For me, art is at least partly defined by the main motivations behind it
Posted by Pugeye on February 3, 2018, 11:07 am, in reply to "The really great video games"
Though modern video games do tell stories, that's not their main purpose- they're games. I'm sure these days you could basically record someone going through an entire video game from start to finish and if you showed it to someone who wasn't familiar with the game, they'd think it was a CGI film. Similarly, if a group of people playing that party game "Murder" were filmed or if they performed, it in front of an audience, it could pass as a movie or play. But in its original form, it's a game. You could say the same about shit like Dungeons & Dragons or a Civil War re-enactment or any other role playing thing (mainly ones where there's an actual storyline rather than everyone just improvising in character). The only real difference with video games is you're using an avatar and you're in a virtual world. And again, I can see how the the design of said characters and worlds can be appreciated from an aesthetic point of view but don't think that alone necessarily makes video games qualify as art.
When intent becomes irrelevant, then you basically start heading into- "Hey this can of Vanilla Coke is art" territory, which I don't really subscribe to. But that's ok- art is a term that should be personal IMO. It may sound corny and I preface by saying I wasn't raised with religion and don't have much of a spiritual side, but an objective definition of "art" seems like an objective definition of the word "God". Yes, of course in both cases there's a universally acknowledged definition but at the same time, they're very personal terms to a lot of people with a lot of room for interpretation.