Are Video Games Art? No

So, recently (maybe due to the Mass Effect 3 fallout) i have seen an influx in people claiming that video games are art. 

i take exception to the theory that video games are art.  To be fair, i don't consider anything that is mass marketed / mass distributed to be art.  That means that movies, video games, books, music, etc are not art - at least in my view.    


The concept of "artistic integrity"... i have seen that being used excessively lately.  For example, the argument that Mass Effect shouldn't change its ending because that would infringe on their artistic integrity.  This argument already fails for me becuase i do not view mass market products as art.  The point is not to set up this "artistic" (read horrible) story/ending to use as an excuse for some last second deadline beating "decision".  The point of the mass marketed game should be to please the customer (or at least have a pleasing alternative possible).  

Even some of the long held "art" is kind of questionable. Many of the famous paintings/sculptures/etc you see were of the commissioned by patrons. Therefore, the artist was working off of a pre-provided framework with stated ending goals.  Very little "artistic" work is static in the creation stage.  If the formation of art is not a static process, how can you claim artistic integrity exists? 

There is a clear distinction in my mind between creative intent and artistic integrity (which actually doesn't exist in any medium).  Video games fall in the camp of creative intent - ie. what the developer/publisher wanted the story to be. Creative intent is basically the framework of how the "story" is set and plays out.  Mass Effect (as a series), in particular, seemed to lose the original creative intent.  Maybe that is why the first and second games feel so disconnected to me.  Movies deal with creative intent all of the time (maybe that is why DVDs have alternate endings and deleted scenes).   Movies are frequently changed by focus testing and studio demands.  Video games are emerging to be similar.  If a video game were to have "artistic integrity" it would have to be consistent and unchanging from the beginning. 

Although history provides counter examples (like the Sistene Chapel), i view art as static and unchanging.  So, basically that would be painting and sculptures. 

Video games further distance themselves as they can be easily modified/changed (and typically are).  Video games (especially in this era) are deluged by patches, DLC, etc.  How come these after-market changes are not widely considered as going against "artistic integrity."