I think people take "games are art" entirely in the wrong direction. They judge by criteria which games do not and often cannot excel in, criteria that better apply to movies. These criteria often have little to no impact whatsoever on how fun a game actually is, which may explain why most "artistic" games don't sell well.
One quality that games can have in spades which other entertainment can only grasp at, however, is immersion. Why is there no declaration of "artistic" for when a game is so immersive that anybody who plays the game gets sucked in and keeps playing, keeps coming back, becomes thoroughly addicted to the game?
That, to me, is the only criteria that any game should be judged on as "art". If a game does not draw the player in enough to make them want to play it and recommend it to others, it is not a good game. But what of the games that excel at it, that spawn endless waves of new participants because the experience is so rewarding? The job of a game is to entertain, and if a product is so good at entertaining that it can do so near-indefinitely, it has truly achieved "art" status. "Art" is emblematic of the best qualities of the medium being put under the microscope, after all, is it not?
Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.
