Are games art?

The debate about games and art has gone on for a few years now, with gamers arguing that they are and directors arguing they are not. Over the past few days I've considered this subject myself and have come to a fairly simple conclusion.

If I was to give the names of a few comedy films- Bruce Almighty, Rat Race, Airplane, to name but a few, I'd be scorned by movie directors everywhere. Their mocking laughter would echo round the walls of their Georgian mansions. If, however, I was to mention The Godfather, Amilie and Atonement these same directors would nod their heads, grunt their acknowledgement and let me taste their 1852 claret.

So why is this? Why is one group of films considered to be more artistic than the other? The simple answer is their purpose. When you go into the cinema to watch Bruce Almighty you go there for entertainment. When you go to watch The Brief Encounter you don't enjoy yourself per se, you go for the experience, to be taken on an intellectual journey, to explore emotions that you wouldn't feel if it were not for empathy with the characters that the film develops.

Put simply: For me the key factor that differentiates between an arty film and a trashy film is whether you watch the film for the experience or for the entertainment. For example you don't "enjoy" a sad film. You watch it to be affected by it.

Using this criterion for games, for me, solves the "are games art?" question. If I played a game for the experience, to be told a story, because I had an emotional attachment for the characters then it truly is art. If I played a game solely for its mechanics then it is not:

Art

Max Payne 1/2

GTA San Andreas (I got really involved in the story, yet many people didn't)

Oblivion (side quests, not the main story)

Mafia (I felt really quite choked up on occasions)

Not art

Everything else

Obviously this list is only valid for me. Whether you played a game for the experience is personal to you. Maybe you only played oblivion because you liked killing trolls. Maybe you found the Half Life 2 storyline engaged you.

Another interesting thing is that, for me at least, the number of non artistic games far outweighs the number of artistic ones. I think this is due to the history of gaming. Until very recently computers haven't had the power to tell a story convincingly. Gaming first developed purely for entertainment with titles Frogger, Space Invaders and Doom having no narrative whatsoever. To some extent game designers are still stuck in this era, as are the film directors so quick to criticize gaming. Is this a bad thing? I think not. I love nothing more than losing myself in a match of UT3 or TF2. These games certainly aren't art in the traditional sense, but what they lose in that they make up for in being fun to play, UT3 is pure escapism in a way that Max Payne is not.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. You may have a different opinion. I've made a very simple distinction between what is and isn't art in this article but at the end of the day it's up to you what is and isn't art. It's a very personal thing, and something that will no doubt cause debate far into the future.