[@Vilageidiotx]

I'd venture to iterate that fine-art is really any sort of artistic accomplishment that has a long standing symbolic and cultural weight to it. Some quality that makes it persist as a relevant feature far and beyond the period when it was contemporary; while other relative pieces may not be so much because they're not as relevant anymore.

Mona Lisa has a certain degree of immortality for the mysterious legacy it offers. The Statue of Liberty its own for symbolizing the revolutionary principles of liberty and in America as the symbolic representation of the immigrant peoples that make up all the people of the US. And so on.

By this standard video games aren't nearly old enough for us to have weeded up the culturally specific to their period or the period inclusive and long-reaching symbolic importance that'd be required to achieve creative immortality. Not even the earliest games like Pong have reached that point, but I feel when anthropologists look back at video-games they might disregard Pong as the sort of generic clay pot to what might be perceived as the marble sculptures of Rome that could be the present and matured titles (in that they have realized an awareness as a story medium, taking on a production scale and vision akin to putting on Shakespeare's Caesar or Romeo Juliet, or Citizen Kane among all together more sophisticated means).

Pong might still be important, or Pac Man. But as something that's looked as the necessary stepping stones of creation as making a clay vase in Greece as a precursor to the Parthenon.