I think nowadays there are a variety of video games that can be accessible to the public. Behind each video game holds the hard work and dedication that programmers and creators put behind the story line, animations, promotions, voice actors, etc. It takes a whole team to create the game so that you can enjoy at home. There are many video games that has intricate art features, highly specialized, painstaking visual design—such as fully hand-drawn animation, stop-motion claymation, or pixel-perfect environments. Some examples include Gris. So Gris is a platform adventure game that is developed by a Spanish developer. Gris is a beautiful artistic 2D platform or indie game that has beautiful watercolor-like motions featuring fluid, expressive animations that reflect the protagonist's emotional journey. Or Cuphead : An action game heavily inspired by 1930s cartoons, utilizing hand-drawn cel animation, watercolor backgrounds, and original jazz recordings. All of these should be considered as a form of art as it showcases the artists, which is the creators' will for storytelling. And art is about emotion. Art is about feelings. Art is about connection. Which I do believe that video games constantly strive for and is able to do.

I have a few rebuttals to the first point. So I believe that art is defined by its function, not just its medium. The core purpose of art is to evoke emotion and evoke thought. Many traditional art forms that are legally considered, like film, literature, or theater, are designed to entertain and are still universally recognized as art because they inspire, challenge, and move audiences. Similarly, I challenge that games can fulfill these functions through storytelling, visual artistry, and emotional engagement. Second, simply because games are interactive should not undermine their artistic value. I believe it should enhance them. Interactivity allows players to engage with the work on a personal level, which makes the experience more unique for each individual. This dynamic form of expression can create a deeper emotional resonance than passive viewing or reading. I believe that it is time for a change. Throughout history, new mediums such as photography, film, and digital art were once dismissed or misunderstood. Over time, they gained recognition as valid art forms. Video games as a modern, technologically-driven medium are and should be a part of this The is a spoken debate about the art community. So in conclusion, while games are crafted primarily for entertainment, their capacity to evoke emotion, provoke thought, and push creative boundaries qualifies them as an legitimate art form. Labeling them merely as products of craft or engineering dismisses their potential for artistic expression and undervalues their role in cultural and emotional dialogue.

You claim that, quoting you, if you take away the gameplay, the levels, the power-ups, the challenges, what's left? A pretty picture that doesn't stand alone. That's craft, not art. Let's not blur the line just because something is pretty. Then, by according to that logic, many traditional art forms like sculpture, music, or even poetry, are only craft if stripped of context or meaning. But we don't dismiss them as non-art because they exist predependently as powerful, evocative works. Art isn't solely defined by interactivity or the presence of gameplay. It's defined by its ability to communicate, evoke, and resonate. If a painting, a symphony, or a poem can stand alone and move us deeply, then so can a game, regardless of its mechanics. A pretty picture of a game isn't just decoration, it's a part of a complex, expressive whole that can transcend mirror craft to become art. To dismiss games on this basis is to arbitrarily exclude the entire medium from the realm of meaningful artistic expressions simply because they are interactive. That's a really narrow view that fails to recognize art's evolving nature.

You are making an arbitrary claim. According to your logic, even though a video game has all the elements that should prescribe them as something that holds artistic value, we should not consider it art? Picture this. Many modern video games actively recruit professional artists, illustrators, animators, voice actors, people with established credentials and reputations in their respective fields. These individuals often bring their skills and artistic vision to create immersive worlds, compelling narratives, and emotionally resonating experiences. Their work requires creativity, technical mastery, and artistic intuition, much like traditional art forms. However, let's challenge your main arguments for this debate. You agree with me that all of the elements, which include visual aesthetics, storytelling, emotional impact, creative expression, and artistic collaboration should hold artistic value. Should these elements be exclusive to traditional art? No, because many artistic mediums, film, theater, literature, also combine multiple elements to create a cohesive, expressive work. What is the basis for considering something art? I would believe that traditionally it is about its capacity to evoke emotion, provoke thought, and express human experiences. Is this capacity exclusive to non-interactive art? No. Both passive and interactive works can fulfill these functions. So if a work possesses visual beauty, emotional depth, and creative expression, regardless of medium or interaction, then it should be considered art. The medium or method of engagement, pressing buttons, watching a screen, or holding a brush, does not determine its artistic worth. Instead, its capacity to communicate meaning and invoke human response should be what qualifies it as art.