Robert McKee discusses the storytelling potential of video games, and helps to frame the “Game vs. Art” debate by delineating the key difference in the experience each aims to provide: the required activity or passivity of the audience.
 

 Bassim El-Wakil Weighs In on the Debate

The “Are Games Art?” debate is something that has been talked about for years as video games become more and more complex and financially successful.
 
But the debate is essentially down to people trying to legitimize games. The word “art” seems to mean to a lot of people, “an important, cultural artifact that gives meaning to the lives of people in society”. As such, people want to say that “X” is art so that it is now legitimate and respected in the eyes of society. And others, who are snobbish to games and sports, claim it’s an immature pursuit that one should grow out of and thus, it cannot truly be art. And this goes back and forth, all built around the fundamental problem of not knowing what art is.
 
Mr. McKee points out precisely why they’re not art, not by discussing the politics, nor the demographics, nor the histories of gaming, but by what it is to sit down and play one.
 
It’s such a cut through all the bullshit and I can’t be happy enough. There’s no snobbery. It’s just “Games are this” and “Art is this” and there’s no shame in being a game.
 
Chess isn’t art, but it is an important, cultural artifact that is timeless, and exquisitely designed. It is a better game than most artworks are art. The same can be said for many sports.
 
I hope this kind of thinking catches on; that art is not synonymous with quality, but an aesthetic experience and games offer a different, but wonderful experience. The desire for games to be “art” is the cause for a lot of problems in video games as they replace playing the game with poorly designed cut sequences.