But have people ever accepted/considered video games to be an artform? That I’m not sure about. They had a big stigma before the monetization got so bad and by the time they became more mainstream, they were at the peak of some of their worst elements for the computerized medium.

We’re very much on the same wavelength here. I think games are materially and inherently artistic projects, but are overwhelmingly produced in a way that’s more adjacent to toys. Problem is the latter is much more profitable than the former. Games with addictive gameloops are much more valued by developers and publishers than a game that uses its mechanics to deliver a message.

It’s such a sorry state of affairs that I think games as art are the exception, and not the norm. Games can clearly be art in how they use mechanics to make you feel something, or say something about the human condition - see DayZ, Lisa, Undertale, Pathologic, etc. These games subvert mechanical expectation and force the player to feel something other than fun/challenge.

But those four games are what came to the top of my head, and I don’t believe the list of ‘mechanic as the message’ games extends more than a few dozen. The market is otherwise made up of pure toys (Fortnite, Call of Duty, etc) or games that carry the aesthetic of art but use nothing from the medium to extend its message (Last of Us, Telltale games, most AAA ‘cinematic’ experiences). These games can easily be movies and the impact is the exact same. In the case of Last of Us, this is provably true.

So, like, no, games aren’t really considered art, are they? They clearly can be art, they have been art, and they have amazing ways to impact us, but the productive forces behind this entire artform are not interested in that. They’re exclusively interested in the money they can extract from younger audiences. Such is capitalism, right?