If anyone has listened to the nintendo pirate radio, they probably heard the discussion about whether or not all video games are art. They decided the answer was yes, noting the being art did not mean good art.
One of the points that popped up was that art is one of the most debatable things in our society. It's value is truly in the eye of the beholder. They focused on movies quite a bit and noted how viewer and critics often debate on whether a movie is good. Few are deemed all good or all bad by everyone (though this can happen). This is a property of art, however, with video games, it is not so. Few games are questioned by the majority of critics (though there are some). I find the the majority of games are considered good, bad or mediocre my most people i.e. Final Fantasy's are good, Superman 64, not so much. To prove this, you can look at rottentomatoes.com and see the scores for movies and games. Movies are usually pretty diverse with thumbs up and down, while it is not odd for games to be 100 percent good or bad. Note: I am mostly talking about critics, many a child or someone new to movies/games has loved a bad game or bad movie (3 Ninjas!!)
This, to me, takes away something special. Because they are games (instead of art?), it is easy to say whether it is good or bad. a game has set criteria to fill and anyone with a little taste in games can tell the difference. Or maybe, it is just easier to be a good game critic. What is your view?