If you need critical analysis to accept that games can be art there's a lot of stuff out there. For instance a list of academic journals in the field https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=282989&p=4172214

Here's a book that accompanied an exhibition in 1993 that discusses the relationship between art and games (German, sorry) https://boerverlag.de/SPIELE.html

From the article: "Because the essence of a video game, which makes it more than a low-quality animated movie, is that it is interactive and requires the player to enact the plot. It transforms the player’s mind."

Arguably, as others in this thread have said, all other art forms are transformative in the same way. As far as definitions go this is pretty much essential to any art (opposed to, say, the intentions of the artist as we kind of agree that an artist can create art even if they don't intend to).

If the bar for something being art is that it transforms the mind, it's an incredibly low bar for games. Any game, which is not ridiculously easy, forces the player the learn the controls and the rules of the game (otherwise the player can't progress). The more original the controls and the gameplay is (to the player), the more learning has to happen. For someone disagreeing with this, try watching someone play a first-person shooter for the first time in their life, and then compare it to someone who has been playing Counter-Strike for years. If the resulting difference in skill is not a result of the game transforming the brains of the player, then what is it?