With games like The Las of Us and Beyond Two Souls, you certainly could make an argument.

Discuss.

Of course.

It's definition includes interactive media.

Tho some games empathize art more than others.

They used to be, but now they are just made with money first in mind. Whatever the market trend is, copy and cash in. Be it sports, FPS, zombies... The real vision is in the Indies these days

Ah, this again. I can't wait to see people claim that one game is more artistic than another, because of totally legitimate reasons... and thus completely miss the point.

Commercial art is still art.

My definition for art form, is putting your heart into it and trying to make a masterpiece.

Play Shadow of the Colossus. If that's not art then idk what is.

They have always been an artform. This discussion should have been over 20 years ago.

EDGE magazine asks this question ... almost every edition.

For me, the question has no meaning until we can define the attributes of "art". For some, like "creation based on imagination, reflection of societal values and norms, aesthetic pleasure and entertainment", it is most certainly art. For others, like "non-commercialization, pure expression of inner vision without interference, symbolism of a single human's experience", it most certainly is not.

But to be honest, I don't think the question matters. I don't really care if games are a form of art or not.

Of course they are. Art, as in itself, is a manifestation of human culture that brings itself years of history in each form it takes. That's why a Van Gogh's paint isn't more "artsy" as Once Upon a Time in the West. Those are both reflections of human cultures in a certain point of mankind's lifespawn.

Ico isn't more artsy than Mass Effect, nor is it Heavy Rain worse than watching Breakfast at Tifanny's. Those are all pieces of art that may or may not entertaint the people, but they certainly reflect human culture.