You're assuming that's where the argument is coming from, and you may be right for some, but there are other possibilities.  Why can't the argument come from wanting people to understand something that has affected and changed my life?  Video games have been a huge part of my life and a couple of them have actually affected me in a real emotional way, why shouldn't I try to champion these few wonderful examples of what the medium can do?  Why does it have to be some deep seated insecurity instead of just an appreciation for a medium I love?  

Yeah, sure, I'm a geek, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong about video games having the ability to be art.  I'm right about all kinds of other things (goes along with being a geek) so why not this?

edit: and to continue the argument, let's say you're right and every single developer that makes games that some would consider art is doing so because they were beat up in High School.  Why does their motivation preclude their work from being art?  If a painter because an artist because he was trying to nail some chick does that mean nothing he ever creates can be art?

That's true are all games will feel the same, remember all the Grand theft Auto clones. What they did with the first GTA with the open world stood out from any other game, and that was art.

Flower is as much an experience as it is a game. The freedom of movement makes the game feel as relaxing as a gently wafting breeze. It's a tiny, beautiful, elegantly designed piece of software that I feel richer for having played and is more immersive than many feature-driven titles dare to dream. Never before has a game moved me so strongly, never before has a game made my day better, never before has a game affected my view on life.

Flower is a shock to the gamer's system because it reminds us that games aren't about fanboy allegiances, media hype, and quarterly earnings. Good games-like good art-can simply be food for the soul. Flower is the kind of soulful nourishment we need more of.

Those aren't my words. They're a selection from all the sites that rated flower 90+.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/flower/critic-reviews

My point was, it allowed the press to feel all artsy and superior. If those were my words it would look something more like...

Wii Sports Resort's Airsports is as much an experience as it is a game. The freedom of movement makes the game feel as relaxing as a gently wafting breeze. It's a tiny, beautiful, elegantly designed piece of software that I feel richer for having played and is more immersive than many feature-driven titles dare to dream. Never before has a game moved me so strongly, never before has a game made my day better, never before has a game affected my view on life.

Wii Sports Resort's Airsports is a shock to the gamer's system because it reminds us that games aren't about fanboy allegiances, media hype, and quarterly earnings. Good games-like good art-can simply be food for the soul. Motion plus controls are the kind of soulful nourishment we need more of.

You'd be singing a different tune if it were a boomerang instead of a flower, you Aussie bastard.

i think torillian is make a much more effective argument then i could so for the most part read his post.

..but i don't think that it is fair to say that.  i've never heard a signle person who is for the "game as art" camp ever argue that all games are art.  games (like photos or film or canvas or whatever) is just a medium.  not everything that comes out of that medium is going to be or even trying to be art.  that shouldn't discount anything from being art though.

and as far as artistic value goes in things like wii sports -- it isn't getting marked down for not trying to be art, it is getting marked down for not having an asthedically pleasing visual aspects.  those are very very different topics.

Never before has a game review moved me so strongly, never before has a game review made me feel sick, never before has a game review made me change my whole view of the gaming press.

I prefer the less artsy, unsophisticated 2D version. I believe it's called Centipede.

I don't know why, but I find difficult to believe any game is art.

yea i hate the games as art crowd, it just seems ridiculous that games get knocked down for not trying to "push the boundaries of the medium" or whatever crap they come up with to debunk games that dont fit their criteria. the thing i hate the most about it though is art is so subjective and interpretive that their faults with their game have no concrete value to anyone. and in the end, i really just dont find artsy games fun.

i remember i played shadows and when i played it i had no idea that it was some heralded game from the games as art crowd. i remember after i beat it and i read about it on forums and stuff i was just confused by why people had such a high regard for it. in all honesty, i was a little bored by it and i didnt really get why the ending was presented like it was. ever since then, any game that is classified as art by the majority of forum goers are games i avoid.

for me, i feel the same way about games as art as i feel about people who debunk pop music. it makes no sense to hate a song, to me, because it was designed to be catchy, and that devoids it of artistic value. i feel those people try to hard to hate things for no reason other than feeling more elite.

I don't see that being a good reason to hate 'games as art'

People accept music as art, but they also accept that the majority of chart music is for entertainment, not art.
people accept tv and movies as art, without criticising big brother, or trashy action movies for not being art.
People accept painting as art, without criticising someone who simply paints their wall with a roller.

Sure, criticise those who say "All video games must be art"
But equally, criticise those who say "no video game can ever be art"

Some games are art, others are not.