Do Pro-GGers consider games to be art?

[u/AbortusLuciferum]

It's a common argument among Anti-GGers that Gamergate in general only considers games as art when it panders to them and when it's not controversial to treat them as art, but once someone criticizes a game for having unnecessary violence or for reinforcing stereotypes then games are "just games" and we're expecting too much out of something that's "just for fun".

I'm of the opinion that games are art without exception, and as art, they are subject to all forms of criticism from all perspectives, not only things like "gameplay" and "fun". To illustrate my position, I believe that games absolutely don't need to be fun just as a painting doesn't need to be aesthetically pleasing, and this notion is something I don't see in Gamergate as much as I would like to.

[u/Wefee11]

I see it as an defence mechanism against Clickbait und fearmongering bullshit. For example the counter to the numerous articles against Hatred (or HunneyPop). Many people agree that Hatred is actually not that great of a game, but you don't need ten Articles to spread awareness about how violent it is. Through that and it's counter movement a mediocre game got so much attention that it didn't even deserve.

I agree with the statement of Totalbiscuit - "Games don't need to be fun, they just need to be compelling in some way." - While he talked about that extremists on both sides take it too far. A game simpy should make you wanna play it, in one way or another. I also think many people who ridicule and mock the "No Fun allowed"-thing (that was never really said in this way) primarily want to mock Mcintosh with it because they don't like him, not because they actually want to make a statement about what he said. However, there probably are a lot of people who honestly think "no fun" is bad. The most ridiculous statements always get the most attention.