Games as Art

I have just spent most of my evening playing through Braid which is a brilliant game both gameplay wise and visually. It is also one of the games that brings up the games as art argument. The problem I have is I am not an art fan and why should a game be art or aspire to be. Games are made as a form of entertainment but are essentially games I would much rather my game is built to be great to play rather than something arty.
So what is it for you do you appreciate art in a game while still wanting it to be gaming focused. Or do you want a game you can asses and break down to find out all the hidden meanings the developer has hidden?

I have just spent most of my evening playing through Braid which is a brilliant game both gameplay wise and visually. It is also one of the games that brings up the games as art argument. The problem I have is I am not an art fan and why should a game be art or aspire to be. Games are made as a form of entertainment but are essentially games I would much rather my game is built to be great to play rather than something arty.
So what is it for you do you appreciate art in a game while still wanting it to be gaming focused. Or do you want a game you can asses and break down to find out all the hidden meanings the developer has hidden?

I wrote a hypothesis for a timed write in English today too.

And games can be fun and artsy, like MGS 4. I'd say they're moving more towards dramatic movies than the Louvre.

There's no reason why a game can't be artistic and entertaining at the same time. In fact, that's what all entertainment strives to be. It wants to sell a bunch of copies to a wide audience, but it also strives for technical accomplishment and wants to be recognized for it.

I think the artsy nature of games comes not in the "let's pretend it's art" like braid but more so the "i can't wrap my head around this" stuff possible in games (parts of psychonauts come to mind)
But in reality, aren't lots of games narrative?  That's art.  Not to mention...you know, that graphics themselves.

The most artistic game this generation, although many would like to say it, is not Flower.  All flower is, is a floating petal with references to civilization vs. nature.
Nothing more.  Many games pull of a similar feat within a context of an actual story.  Being able to write a meaniful story is more important than writing a few lines that make you say "oh I get the point...since it was undetoned should I pretend the points stronger now...OF COURSE!"

Games aren't art.

Art is art.

Using games for art is art.

Good example, the Space Invaders display at last year's Leipzig.

Braid?

Has art in it.

But it as a game isn't art.

If one thing can be said about Braid, it is that it uses story telling in a way that can only be done in a game.

So, the ending.

But the rest of the game? Not art.

ugh, will somebody please end this never ending/pointless discussion already!

Let's not get into this.

Nothing can "prove" that games are art because there is no measuring stick for what is art. There has never been a definition of 'art', so how are we to line shit up in columns? Takahashi said that he had the idea for Katamari Damacy and thought it would be best realized as a video-game. So that's probably the 'artiest' of mainstream games, because the man who made it thought of it as an art piece and used video-games as  the medium for it.

But back to the point of my post; Art isn't defined, anything with depth can be art. stfu stfu stfu. shut up.