[Grislygus]

Good in theory. Unfortunately, NO ONE, ANYWHERE, can agree on ONE SINGLE definition of art in a specific sense. The only real indicator is the unified and undisputed acceptance of art dealers, art critics, and the public at large. Michelangelo is art. Films, music and books are art. Video games are hotly debated and only considered "art" by a minority, and therefore are not art. Graffiti wasn't "real art" until it was accepted as such and became profitable. The international art world is a goddamn business, and the philosophy of it is secondary (in a practical sense). As soon as art dealers can rake in huge profits and a good rep through video games, it will become "art".

As far as useful definitions go, no one, not even art dealers, have ever paid attention to the shit they read in school (if they read anything at all), so everyone completely misses the fact that video games are an applied art, not a fine art, because no one can tell the difference (and whenever anyone talks about "art", they're usually talking fine art and the miscommunication leads to a shitfest)