Classifying games as art has always been a one way ticket to retardville.
I mean you think John Romero was mentally masturbating over himself being considered the Davinci of video games while Doom was being made? Thinking every enemy placement was precious and every rough texture a masterwork in of itself?
Games have to be tested and be proven functional. Every other form of media does not really require this step and games will have stuff always altered and changed along the way because you're almost always dealing with a large team of people by every other standard who all have their own opinions. Like you think you need 16 people to author a book, that would be considered a lot.
I mean check out the ending
https://youtube.com/watch?v=MZlm2K66iCsSomeone call Martin Scorsese and tell him to take a hike, a wall of fucking text and a dead rabbit. Yes that's what solidified Doom the grand daddy of all FPS games.
The whole GAMES R ART argument came decades later after shit was already established. The whole art aspect is so people can remove the technical aspects of games and make them more approachable, but that's how you get your Neil Druckmans and David Cages because at that point you've reduced to games as just another form of moving pictures(and I'm not talking about Rush).
If you need games to be art that just shows you have a low opinion of what games already are.