Fanboy said:
Why does art always need to evoke the emotion of sadness? I didn't cry when I first saw the Mona Lisa.
Basically this. There's alot of games in the smithsonian that didnt make me cry or I never played (like Pacman and Portal respectively). But if thats what needs to happen for it to be "art" then persona 3 Fes made me cry, there fore it is art.
OT: Art isnt (always) about sadness. Its about the emotion something make you feel. Art is very subjective, and there are different tiers. there's High Art and there's Low Art, and everything falls into that category. As long as something makes you feel, and you consider it art, its art. Others may not see it as art, but thats them.
Getting slightly off topic of games to make a point)
<spoiler=This starving dog is art>http://s1.hubimg.com/u/267132_f260.jpg
sorry that its so small, its hard to find a single pic with all of the images in it together
But most would say its animal abuse (thats dog food the words are made of, and its just out of reach of the dog, though it knows and smells its there. So its a constant reminder and is essential edible food for a starving dog that is just out of its reach), but the art community has had the most lively debates as to whether this is art or not.
EDIT: In fact, its so lively of a debate that there's actually armed guards protecting this dog, so animal rights groups cant "liberate" it, because thats stealing a work of art. Sorry, friend sent me an email after he saw the post to let me know this bit of information.