but as we went from squares and pixels after the Atari and NES
This was a pretty interesting period for art too, to be honest. For example when music first got implemented into music, they were so heavily restricted on what they could do, even as 8-bit music came in, they only had four voices to work with, including melody, harmony and rhythm. That kind of forced limitation demands creativity and we ultimately got some extremely catchy yet musically complex compositions - a complexity which took advantage of human psychology by implying certain musical elements heavily enough that they needn't be actually present.
"Let Me Solo Her"
Haha I remember seeing that only after I finished the game. I annoyingly didn't want to fight her and win because I felt I was too over leveled so if I did beat her easily, it would have been wholly unsatisfying. I beat the first part fairly easily and my friend who defeated her said that was the harder part so... I quit out and just finished the game, thinking second playthrough would level the field a bit if I just didn't level anymore.
Then I saw those Let Me Solo Her videos and realised I could have just unequipped shit if I wanted a challenge haha... but I could never go to such lengths.
I suppose that's another thing about art. Any decent art reached beyond just being art: What does art do for us? Gives us a sense of appreciation for a talent, creates a community, debate and controversy. More often than not, it goes political. Games more often than not checks all these boxes, too!
RE: Are Games 'Art'?