I assume you're all not mentioning Okami because it's so obviously better that it would be idiocy to suggest otherwise, right?

SOC was wonderful.. I never tried ICo...

Then I'd say Del Toro's mistake and your own is that you don't think good game design is an art. You just see it as a vector for storytelling, which would seem to be the narrow definition of art that you accept.

Super Mario Bros. has reached so many millions of people and become a monolithic cultural artifact, but you don't think it's art? A game doesn't need an elborate story or a sympathetic character to express the ideas of its creator(s).

Architecture and many paintings manage to be art without epic stories or sympathetic characters. Nobody seems to have trouble accepting that.

Nothing can ever beat Ocarina of Time for me.

Everything about it was perfect. I could complain about a few things in SOTC, though I still might call it a masterpiece, OoT was perfect in every way.

I could certainly understand why Del Toro would love those games though.

I love Del Toro. Both Hellboy films were awesome.

And Pans Labyrinth is apparently some sort of milestone in cinema

games=/=movies. at least they shouldn't. Del toro is a great filmmmaker but is not a videogame designer.

so, who cares what he likes/dislikes?

Super Mario Bros. is a great game - but I don't see what I see looking at a painting or looking at an amazing building (or ICO).  I see a great game with zero meaning other than the fun you have playing it.  For me Art has to convey something - and it might just be me (although I know its not) but Super Mario Bros. is a great game but nothing more.  Now I've seen art featuring Mario character - but the game itself?  No.  Not by my definition of art.

Also, don't mix up a cultural artifact with a piece of art.  Batman is a cultural artifact, but you still have to create a piece of art featuring him to actually have something to regard.

And no - I don't think good game design is art anymore than I think the rules of Tennis is art.  A game of Tennis could be Art, as could a game of chess, etc.  But it would be a combination of the players, the event and what they create, not the game itself.

Reaching a ton of people doesn't make something art.  Subway has reached millions as well, but the term Sandwich artist is just a nice way to put "minimum wage employee".  SMB may or may not be art, I'm not really inclined to define art, but certainly just reaching people can't be the definition.

HEY! Don't mock...

There is NOTHING more beautiful than a 12" cheese steak on Hearty Italian staring me in the eye...

That is art...

Of course a game conveys something. It conveys an experience, just as films, novels, and architecture do. Change the game designer, and you will get a different experience, because they will try to convey different ideas to the player according to their own beliefs.

Really, this kind of expression exists everywhere in the world. Architecture, marketing, industrial design... Yes, Torillian, even in how somebody decides to craft a sandwich. Some people take great care in their presentation of food. I've almost felt guilty for eating some meals which have been laid before me, but then I remember that consuming the meal is part of the experience that the chef has carefully crafted for me.

Whether you attach a great deal of meaning to a videogame experience or not is a subjective opinion, but when teams of people invest hundreds or thousands of man-hours to create an experience for you, they are trying to communicate with you, just as other artists are. And because this communication isn't in the form of a direct dialogue, we call it art.