The fallacy of video games vs. the world

I really wish that people who want video games accepted as an art medium think the only way to do it is prove that all other media is inferior. Ranking media is really irrelevant; people get their feathers ruffled by "what is art" and the high/low art concept when really they should be focusing on serious analysis of their medium of choice. Instead of arguing what makes video games better than traditional media, gamers should be discussing what makes video games unique from traditional media. The tactile (or I guess simulated tactile) immersion of the player into a world and character through interactivity is what should be discussed; how do the best of games use this in artful and innovative ways?

Instead I feel like gamers try and prove that video games are the only true medium, and seem intent on dismissing any other medium if it doesn't have interactivity, as the picture below from this cracked article unfortunately illustrates.

There's nothing wrong with having a preferred medium, but I feel like the "reactions" to the novel and film are being willfully obtuse. It's this weird thing where gamers want video games to be taken seriously and analyzed like other media, but seem to refuse to take part in contemplating and analyzing anything else. Critical thinking and analysis skills can and should be applied to every medium, and understanding the complexities in one medium makes you more sensitive to those of another. This is especially important because new media builds off of old ones; painting builds off of illustration, photography builds off of painting, film builds off of photography. An understanding of the earlier medium helps to intelligently discuss the later one as well. The call for games to be taken seriously is completely undermined by the refusal to take any other media seriously. How can you truly have a conversation about art if you refuse to respect any media besides your own? The reasoning behind the demands for respectful analysis show disdain for the very analysis these gamers crave; it is hard to respect a request to be open minded from a close minded person.

I think this happened because the first real discussion regarding games and art wasn't a real discussion, but an angry and defensive rebuttal to Roger Ebert's declaration that video games weren't and could never be art. (He later recanted this statement, by the way.) It was an aggressive debate instead of thoughtful analysis and discussion, and the conversation hasn't evolved much from that. Personally, I think the whole "can X be art" question is sensationalist and irrelevant; of course the video game medium can produce art. The question is how to discover and discuss those games that are truly special and how they use interactivity in an innovative fashion. Really, the first step to convince others to think of video games with the same critical and academic analysis that they do with other media is to critically and academically analyze video games, the medium, and understand critical and academic analysis itself.