Video Games are an art form.

Thank you again for your input. You really should try Bioshock by the way, it's a classic. A:Video Games Have Goals All forms of art do have goals, but in the first round you stated only video games have goals. Not all art is designed for the audience to interpret for them selves, most have a clear purpose or idea that they are portraying. You said that the goals of video games are not up to the interpretation of the player, but this is not entirely true either. A growing concept among video games is choice manipulation, allowing the player to choose whether one thing happens or another, allowing the player th interpret which goal is more suitable. You also mentioned that a painting has no time limit, but a movie cannot be enjoyed forever, only for the amount of time it gives you. B:Deliberation If the first movie was a memory, than it isn't art, because that memory wouldn't be able to be enjoyed by others. But in that sense, the first video game could have been two men competing to see who could hit the most birds with one stone. If memories are a primitive type of cinema, any type of competition or game would be a primitive type of video game. C:Creators of Art You claimed that the audience can only observe art, but this is not true. Their are many works of art that allow the audience to interact. For example, their are books that allows the reader to make the major decisions, then lets them see where those decisions take the story. Another, but less common example, are movies that allow the audience to make the decisions. As for the observation of a game, the same ideals that are put into a movie could just as easily be put into a video game. There can be many meanings behind one game, and not always are they seen, so they are not forced. The goals of a video game force the gamer to interpret it just as much as a book or movie. These goals can actually give many more interpretations than the creator even had planned. As for the Kid and the college level book, he did not get to experience the book as much as an elite scholar would, just as a newbie does not enjoy a harder game as much as an elite gamer would. In a cinematic masterpiece, the music, graphics, and storyline are all taken in as a whole, so why are video games judged differently? If the graphics in a movie suck, then no one will be there defending it's amazing story, the same for video games. So why is Cinema a form of art, yet video games are not? To clarify, I was saying that the general public does not consider video games art because the majority of games do not hold that great of artistic characteristics. But as we all know, all forms of art have their less then appreciated side to them. According to Webster's dictionary, art is a "skill acquired by experience, study, or observation." Another definition is "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination." The creation of video games falls under both of these categories. And according to the second one, "The CONSCIOUS use," says that art does not have to be originally a mistake. In fact, it says it can't be a mistake. Video games require both creativity and skill to make, so the creators should be respected as artists.