I did mean description. I said description since the plot in a game is a plot. It may be a bad plot or a good plot but it is still the plot. I should've said imagery, since it summarises my point better. A book without wild images to construct the author's intentions into the readers head is a boring narration. The same with a game with bad gameplay; it's just boring.

I must disagree with the statement that art needs to be primarily about aesthetic. Art is not solely aesthetic and cannot ever be called that. The art of Dada has no pleasant aesthetic imagery and if it did then it would be to lull the observer into a false sense of appreciation only to hit them with the real message, which is what art is about: A message. All art is to tell the observer something through a subtle guise. Whether it be abstract painting or a still life structure the purpose is always to tell the observer something about the piece or the world. The pleasing aesthetic is merely a side-effect of the message usually being to flatter a monarch in their portrait. Art cannot be generalised to "aesthetically pleasing" but must be accepted as a massive concept able to engulf almost any form of media.

I think this is the point where the argument depends on one's definition of art. In which case I would have to direct you to a game that I would consider art. Undertale is a 2015 game which uses graphics from early nintendo games and explores dark themes beneath innocent gameplay. I would call this game art and highly recommend it to anyone who would say video games cannot be art (not to generalise that as your opinion).

"A dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight, and his punishment is that he sees the dawn before the rest of the world." - Oscar Wilde

I saw your Wilde and I counter with this. The quote presents the concept of the dreamer who can only find his way by the light if the moon. He attempts to convey the dreamer's hopefulness as a mystical presence like the moon. The punishment, however, is that he must face reality and look at the dawn which he cannot overcome. The dreamers and the hopeful are nothing towards the system we have constructed for ourselves. A sad truth in all honesty.

I feel like your argument looks over the fact that video games aren't absent of story, characters and their development, plot and strong themes that are covered in other media considered "art". Of course in a sandbox game such as Minecraft one cannot say there is lore or a story but the core aesthetic of the game is enough. Art may need a meaning but the meaning does not need to be as profound or jarring as some Dadaist sculpture piece. An example are the cards you describe as being aesthetically pleasing; you describe them as meaningless and as merely a tool to play games. I correct you since the original designs of the playing cards are used to show their worth. With a standard 52 card deck the only cards of matter in this argument are the picture cards: Jack, Queen, King. Each suit of Jack, Queen and King have their unique design. The King of Hearts is my favourite due to the placement of the sword towards his head. I interpret the King of Hearts as Pascal's king with everything such that he has become nothing. It is a beautiful image to me and so constitutes "art". Each King, Queen and Jack has their own uniqueness to them and so I do not feel you can justify calling them anything but "art". As for video games, the story is a book and the gameplay is the description. A book with poor description is barely a book. A game with poor gameplay is a bad game. In sandboxes the gameplay is the selling point and uniqueness that the playing cards held. Why play a game like Terraria when Minecraft exists? Because they take advantage of their artistic differences and appeal to different people. There is no objective "better game" out of the two since both have an equal quality in gameplay even though they are so different.