I generally dislike the idea of games as an art form, or rather, "art game" as a genre - it's pretentious bullcrap designed to disguise substandard games through the justification that some people just "don't get it" or whatever else people say to defend their poor quality titles. Maybe I don't get it. But what makes a good game and what doesn't is entirely subjective anyway, and I don't think a prissy label like "art game" should be used to try and explain away why only a select group of people are going to enjoy it.
As far as I'm concerned, games are meant to be played. That's the whole point of the things; that has ALWAYS been the point. Without gameplay, it isn't a video game, and it's clear a lot of these so-called "art games" put in the bare minimum to be able to get away with calling themselves games; walking simulators, I believe people call them. Developer expression should not come at a cost to player enjoyment, or as a priority over it. I don't begrudge developers making games they enjoy, but I'm not going to be paying money for their enjoyment; I'm paying for my own. And I'm paying a hell of a lot these days.
But if you want to phrase it another way: all games are artistic. All of them, good or bad, have aspects that can make them an art form if you look at them in a particular way. Good music, addictive gameplay, a compelling story: these are all forms of art to someone. Bad music, crap gameplay, a boring story: these are all art too, even if you didn't enjoy them. Someone else probably did. Passing a game off as solely art from the get-go, to me, just shows a complete lack of confidence in your work, and that you haven't really made a video game, because you're trying to force people to see it in a particular way, rather than letting them play and interpret it how they choose. It's art, so you HAVE to see it that way.
Games should be interpreted as an art, not forced upon you as an art, and I dislike games that market themselves as art rather than as games. People are probably going to throw Journey and whatever else at me to refute my points, but I really don't care: I don't enjoy that sort of thing. I find no merit in it. It's not art to me. If you do, then good for you; as I said earlier, it's entirely subjective. But, in my opinion, art-games, as a genre, are a farce that try to pretend that it ISN'T subjective, and that they should get a free pass from criticism because they're solely intended to be art. It's bollocks, because a game is a game, and whether or it is art or not depends solely upon what the player thinks of it, not what the developer intended. It's art to them. It might not be art to me. I'm the one playing it, I'm the one who bought it; when it's my money, all that matters to me is my own enjoyment and my own opinion. I don't give a damn what the developer wants me to feel or to see; that's THEIR perspective on it and, if I DON'T feel or see that, it's a failure on their part and not mine for trying to make me see things a certain way, rather than leaving it up to me to form my own opinion on it.
Some games I could describe as works of art because of how much I enjoyed them, or aspects of them, but that's by coincidence, rather than design. If I don't enjoy it, then it isn't art to me. Simple as that. If it's art to someone else, good for them. Subjective. "Art game" is not a genre, it's a critic riot shield, and I don't buy it.
