There's a lot of debate to be had over the difference between "low" and "high" art in any medium, regardless of what that medium is. Broadly speaking, I think the difference is conceptualised as "low art aims to entertain, not challenge; high art aims to challenge, not entertain". Or to put it another way "it can't be art if it's fun". (Here I'm using 'entertain' and 'fun' very broadly and loosely, though) It's this attitude that I think operates behind most of the "games can't be art" movement.
But the problem with the poll is that I don't think it's any of those things. Those are all components of a game, sure, but it's like asking which vowels you should use to make a novel literature as opposed to pulp. It's not what components you use; I'd argue that even the technical skill of the creator is a secondary factor. It's why you use it that's primary.
I think art has to do with the creator's intent in making the product, whatever that product is. There's also what I consider the fact that art-dom isn't really something you achieve yourself by the mere act of creation; it's something that has to be conferred on you by other people. Others must point at you and say "yes, that is art. You have done an art." But I'm digressing...
If the creator has a philosophy in mind, a point they're trying to make, a goal they feel that can only be achieved through this particular expression, a emotion or a concept they're exploring because they feel it's important - then what comes out is more likely to be art, because what they'll create is something they have thought through, invested in, taken chances on and really believe in.
If the creator is making something because market figures show that this is the sort of thing people buy nowadays, the result is less likely to be art. Because it's going to be the same thing as everything else - by design - and no matter how shiny you make it, that wont make it art.
For example, which would you say is more artistic a game: Limbo or Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare?
Limbo was designed with a clear emotional 'goal', that of loneliness and dread. Call of Duty was designed because first person shooters mean the publisher can buy out more indie studios. I have no doubt that CoD is more competent and complex in terms of graphical design, mechanics, programming etc - and you could probably even argue it's more 'fun'. But it's not art.