Personally, I still think a game itself is not art, but every single aspect within it can be, and are in many cases. I'd still say the final judgement whether a product is art or not lies in the mindset of the creator. If someone decides to create a game in order to win popularity and TEH CA$H (look at anything with an EA Sports tag on it), I wouldn't want to call it art. If someone creates something out of an awesome surge of ingenious creativity, that comes off with the sole purpose of being playable (Tetris, Pac Man, Asteroids?), then that's just entertainment also. But some games exist to tell a deep story or to affect the player in various ways. If the goal is to affect emotionally, then it's possibly art. I'm thinking of things like Silent Hill, Halo (yes, Halo, you heard me), Jet Set Radio (obviously art), and such things.
I guess I chose those examples because, way back in the day, there was no way to produce art in the form of a game. It had to be entertainment, or for the sake of money. But nowdays computers are powerful enough to allow expressing yourself through interactive media. Hm, this is a complex topic... I could sit around and write down thoughts on this for hours, I suspect...
I think my opinion boils down to my interpretation of the game, and what I believe was the aim of the designers... Or, wait, what am I saying?! I don't think games are art! Period!