I know it's overused as a topic, and it's been debated to death, but I think my concept of what a game is to be art might be an interesting one.
1. I think a game should actually use the medium well, and emphasise interactivity. Really, if there's one pathetic issue with games trying to be art, it's that many limited the interactive elements and try to be 'art' in movie rather than game terms. Problem is, it's absolutely absurd. Why should we be trying to mimmick other mediums and not take advantage of the unique differences in video games? It'd be like a 'art' obsessed TV show or movie that has nothing happening on screen and where the content is entirely spoken/voices, and that's trying to be a radio drama.
2. The game has to be enjoyable on it's own merits. Really, every work considered art would still be seen as high quality if the concept didn't exist. Every Shakespeare play is a good play to watch performed. Every film preserved as a vital part of culture (as in, I think the library of congress film registry) is a 'good' film in the traditional sense, it has some emotional response in the viewer, it's usually highly acclaimed by critics, sells extremely well and has an impact on the medium. But many games industry thinkers and writers call art aren't, they're just poorly designed works using the 'it's art' label as an excuse to get away with being bad games. Truly good works don't need silly gimmicks like 'every enemy you defeat destroys a hard drive file' or 'you can only play the game once in your life time'. A lot of indie works seem think being seen as art means to try and subvert some fundamental game mechanic, when it really doesn't. The works or Shakespeare, or anything by Charles Dickens, or Price and Prejudice, or many other classic works seen as 'literature' in the art sense didn't try pathetic gimmicks to get that classification, they had good storylines, good writing and kept readers interested. Playing the same level fifty times with different gimmicks or with the whole game being a set of achievements doesn't make your game art, not make you some kind of genius, so cut it out.
3. Popularity has no effect on whether something is considered 'art'. A game which qualifies as such could be the most popular game ever made or have failed miserably on release. Ignore anyone who goes on about how the mainstream are idiots or that whatever makes the most money is the best quality, there's very little historical precedent for truly classic works to have been one way or the other.
1. I think a game should actually use the medium well, and emphasise interactivity. Really, if there's one pathetic issue with games trying to be art, it's that many limited the interactive elements and try to be 'art' in movie rather than game terms. Problem is, it's absolutely absurd. Why should we be trying to mimmick other mediums and not take advantage of the unique differences in video games? It'd be like a 'art' obsessed TV show or movie that has nothing happening on screen and where the content is entirely spoken/voices, and that's trying to be a radio drama.
2. The game has to be enjoyable on it's own merits. Really, every work considered art would still be seen as high quality if the concept didn't exist. Every Shakespeare play is a good play to watch performed. Every film preserved as a vital part of culture (as in, I think the library of congress film registry) is a 'good' film in the traditional sense, it has some emotional response in the viewer, it's usually highly acclaimed by critics, sells extremely well and has an impact on the medium. But many games industry thinkers and writers call art aren't, they're just poorly designed works using the 'it's art' label as an excuse to get away with being bad games. Truly good works don't need silly gimmicks like 'every enemy you defeat destroys a hard drive file' or 'you can only play the game once in your life time'. A lot of indie works seem think being seen as art means to try and subvert some fundamental game mechanic, when it really doesn't. The works or Shakespeare, or anything by Charles Dickens, or Price and Prejudice, or many other classic works seen as 'literature' in the art sense didn't try pathetic gimmicks to get that classification, they had good storylines, good writing and kept readers interested. Playing the same level fifty times with different gimmicks or with the whole game being a set of achievements doesn't make your game art, not make you some kind of genius, so cut it out.
3. Popularity has no effect on whether something is considered 'art'. A game which qualifies as such could be the most popular game ever made or have failed miserably on release. Ignore anyone who goes on about how the mainstream are idiots or that whatever makes the most money is the best quality, there's very little historical precedent for truly classic works to have been one way or the other.