Are video games art?

Are video games art, if so- Why?

Begin.

Yep.
They basically combine all other forms of art, cinema, music, art. So. Yep.

I think of it like this: Would you consider writing art? What about acting? Or composing? To me, games are a mixture of varying "arts."
Programmers spend years writing and refining code and some say that they find well-written code beautiful, like you would a painting.
Writers can create detailed, wonderful stories within games, to a degree that an expanded universe around the game springs up.
Composers and orchestras can make outstanding soundtracks for a game that still sound excellent of context.
Art teams can design and build great looking objects, creatures, characters and places to a greater level than many paintings.

My favourite example of this is Halo. Bungie made a simple sci-fi FPS that has blossomed into an entire universe of novels, possess an amazing soundtrack, and has stood the test of time for years. However, it also involves gunning down aliens (and other people in multiplayer) which is an immediate off-put for many people, who cry "games aren't art, they're just mindless violent entertainment for the youth!"

And then, of course, we have games such as Call of Duty, which are rather obviously designed around said "violent entertainment" rather than building a rich, well rounded and moving experience. But there's nothing wrong with this - sometimes all we want is a bit of fun from our games, and we shouldn't discount the effort developers put into making games like this.

Now, I'm probably younger than most of you here, so my view may be clouded by naïvety/inexperience, but I would say that the game isn't art, but the sum of many forms of art. Of course, the quality of artwork varies depending on the effort put into it (how many games have a full orchestral soundtrack, for example) but I personally think that rather than taking the game as a whole as "art" we should instead analyse the varying components of the game and how they fit together rather than proclaiming the entirety of the game as art or mindless trash.

Does this make sense? Please excuse my terrible rambling writing, if you would

Yes.
In the same way movies are art, or TV is art, or even music being art these days - it tends in 90% of cases to be nowhere near worthy of being art and just made for profit, but it CAN be

I second what Optimi said - a game is an interactive art gallery.

I'd say they can be, but not all of them are. Paintings and pretty pictures are art, right? What about blueprints?

At the moment, there's no video game that is even close to calling itself art (yes I played Dear Esther and such). Which is sad, because the medium has lots of potential.

I wholeheartedly disagree, can't think of games at the moment as I'm so busy, but many, many, are.

Play Bastion.

Also, something else I'd like to bring up is that a game can't be defended purely for being artistic.

Some people defend games like Dear Esther, The Stanley Parable and such. Whether or not you can find enjoyment in their writing is subjective, but attempting to defend them as games is insane. They're pretty much walking simulators (Dear Esther slightly more so than Stanley Parable) they have no real goal beyond "get to the end", you can watch someone play through Dear Esther on Youtube and you'll have the same exact experience as you would playing it yourself.

If you ask me, a game is very little by being artsy, I much prefer games that have interesting design choices than I do games that were made solely for the purpose of being art.
Games that are able to combine both interesting design and art (Brothers, Journey etc.) are also good in my eyes.

I found Stanley parable to be a quite enjoyable game. It's aesthetic and narrator were a joy.

ARMA 2 multiplayer is a true walking simulator.

No. Video games have been around for only like 40 years anyways.

Movies have only been around for like 100, what does time have to do with anything?

My opinion has always been that asking is something is art is like asking someone if the color blue is better than the color orange.

It's kinda up to you. No one else can truly define it. In my mind, almost all forms of entertainment are an art form, but not all of them are art.

From a larger societal perspective, I think it has the ability to qualify as art as much as any other medium. But if you have a giant venn diagram of "video games", only a small intersection will meet most peoples definition of art. But that's ok. But that intersection and contents of said intersection will be different for most people.

Well some people do have favorite colours mind you.

But yes, I agree with you in the point that the definition of art is truly very subjective and has completely to do with what someone sees it as. Really things become "art" because people say it's "art" in the sense that with anything, nothing is concrete unless a lot of other people agree with you. 'tis our society

Games don't deviate that much from movies. You're just controlling some part of the movie in video games.
In my opinion it's gonna take time to have games stand out in their own way as a form of art.

Well if a movie is an art, and a game is essentially you controlling a "movie" then why does the trait of being art not follow through as well?

If what Damian Hurst creates is considered art, then practically anything is.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/jan/26/art-australia

F*ck it, art is stupid .

So long as it involves creativity and/or expression, it's an art form.

Dances are art. Buildings are art. Stick figures are art.
Cooking is an art. Picking up women is an art. Making games is an art.