Games are not art. They are something more. Something better.

[Mafoobula]

Could the possibility exist that video games don't have to be art to begin with? Or at least video games are similar to, but still somehow separate from art. Consider the following:
Video games are more immersive and engaging than movies and finer theatre, including musicals; play some of the more "cinematic" games like Heavy Rain, Braid or, if you're hard up, Bethesda/Bioware games for examples. Hell, even World of Warcraft has been improving greatly on the player's involvement and impact on the world at large, slowly but slowly creating an overall better playing experience for the player.
Video games, in some cases, can be more visually stimulating than traditional "art." Okami is an obvious example, but there are PLENTY of games with stunning scenic vistas that look REALLY damn cool.
Between the music, the voices and the sound effects, it can take a person to more vibrantly realized places than most stand-alone musical pieces, be they lyrical songs, ballads or big damn orchestral pieces. Don't believe me? Play some Halo when the strings start up, and tell me it doesn't stir up something in the pit of your stomach that you very rarely feel outside of video games. Go through the final stage of the final boss of Okami and tell me you don't find yourself exulting in your raw awesomeness.

Sure, this could fall under the description of OP's statement that video games are something more than art, but I also think this is a case of apples and oranges.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I don't think you know what art is. Art is a cultural idea not a finite set of objects. Anything that is treated in a certain way by a culture is categorized as art. The methods that people use to interpret or appreciate art vary widely depending on the culture and the object. Gamers appreciate games as art, other people appreciate literature as art, some people appreciate landscapes as art, some people interpret furniture as art. The combining factor is not limited to how we interact or judge the quality of the art, it is in how we appreciate the object. Whether or not it is interactive is not important, its simply a characteristic of an object. objects are not inherently art or not art, anyone who has ever seen people call modern art not art can easily see that cultural views are what designates art. Therefore no quality of video games makes them different from art since there qualities are irrelevant, the categorization and perception are the important parts.

 

[brainslurper]

Games aren't really art, but they aren't anything more, either; they're games, and they're quite good at being games. Some games also aspire to be art, but they tend to be bad at it.

Games are a creative expression of talent or skill, so yes, they are art.

In my opinion we haven't finished accepting games the way we accepted books, then radio, then comics, then TV. Also, the only thing that sets games apart from other mediums is that they are interactive, which is the excuse anti game activists are using to justify their attempted censorship. But I suppose the same was true with all the earlier forms of art, they all had one defining aspect that set them apart from their predecessors.

If art is a creative expression of talent or skill, then anything can be art. That isn't true. Sports are that and they are not art.

By standard definitions, anything can be art, including sports. That is why saying one thing is art and another isn't is so stupid, because anything we do is art. Sports aren't a narrative medium, though.

Judging by that deffinition sports are art. Creative expression of talent or skill.
Sorry, clicked post accidentaly.
I refuse to believe that anything can be art, because then nothing is art.

Refuse away, but anything CAN be art. I think what the debate should be is what is and isn't a narrative medium, because that isn't as all encompassing as the term art is.