When I look at games like Okami and The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker, I see artistic games.

When I look at games Modern Warfare 2 and Gears of War, I don't see art. I'm not saying MW2 and Gears are bad games I just don't see the art in them, all I see is a video game.

The line beetween entertaiment and art is thin....movies are considered as art but still there are many movies that doesn't aspire to be artistic but just raw entertainment.
Nintendo it's a first party developer so it has to sell cosoles along with games.
Even if there are many artistic aspects involved, it would be hypocrite form them, not to admit that also maketing plays a big part in game developing...even if Miyamoto as himself can be considered an artist.
Maybe only indie games can be considered as an art at the moment in all their aspects.

Miyamoto's saying video games aren't art? That's like if DaVinci said that art isn't... art...

The guy himself pretty much made gaming into what it is today. Is he saying he's not even a LITTLE bit proud of his works? OK, I'm sure he is and he should be. However, if movies and literature can be considered art, I can't see why gaming can't.

Although on a deeper look; He said he had never called video games art, he didn't state something like: "Video games aren't art. Get a life, n00bs." So, there's really nothing to complain about, but I really feel like ranting about something... I'll just go troll somewhere...

gaming isnt really art.  It can be artistic, but its an entertainment medium, not an art medium.

Games are not art and Miyamoto is correct.

... Buzzkiller...

play team ico games. pure artistic entertainment :p

Everything can be called art.
Hell, I'd make a dot on the wall and call it art.

The important thing is that, video games is meant to be entertaining, mainly the fun part.

Art is an abstract term. Everything and nothing can "be" art - even a toilet for god's sake!

So I agree with Miyamoto. Games should only try to be creative and fun, not artistic. If then they are perceived as art, so be it.

I'm gonna quote Malstrom on this one because he addresses pretty much this point verbatim. Nintendo doesn't create art games and anyone who says that they do are just defending themselves from MS and Sony fans who accuse Nintendo games of being non-art:

"Nintendo fans responded by generating a ‘Nintendo Culture’. The Mario and Zelda games were no longer the fun, whimsical pursuits from the NES and SNES era but described as ‘genius games’ which ‘recreated how games were made’. In other words, these Mario and Zelda games had much more purpose than mere commerce! The ‘Nintendo Culture’ has become an alchemy that has turned old Nintendo merchandise, from belt buckles, controllers, and shirts, into prized ‘Nintendo Culture’ that people pay dearly for.

You have a point, but why limit it at that? It's like saying a film should only aspire to elicit positive emotions in its audience - terribly myopic. The focus on "fun" (as the sole adjudicative of a game's worth and merit) is, I feel, one of the immanently limiting aspects of contemporary game design/criticism.

Of course, that does not mean entertainment and art are mutually exclusive. "Art" is impossible to define (as is a "game", actually), but I could not name a piece of art that is not in some way "entertaining". The dichotomy surrounding art and non-art that people like to put up is nothing but fabrication and personal opinion.

As for me, I think that if there is creative thought put into it, then it is art.