What's so distinctive about KRZ it that, aside from all the other great things about it, it so fluently speaks the language of video games and confidently, appropriately leverages the conventions of its sub-genre, as compared with other "art games" like Gone Home (which I enjoyed, mind you!) that live in their medium only superficially.

Label either what you will, but IMO KRZ's among the best examples of what the properties of video games in particular can contribute to the expression and experience of art. Gone Home could be translated to an (admittedly elaborate and large) interactive art installation (think haunted house, but less haunted, or like an escape room but bigger) and I'm pretty sure it'd be better for it—the immersive nostalgia of Gone Home wants you to feel and smell it, IMO... but you can't. It doesn't even do any of the media-blending that something like Thirty Flights of Loving does that'd make it tough to subject it to this kind of transformation. On the other hand I have trouble imagining any similar removal from the video game medium for KRZ turning out well. I don't even know where you'd start, or what you might change it into without making it something else entirely, likely inferior.

Consider also many of the Twine games and their cousins, which could just as well be choose your own adventure books—the "game" part may matter, the "video" barely does. KRZ? It both must be a video game, and isn't middling-quality (but possibly fun!) genre fiction. Very few video games tick both those boxes.

GTA, populous, civilization, space invaders, street fighter II have so much echoed every where, even in museum through plastic art, dance, movies and street art, that is is ridiculous to ask ourself if it is art. It is.

But clearly, museum, artists and institution once more prove by the example how late they lag behind the popular culture and how much they crave for legitimacy.

Every time I see an artist in a museum I feel like visiting a tomb of a now fallen comrade that tried to escape institutions and finally got revered by it. Like the biggest sign of failure possible for any arts : being revered numbly by the idiots you tried to shake.

Any artists craving for oscar, medals, title, social recognition is aiming at failing to bear any disruptive messages towards our society, hence culture. Heralding loud to aim at no disruptions about our times is called plain propaganda.

Art has misplaced the debate over proficiencies required to bear a message and its technicality while the biographies of the artists seem to point out they cared more about expressing themselves.

Art is the very art to study the envelop instead of a message and to contradict by the very same study the nature of the message. Art as an academic study should be considered very close to a religion.

EDIT: And I consider that there should be no religions taught in universities or education systems. (Yes, psychology if it persevere in failing at having reproducible results should be considered from being banned to be taught, like some economic theories, or intelligent design).