Well, bgc, I think the issue here is the "high" or "fine" art distinction, like Leah mentioned. And Evilhead already addressed your "art" vs. "product" rant.
Anyway, I've been thinking...a lot of people have cited Ico and Okami as "art" games, and I tend to agree, but I have to ask...what exactly makes them art? Sure, they have very pretty and stylized graphics, but that's purely the visual aspect. What about the other elements? Ico's gameplay is nothing revolutionary...you solve puzzles and fight things with a stick. And Okami? If you take away the cel-shading, what's left? Would people still call it art?
It makes you wonder, is a game artistic value entirely dependent on the style and quality of its visual presentation? If you slapped cubist graphics on Super Mario Bros., would it be hailed by reviewers as avant-garde and innovative? "Boundish" for the GBA is nothing but a stylized version of "Pong" but a lot of people would call it an art game.
As for MGS2...it's an excellent game, but if it were made into an actual film, I'll bet you that not one serious moviegoer would even mention the word "art" in a review. If you ignore the fact that it's a video game, it's just another cheesy action movie with a lot of unnecessary extra twists.