create a physically sound building" part. However, when you start playing with filters, or you start adding particle effects to actions because you think it'd look cool and you start playing around with the storyline, and you start shaping how the game will actually play. Basically, when you start to implement things solely designed to enchance the end user experience, to me thats art and its undeniably art.

Developers all have their own particular way of doing things. There are hundreds of FPS, but none of them play 100% the same. Even when they use the same core game engine, the developers always tweak it so that their vision comes across. They have their own ideas as to what would make it stand apart. There are tons of RPGS, but when I buy a Bio-Ware game, there is a s-tyle that is present in all of their titles. YEs, they had to code all of this, but I don't think that using computers or typing somehow makes something not art. I don't see how that is different than any other artform?

I don't think theres is always a 100% seperation between art and science. I don't think that the inclusion of science instantly discredits something from being art. Most art involves science or set rules to some degree.

Art is completely subjective. "Art" has no concrete definition, art is whatever an individual thinks it is. We all have our different definitons of art, and our different thoughts about the subject. Depending on your outlook on it all, video games can be, or they cannot. This is true for anything. Movies can or cannot be art, books can or cannot be art, a doodle can or cannot be art, same exact hing for games.

According to what I believe art is, I think games ar art, but there are people that have different ideas of what art can be, so I don't expect everyone else to share my idea on the subject.

In the end, you aren't wrong in thinking video games are art, nor are you wrong in thinking games are not art, it's completely opinion based. Judging if a game is art is really no different if judging if a game has a good story, or good music. It's all just opinions, nothing more.