I strongly disapprove thoughts like as “there is not any valid defintion for art”.Everthing that is rasonable can receive a definition,and I will try to write a general and intelligible meaning of art.Art is a latin word (ars,artis) whose common definitions are “hability,artifice and work”.If we investigate the history of art we shall notice that it was primitiviey something whose importance was almost exclusively functional - “arte funcional,inferior,objetiva”.Aristoteles - in Ars Poetica - confirms that the classic greece conception of art had arcaic foundations,although its functions were not ordinary but moral.”Ars gratia artis” (I am not talking about Parnasianism) is a modern idea - “arte não funcional,superior,subjetiva” - that touchs smoothly the concept of worldly (and spiritual) experience:why do we live? The justification of life is itself - “the justification of art is itself”.Art evolution scale can be traced parallel with human evolution scale,primitive men had concrete thought and objective art,we have more abstract thought and subjective art.However,both are art and consequently should accept a general definition of art:art is a creation of anything perceptible in any sensory dimension.Therefore,art is not always a good thing.Fernando Pessoa,a famous portuguese poet,undestood it:”Viver não é necessário;o que é necessário é criar.” By this way,art is a imitation of cosmogonic act.All man is an artist (according with my definition) because all man “animate” (anima) a portion of many dimensions of existence,but a few number is a good artist,i.e.,creates art objects which endure centuries and affect people (principally other artists:art for artists - Nietzsche) in infinite senses.

Are game art? Yes…but no.It is undoubtedly a paradoxal question.Games are art because they are a perfect (per-fectum) creation.Games are not art because they are a dimension of existence.Who created chess game has certainly several merits,but Ruy Lòpez,Phillidor and Alekhine were not the creator and have the same merits.How is it possible? We can think chess game like an universe:a group of elements ruled by fundamental laws,which allow us (creatures who live in this dimension) to investigate (science) and to create (art) what we want,limited only by that (fundamental laws).Games are the hightest level of creation!

“Surely there is nothing in the games oeuvre to compare with the great works of music, painting, sculpture, cinema, dance, or literature. Of course, this is an unfair criticism: these other media have had centuries to develop and refine their techniques and to find their geniuses; games have had but 30 years, and during much of that time designers were struggling with atrociously weak hardware.”
There are two other factors.Game born like art of masses,popular entertainment…The best sellers books and cds are usually as good as comercial games.Games are too complex,a genius of Game Designer would be Villa-Lobos,Ezra Pound,Pablo Picasso,Thomas Mann and Friedrich Nietzsche conjoint.

Revolutionary artists throughout the course of history have had to fight for the acceptance of their work

But what were they fighting against? In the cases I can recall, the objection was their work was too avante-garde, too strange, too weird. That’s not the kind of objection we get to games. People aren’t claiming that games are elitist art that the average person cannot understand. The most common complaint against games is exactly the reverse: that games are troglodytic throwbacks to the Roman gladitorial games, uncivilized entertainment that panders to what is worst in human nature. I think that your comparison with revolutionary artists is way off the mark.

Couldn’t the aforementioned shortcomings be overcome by persons of great talent, given the relative infancy of the medium?

the industry is incredibly young, and massive shifts in the direction of gaming have already been visible, form arcade gaming to home consoles, and in the evolution of PC gaming.

I disagree with your perception that the industry is young. Yes, in many ways it is, but I’ve been involved in this industry for 30 years now and what I observe is a dramatic slowing of the rate of change. Yes, in the 80s we saw lots of change, lots of youthful exuberance. In the 90s it started slowing, and I have seen little real change in the last decade. The difference in our perceptions, I suspect, arises from two factors: 1) the difference in the length of our experiences; and 2) the differences in our conception of the scale of change. Gamers these days are impressed by a small improvement in the AI of the NPCs; I am looking for changes of much greater magnitude. Specifically, I’m looking for games that appeal to a broader audience. We’re not seeing any substantial progress in that direction; games are still appealing to the same audience that they appealed to twenty years ago. The audience is bigger, yes, because we’re getting greater penetration into that market — but we’re not broadening.

If you want to see what I mean when I talk about change, have a look at what we’re trying to do at storytron.com.

I think, first of all, it’s a bit unfair to characterize the majority of gamers who make this argument (that games are indeed art) as doing it for the wrong reasons, even if their reasons are the defense of their medium. Revolutionary artists throughout the course of history have had to fight for the acceptance of their work, whether they are innovating within the medium and ignoring their detractors, like Seurat did w/ Pointilism, or creating a new medium entirely, like the earliest filmmakers (Eisenstein) did. You are right to demand an intellectual analysis from gamers who wish to make this assertion, certainly; some sort of reasoning must be provided, otherwise the argument is ill-made. But vain? I must protest. :p

Secondly, while your point about the movie industry is well taken, in that
currently the game industry stifles creativity in a way that film, generally, does less, I must argue that this does not eradicate the possibility of an artistic game. While I am not ready to provide a full defense of “games as art” here in the comments section of your blog, I have to at least pose these questions: Couldn’t the aforementioned shortcomings be overcome by persons of great talent, given the relative infancy of the medium? And isn’t it possible that the artistic quality of gaming, as well as being that which we have already encountered in other art forms, is something entirely new - the manipulation of the interactive experience?

Finally, I just have to challenge your assertion that the game industry isn’t going to change. Once again, the industry is incredibly young, and massive shifts in the direction of gaming have already been visible, form arcade gaming to home consoles, and in the evolution of PC gaming. The future is unknowable. Why would you assume that the current movement, and the popularity of the Realist-Blockbuster game will continue?

Just some food for thought, thanks for reading the whole rant if, in fact, you did.

TL;DR: I disagree

My simple answer to this question:

Art is something that an individual (or sometimes two) creates and presents to the world as is, to be accepted, vilified, whatever. There is no “playtesting”.

A game–virtually any game worth a hoot–is tested extensively, and modified in accordance with that testing. Playtesting is vital. Games are not art.

Did Beethoven “playtest” his music? Did Rafael “playtest” his paintings? Generally not.

What I find interesting is that at one time films were not “playtested”, but now it’s common to show preliminary versions to audiences and change the films accordingly. Then in terms of my contrast, films are less “art” than they used to be.

In the end, though: who cares?