Reading all these replies makes me realize that I've been imprecise. I'll take another stab at defining what I think makes a game art, though this will probably turn out to be deficient somehow: a game can be art when it seeks to indirectly (whether through more traditional narrative elements, through pure interaction, or some combination of the two) make the player see themselves, others, or the world around them differently.

Take Planescape Torment, for example. Like virtually all RPGs, it wasn't a game that tried to break much new ground in the gameplay department. But in my view, it was a beautiful work of art because it did a masterful job of causing me to view the world differently. The title character was essentially a walking metaphor: his body was a corpse, while who he actually was changed depending on what he remembered. It teaches us that our identity is our accumulated memory, that our bodies are merely husks, and that once our memories are gone, so are we. Anyway, I'm rambling now, but I think I've made my point.

Anyone had any dealings with Kongegate and their Premium Games program? (I'm looking at you, torncanvas!)

Personally, I've refused to deal with Kongregate in the past because of a really, really sneaky term they put in their contracts: a $5 limitation of liability clause. Translation: Kongregate can take your game, pay you nothing, and if you sue them and win, you are entitled to recover only five dollars.

Limitation of liability provisions are generally considered valid in California, which can be a real problem if Kongregate ever fails to deliver for a developer, since their contracts also provide that they are governed by California law.

Some people seem to think so...

Have you ever heard of something called The Tragedy of the Commons? (Here's a Wikipedia entry if you haven't.) Think of the commons, abstractly, as the ability of game developers to survive by making games. If everyone exploits the resource without paying for it, the resource will disappear. It's not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea. Creative work is legitimate work that should be compensated, and if it is not, the people that create will no longer be able to create.

Probably a better comparison would be the free rider problem. Because it's nearly impossible to deal with piracy as a small developer with limited resources, I think the best solution is simply to make browser-based games that can be played for free, and make money off advertising.

I agree--I was asking Brog, though, since he seems to think it is.

Humor me: what makes mathematics art?

As long as someone, somewhere, is making indie strategy games (like, say, myself) they aren't dead.

Well, there you go. Exhibit A. Another example of someone who thinks narrative elements are nothing more than an attempt to shoehorn into games what has already been done better in other media: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17902

First of all, hi! This is my first post on these forums.

So, I just figured I'd share some thoughts I had on what makes games art. In the great "are games art?" debate, I've noticed two conflicting lines of thought emerge on the "yes" side:

1) Yes, games are art because of their potential to let the player experience a story in an interactive way.
2) Yes, games are art because of their infinite potential for discovering new game mechanics and forms of play.

What do you think? My personal stance is that games can be a brilliant storytelling medium, and that this is what makes them art. That the storytelling might be nonlinear and fragmented only makes it more interesting. On the other hand, I have yet to experience a game whose mechanics are so great that they move me absent a compelling story.