The problem here is that ine games industry misinterpreted the concept of "art" in videogames.
As the technical specs were improving on each generation we were witnesses of improvements on graphics and sounds for all games. But this turned out to be the origin of the confusion of what a game should have to be considered as art. Thanks to the "Movie Model" of game business that has been running till now, a game that is graphically impressive, with an awesome orchestrated soundtrack, an a storyline that would make <<post favorite writter here>> get jealous, is "artistic" and what does not meet this criteria is Common Rushed Abnormal Piece (CRAP). It is understandable cause the media is a bunch of idiots that are incompetent to analyze a game completely. They don't understand why games that are not blockbuster are getting so popular no matter the time and some that are blockbusters are being forgotten by time.
Before a Sony or Microsoft fanboy attack me, I don't mean that games on PS3 and Xbox360 are not artistic, because there are examples of true art in some of them (I won't tell which games). What I'm sayin is that gamers have been deceived from what art is.
| Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas |
From Wikipedia
If we can apply that to gaming, what does a game need to have in order to be considered art?
In my opinion it's related to two things: skill, passion and freedom
skill is not related to how vissually impressive a 2D/3D model is or how great it sounds on 5.1/7.1 surround or how well written is a story. No, skill is the ability to surpass obstacles or limitations in order to achieve the desired goal, and in order to surpass these obstacles, you need to be creative. When a game developer trully understands their limitations in what games can they make, they can work around them in order to deliver the experience to the player. you find more creativity in independent developers because they can't make a game like the "Big Companies" so rather than emulating them, they work in what they can do best. This is why many independent games show more skill of the developers than some big budget blockbusters. you see how they were able to get through their limitations in money and technology.
Passion can't be explained, but what can be said about it is that how much effort and dedication you see from the developerd in order to make the game that they see it's their masterpiece. When you play these games, you can feel that passion from the developer (not the emos from the games characters, that's not what I'm talking about) and the emotions that they want you to feel. When you play a game like Defend your Castle or Gormetry Wars, you can feel something that many big budget games don't have... is the passion. Many games are made in order to obtain money, not to deliver the experience to the gamer. I think of Miyamoto (Nintendo), Kojima(Metal Gear), Inafune(Mega Man, Lost Planet), Suda 51(K7, NMH), Mikami (Resident Evil) and IGA (Castlevania) to be developers with a lot of passion, and there are more (I can't remember all the names you know 
). Because in their games you can see it and feel it while you play, that passion to make a game.
Freedom is not about specs (the common belief that more powerful specs is more freedom is BS), is not about budget. Freedom is the free of pressures when they develop the game. When you have no time limit and no limits in what your boss or publisher tell you what the game "should" have. The possibilities are endless. Megaman 2 is more remembered because Inafune and developers had total freedom making it, and in result is the best Megaman ever created (Inafune-san admits it).
Combine all three and you have a game that is art, it could be a blockbuster or independent, big or low in budget. Super poligons or Flash animations
