In Game Theory (Which me, like so many others didn't realize at first it was a branch of mathematics that ties numerical values to interactions to weigh decision making in agents) not all games are zero-sum or competition (like the Prisoner's dilemma) so I'm open as to what could be a game in terms of choice. Bioshock does have strategy but was sidelined for being linear (The developers did respond saying it was hard enough to get one decent-enough plot never mind adding in more) part of the game was how the player didn't have a choice. Similar to art games like 'You only have one day' where your choices was limited (and unfulfilling) but there was options for strategy that affects the ending. Regarding interactive aesthetics, I remember years ago when someone called minecraft an art game (which isn't quite the same as the genre that's popped up) and Red Faction, did employ interactive environments throughout there franchise. I just want to throw a few shots out there the lines are more blurred.

I think it is good they're blurred otherwise it'll be really self-limiting if all art games had to be was be interactive with off-beat graffiks and the other pieces that come with it; like indie, being one person just making it. I'd prefer collaborating, yet I've never finished a game I've worked on and to upload it (following the same 'blurred constraints') it's something I could see with negative feedback; someone's just starting out and gets a few bad reviews and realize 'this isn't for me, I don't want to be the next Phil Fish.' and we end up losing people who could've progressed onto other games. Just from the problem you've described of people's exceptions of "What a game should be".