But is it Art?

Gamers like to talk—or argue—about graphics, frame rates, physics, hours of play time, item variety, models, textures, downloadable content and microtransactions, and so on. There is a reason the Glorious PC Master Race and the Console Wars are memes. If games are art, if it's a grown up medium, why do we fuss about trivialities so much? You don't debate high literature by critiquing the paper stock or chapter length.

Well because production values are important for immersion. Details and performance really matter. However when we treat games just as mechanical live pictures, we're missing the point entirely. It's confusing form with function. In The Dark Knight, Heath Ledger's Joker should look the part, but he'll be 10x scarier and more interesting once you understand how he operates and thinks. This seems obvious in film, yet not in gaming.

Even "artistic games" like Dear Esther are often criticized for superficial mechanics (or lack thereof), not for what they set out to do. The question isn't whether Dear Esther is just a walking simulator. It's whether it's anywhere near as engaging as walking around a real place, like a park or a museum. If it fails, it's not because there aren't any puzzles. The Anne Frank House in Amsterdam does not require puzzles. It does have a secret passage but the only achievement you get for finding it is sadness.

…

Yup, that awkward pause is where the "gaming as a serious medium" debate usually hangs, and it leaves the conversation severely deadlocked. Trying to add gamified elements for the heck of it, to make a gamier game, rings hollow and does not get us any closer to credibility.