Does that mean, that you don't see monopoly as art? What is with trading-card-games? They have different aspects, one of them is passing time.

I agree, that art creates some form of emotion. But most games do that, they all create fun (or they fail as a game).

I've thought pretty hard about this as well.

I do not think that video games are really viable as "art," in the traditional sense. The very facet you deem it's strength -- interactivity -- obliterates any chance of such.

But that doesn't mean it can't be something awesome, intelligent, and sophisticated -- it just won't be art, in the traditional sense, where meaning is conveyed by the artist(s), and not by the viewer/audience. So while I'm being rather technical here and saying it can't be "art" on a purely semantic level, it still could have all the qualities that we associate with art: significance, intelligence, and sophistication.

And I totally agree that interactivity is the key to achieving this. Games that stress interactivity will be the key, which is why I think something like "Oil God" or even "The Sims" comes much closer to being Video-Games-As-Art than, say, Final Fantasy does: a game that almost deliberately limits interactivity and open-world in order to tell a linear story.

Instead of ruthlessly supressing interactivity in the name of storytelling, I think games should embrace their interactive side; a game-as-story is just a crappy movie. In fact, one could use this truth for almost any serious medium -- should movies engage in extensive, heavy internal dialogues? Limited use is fine, but it simply isn't a strength of the medium like it is for books. The strengths of movies (over books) are their visual and audio stimulae. This is why great novels with extreme amounts of internal dialogue (such as Brothers Karamov or Crime and Punishment) have absolutely never translated well into film, while novels that have focused more heavily on external dialogue such as Pride and Prejudice or even Shakespearian plays (no, these aren't actually novels) translate much more readily and succesfully.

Every medium has its strengths. Clearly, the unique and defining feature of video games is its interactivity. The games that supress that interactivity -- such as Final Fantasy -- are the antithesis of this goal. Because it's such a popular series, Final Fantasy has become a symbol to me of what gaming should not be: crappy movies with some interactivity, rather than something that's interactive first and foremost. 

How often has a video game amde you cry? Feel scared? Feel empathy or sympathy for a character in as game? I'd bet you'd answer either rarely, or not never.

Now, add this too the mix.

How many of these time have been without the use of cutscenes?

Games have achieved the ability to inspire fear in their players through creating great atmospheres. But the other emotions, games still can't do right.

I felt a tad sad when Price died in CoD4 (well, I still don't understand whether or not he did), and that game didn't really use any cutscenes. It was because he was my favourite character, and had been developed through multiple games. Infinity Ward got it right for me, but when discussing with other people very few people also got depressed at that scene. And I didn't get upset as I did when reading Private Peaceful, or watching Forest Gump. These media texts managed to upset the vast majority of people that read and watched them, and brought a lot of them too tears.

Given the lengthy discussion about what "art" is in this thread, I suggest we all drop that avenue. It's a semantic dead end that will absolutely never be resolved.

Instead, I think we should all say this: video games are capable of being intelligent, provocative, edifying and sophisticated. I'm not sure that makes games art, but I hope it's really those qualities we're after, not the actual "art" label. 

I don't think, that a videogame needs to stress the interactivity too much to be counted as arts. Other art-forms restrict often themselves: (modern) black-and-white movies and photographs or poems for example. So a game like final-fantasy that restricts interactivity can also be art. But true is, interactivity is the thing that separates games from other arts.

 To a certain extent, I do agree with you.

But can you say, that in 50 years, when gaming has developed beyond what think is imaginable now. Possibly
when game designers are striving to be as far away from photorealism as possible. And anything that they
want to happen, can happen. That gaming still wouldn't be considered an art.

By then, gaming would have developed so much. There will be languages and techniques used to develop
stories and convey emotions, that other mediums wouldn't be able to use thanks to their lack of inteactvity.

Also, for gaming to be worldly recognised as an art form, it'd need recognition from the vast majority. It means
that the game industry will need to grow, as well as develop, before it can be considered an art form.

 But this is precisely the sort of discussion I'm trying to avoid: how can we have reasonable, conclusive discussions about how this medium will look in 50 years? Good lord, we have big fights over what it will look like in five. What will the PS4 do? Will the Wii2 have PS3 level graphics? No one can decide. 50 years in the future is so open to possibility that it's really impossible to do much more than dream. 

As a counterpoint, I could absolutely imagine video games evolving as a sport and an entertainment medium, and never as an art form. It's already being used as a sport, and I don't think we have any "sport" that is also "art" simultaneously. Again, not saying that will necessarily be the case -- just pointing out that anything is really possible that far down the line. 

That's what I was trying to get at in my first post. However, and unfortunatly, the topic developed into more of a "what is art?" topic (naturally, of course).Although, looking back, I may not have worded my original post correctly, I was trying to get at a more of a "when will games be considered art by more than just gamers".

It's like dance, for example. I'd imagine that top dance critics would consider ballet as one of the finest arts out there. But how many people would actually agree with that? The problem with dance is most probably the fact that what most people consider to be dance is, really, just dancing; a la Top of the Pops, and clubbing. Very few people see dance as more than just a set of moves that fit in with the music.

I think that gaming is gaming, and I'm proud of it.
The term "Art" is only a label used by a niche.