Personally, I think the biggest mistake everyone&#x27;s making when it comes to video game and art (and which is being made in this article) is that &#x27;art&#x27; is somehow only a thing when it&#x27;s the one goal of a work&#x27;s production.  That somehow, only more obscure games made to be &#x27;artistic&#x27; can be &#x27;art&#x27;.<p>Do these people somehow think Shakespeare made his works to be studied or admired rather than enjoyed by general audiences?  That works by people like Charles Dickens and Jane Austen were made to be studied in literature class?<p>But that&#x27;s not true.  A lot of games are &#x27;art&#x27;.  They&#x27;re not intended to be such (or have that as their only motivation for existing), but they show the same kind of meaning and quality of design and what not as any artistic indie game you can think of.  For example, a lot of people would say games ranging from Super Mario Bros to Psychonauts to Half Life to the Legend of Zelda Majora&#x27;s Mask are &#x27;art&#x27;, but none of them were made specifically to be as such.<p>Games are already art, they&#x27;re just not marketed as such.