"If an enemy explodes in a forest and the camera is not pointing in that direction, did the game render it?"

...
No wait, that doesn't sound quite right.

If you're carrying an handgun and head shot the enemy, how can you clap and cheer when you've only got one hand free?

Cookie for you.

I'm not referencing where they're being made--I'm referencing one of many cases of corporate greed that you're all likely familiar with. Money is all that drives the gaming industry. If developers aren't making enough profit they will not keep making games. On the other hand even without money artists will still make art.

Hi I'm the skip button. Please use me to skip an unnecessary debate.

PLEASE! PLEASE! I BEG YOU!

Although one could poke a hole in this theory by stating about other media, I would imagine if Nintendo's stance is that they make products, as opposed to art, (it) is b/c they would inevitably have their fans tell them to make such, & such a game, even down to particulars possibly, on the basis of telling Nintendo that if the product/game doesn't sell well, that that wasn't Nintendo's goal for the game to begin with. Nintendo's stance of their games as products, could be interpruted as terminology(specifically, a play on words so to speak) to primarily keep the shareholders happy; don't ever let them(the shareholders) think Nintendo is all about making art, as opposed to profit. But, what I originally mentioned above could be a secondary reason.

Again, both reasons could be debated into nothing, or near-nothing. I'm just guessing.

For some reason I spend way too much time thinking about games as art, and I recently reread Roge Ebert's thoughts on the matter. Combining his attempts to define art with my desire to exclude Angry Birds and Call of Duty from my personal definition, I came up with something along the lines of "art is a work that helps learn more about myself, reveals a universal truth about the human experience, and/or has a lasting improvement on my quality of life."

I know this is a terrible definition that I'm writing for the first time at midnight, but you have to start somewhere. Anyway, I like the idea of a very exclusive definition, not just to exclude games I think are meaningless, but also to exclude games that are my favorites solely because they're really fun.

Currently. Little Inferno and BIT.TRIP FLUX are the only two games I've decided are art (and the latter can be fully appreciated only by someone who's played the other five games in the series, which is admittedly a huge caveat). I picked them because I can identify the humanity-based themes I believe they epitomize, (moving forward and letting go, respectively). Portal is approaching art under my definition, in case anyone is curious.

Really sorry of this is the wrong place, but it's helped me to write all of this out.

The only games that I would ever consider art are the ones with meaning and purpose i.e. Metal Gear Solid and Journey.

That's...kind-of disappointing, especially from someone who helped birth some of the most creative games series of all time. Then again, I would assume that Miyamoto's comments are based on Japanese philosophical and ideological understandings and thus his definition of art may be different than what it is perceived to be in the Eastern world.

Oh yeah I should mention MGS3 approaches art for me as well.

And yes, that's still the only MGS game I've played.

Mr. Miyamoto is just being humble. It all comes down to what you think is "art."

Walt Disney created Disneyland for children, yet look at how many adults love it. George Lucas made [the first] Star Wars originally as a homage to classic Flash Gordon serials that adults back in the day remembered, look at how many kids loved it way back; not to mention nowadays.

Your first Metal Gear Solid, eh? Allhopeisgone.