As Brandon says, above, narratives can be art. And video games often have narratives.
But does this make these video games (the more artful ones) art?
I'd say that just because a creation incorporates art doesn't mean that it consequently becomes art.
To revisit Ayn Rand's definition: "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments."
Let's chew this definition a bit. Art is something created. Art is a specialized representation (hence, a re-creation) of reality. The style and content of the re-creation are determined by the artists views about the nature of life and the universe.
Let's try approaching this question based not on the idea that video-games include art, but that, quite independent of their inclusion of art, video games, as such, might actually meet the requirements of Ayn Rand's definition.
What is a video game?
A video game is a piece of software which presents some kind of challenge to the player, to be met by providing input to the software. Sometimes the video game presents a challenge which bears a striking resemblance to actual (if unusual) challenges in real life, such as "escape this room before you starve to death or are eaten by giant rats." Often, though, a video game presents an almost entirely abstract challenge: "Eat all the dots in the maze, and watch out for the ghosts unless you eat a power-pill first."
The game designer selectively creates a situation which the user is meant to deal with. Whether this situation is indeed a recreation of reality is, I think, somewhat questionable. Is an abstract fantasy world a re-creation of reality? If not, is it a lack of concrete details that makes it fail to reach this standard, or is it that the creation is of fantasy?
Is the world of The Lord Of The Rings a re-creation of reality? Is that book not art because it is fantasy? I won't argue one way or the other -- except to say that to create an abstract fantasy challenge doesn't necessarily disqualify a creation as art.
What's essentially new about a video game versus other visual arts is that it is meant to be played with, rather than simply observed and contemplated. It's as if someone gave you a wooden sculpture, but then said to you: "open it up and get the prize out." It might have been an artful sculpture, but as soon as you start fiddling with it, it's just a puzzle. It might have been art qua sculpture, but certainly not qua puzzle -- or is it?
Let's be as charitable as possible: can a puzzle be art? I, frankly, am a lover of puzzles, and of video games. But I must ask myself: why do I love them? And why do people feel so passionate about creating them? Why do video game creators long to see their visions created, and why do so many people love to go through the experiences which have been lovingly crafted by game creators?
Do game creators not have a similar passion to that of artists: to show the world a creation which fills the soul with pleasure and joy?
How can a puzzle (which video games, are, essentially) achieve this? What do puzzles say?
They say "You can succeed, if you invest enough time and try hard enough." If that's not a metaphysical value judgment, I don't know what is.
Every video game, of every kind, has this message at its heart. Every game creator wants to show the public a seemingly impossible challenge which is nonetheless possible for most people to master.
Video games give consumers, in neatly wrapped packages, the joy of achievement.
This alone -- this "you can do it" message -- quite apart (and even contrary) to any in-game narrative, is what makes video games an art form.
That said, video games can only communicate this one message. Imagine if a video game were to attempt to communicate: "you cannot succeed." Gamers would hate it unless it were meant as a short-form practical joke. If such a game were long-form, going on for hours only to give the player no payoff, it simply would not sell.
Given that, I believe that video games, as they exist today, are a subcategory of art which communicates a single message: "you can do it." They may incorporate narrative art, but they are not narrative art. They are interactive art -- a challenge; a puzzle.
They bring great joy to those who love them -- those who want to experience excitement without actual mortal danger or great financial expenditure -- those who want to be assured potential success, if in an imaginary realm.
This alone, and not any narrative, is what makes video games an art form, if, indeed, a limited one.
If one attempts to judge video games as a narrative works of art, generally they fail miserably, because the puzzle necessarily corrupts the narrative. The puzzle is the end; the narrative is only the means.
Video games must be judged on their own terms: Is it a good puzzle? Does the narrative do a good job motivating the puzzle? If so, it's a good game. If the puzzles are great, and the narrative does a great job motivating the puzzles, then the game is a great a work of art as a video game can be.
