I would say that in the instances where a game is art, what makes it so is that it functions the same way art does- it has the same effect art has. This is by no means an airtight, rigorous, or complete definition. But it's a working one.
>every artist has an intended way of experiencing their art piece and that is an inherent part of its presentation
Do you not think game developers have a similar outlook? Generally, game mechanics are designed with a specific use and implementation in mind.
>You can find cinephiles arguing that watching movies at home televisions is the wrong way of experiencing them (and also that it's ruining the art form) because the presentation is not consistent.
Ditto; some people take this as far as debating the correct framerate for games, the best kind of screens, in the case of games with multipile releases whichever one is best, etc.
>Game play goes entirely against that sort of presentation
How? Because it's easier to do? There are plenty of ways with other mediums to willingly engage the media in a manner contrary to how the creators intended.
>video games that try to give a very particular presentation of something (because they're trying to be cinematic) take control from you as a player by limiting game play or interactivity.
Does this detract from the overall experience though, as a rule? Linearity is a criticism that is levied against some games, but if you look at any number of lists for the best or most loved or whatever games, you'll find plenty of linear ones on that list with very limited choices for the player. This would be a stronger point if I agreed that control singularly defined games as an artform