It implies that games are "supposed to" be art, meaning games that aren't necessarilly artistic are lacking in some way. This is an unfair assesment, and why I believe certain games get critizied by strangely "hardcore" gamers and the gaming media, despite the fact that they are actually exteremly fun and successful games. Stuff like Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Just Dance, to an extent Minecraft, etc. They get marked down for lack of artistic values, when really they don't need to be there in the first place.

Games are merely a outlet for entertainment. This entertainment does not necessarilly have to consist of artistic values or characteristics in order to do its job. The primary objective of games is to provide fun, that's it.

I see gaming as similar to board games, or even card games, in that they are there merely to entertain, built around a series of rules for you to play your way through. These are still "games," yet you normally don't hear people refer to board games, card games, etc, as "art." It's the same way for books, TV, and movies, in that there are non-fiction stories, self help books, do-it-yourself, etc.

Now, of course, gaming could be an outlet FOR art, but the games themselves are NOT art.

What is art then really? i mean if games cant be art neither can movies or books because their main goal is to entertain. I believe something can have a secondary purpose and be placed in more than one category because of that. Like Okami its main goal is to entertain, but im sure the creators wanted the look to be artistic and so its art as well as entertainment.

Games CAN be artistic, I'm not denying this. But what I am saying is that games are not automatically art, nor should they be. The same way movies, TV, books, aren't always art. What bugs me is when people use the terms "games" and "art" as if they are forever linked in some way, thus implying that games that AREN'T artistic are lacking. Artistic values of gaming are more of an external feature, they shouldn't be a requirement.

People want games to be art for the same reason everyone wants you to believe that their job or hobby is art, art has been artificially elevated above all other pursuits for some arbitrary reason. This isn’t to say that games can’t be art, but (for the most part) most good games would be well-crafted entertainment and not art

*waves hand*

DEFINE... Art.

Man.

That's an understandable reason to not like the argument, and I'll tell you that as someone usually on the other side of the argument I don't like how those who think games should be entertainment seem to think that games that have a story are automatically somehow worse in gameplay. Like developers only have so much brain power and if they take any time thinking of a story the gameplay won't be as good, but I have played many games that show that great story and great gameplay can and do coexist, so why not have both?

As far as the original topic, I would tell you that you can't always assume people making the games can be and should be classified as art argument also think that games purely for fun shouldn't exist. I certainly don't think that just like I don't think popcorn summer flicks should disappear.

Telling a simple and effective story through gameplay that has an emotional effect on the player all wrapped up in beautiful aesthetices is why people often call it art.  And I'd tend to agree.

I agree here i dont really see it as art, in a way that i feel i should if that sounds right lol.

Ah I see what you mean though im starting to think the word art is a pretty......well I cant really describe it but the word is weird to use in a sense.

Art - an excuse