The issue the people have against video games as art is because gamers create their own experience within the game it doesn't come off as art. It really makes no sense to me to use that as an excuse because everyone takes something different from a set of art. Some hidden meaning they believe the author or painter hide within it.

I just think they all fear change.

In Which I Channel Phoenix (sort of)
 

OBJECTION!

What of "choose your own adventure" books? What, then, of shared, persistant worlds by multiple authors with conflicting continuities (Star Wars Expanded Universe, say)? What singular "path" would one take there? What if a typo or plot hole appears in a book, or that book is written in such a way as to be purposefully ambiguous in its meaning or ending? What of Final Fantasy XIII in the non-linearity arguement?

EDIT:
I know I do. Man, can those pennies get heavy after a while. Oh! Ooooooooohhhhhhhhh! Oh. THAT kind of "change". Right. Oh yeah, They totally do. Also, I'm not afraid of anything. Nope. *runs and hides in the fear of pennies*

EDIT 2:
As my wife is a drama teacher (in addition to her English duties) I can attest this is entirely accurate from experience. Further, what of those famed theater pieces that beg or even require audience interaction? Even more, what of ImprovAnywhere - is what they do any less 'art', despite the fact that it can, inherently, only be done once to its full effect (unlike, say, seeing a movie or showing a painting)? Or is it more of an art because of that, in which case repeatable experiences, such as viewings of movies and painting would be diminished.

Or then again, an orchestral arrangement by Bethovan is a masterpiece - a masterpiece interpreted slightly differently by every single orchestra that plays it. Oh, wait, that's not art - it's played, after all, in a strict, straightforward pattern exactly as the creator intended, following rigorous rules to get from one path to the next.

Similarly, Mozart. Oh, but there is relief in sight: it has no choice! Or does it? Can it be played on piano? Of course, as that was how it was written. Or on a keyboard? Well... those are similar enough. What about on a synthasizer, electrically created with no keys or strings? Hm. Perhaps it can be elegantly distributed to various persons - a band of pianists - to create a duet (or larger) when none was originally intended? Indeed each person who plays a piece of music can play it to their own instrument, their own way of thinking, and can redistribute the notes as they see fit: minor, personal touches throughout the whole, creating a new arrangement all their own.

No, the argument that minor play differences seperate videogames from art is not valid. Music students study and play only specific movements of larger orchestras, often skipping around. Similar, I'd say, to warping to level 8 and ignoring the few goombas, non?

Weak analogy but whatever.
 

You see this even more in modern games like the Spore, Mass Effect, etc.

Can't we interpret the act of playing the game as.. writing the story? We're making the art with the developers.

Guys, we live in a world where getting shot in the arm is, literally, considered high art.

Drawing the line at Vidjamagames is just stupid.

I love this definition. It's honestly my favourite interpretation of "video games as art" I have ever heard.

Partly because it feels so deep - by playing the game, you're creating your own unique experience. It's a piece of art that is your very own, and you get to personalize it however you want.

Partly it implies that Roger Ebert is an artless tool because he refuses to play these things.

Also partly because it finally makes art a goddamn competitive sport.

Doesn't art need someone to view it or read it to be considered art? Then the critics and views need to dissect and interpret all sorts of meaning behind the said art. Was harry porter really just a book about some crazy wizard going through school while conquering evil in some alternate universe, or was it a deep look into the dangers a child faces through school? With voldermort being an interpretation of peer pressure and dark magic being an example of drugs?

How is a game any different then that?

If the only person to ever see a painting is the one who painted it, is it not still art?

If the only person to play the video game is the guy who created it and follows the path they created themselves, how is that not art?

...I think we said the exact same thing.

edit: Clearly, I think Video games are Art

In Which I Slightly Correct a Friend and Revel in Hubris
 

Even if that game is never played, it is created - it exists and is admired (presumably) in the mind of the creator - it is, in some respect, art. Otherwise, yes, I agree with you.

To (in highly improper fashion, I'm aware) quote myself:
EDIT:
To be fair loons have always led the way to 'new' artistic expression! Picasso, man, Picasso!