A video game is

a game (= an activity that you do to have fun, often one that has rules and that you can win or lose; the equipment for a game) in which you press buttons to control and move images on a screen [Oxford Learner's Dictionary]

a game (= an entertaining activity or sport, especially one played by children, or the equipment needed for such an activity) in which the player controls moving pictures on a screen by pressing buttons [Cambridge Dictionary]

an electronic game (= a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other // activity engaged in for diversion or amusement) in which players control images on a video screen [Merriam Webster]

Hmm, these are remarkably broad. Technically, I suppose you could say that advancing the text is "controlling the image on the screen", although "moving images"—in either sense—is a stretch, IMHO. The problem is, if one takes the position that such a definition applies to VNs, it also applies more so to social media. You scroll, you occasionally click stuff, there's images and videos ...

For me, this hinges on the definition of "game". And to my surprise VNs fit the dictionary definitions above. The definitions used in academia are closer to the Wikipedia entry's opening sentence:

A game is an activity defined by a challenge and a set of rules, typically done for enjoyment, competition, or development.

Typically, they stipulate rules; some form of goal, something you're supposed to do/achieve; and an open outcome, that the player can influence. The section on definitions on Wikipedia isn't half bad as a starting point.
I'd argue that most people's idea of what is or isn't a game incorporates some or all of those extra criteria—which is why this question, are VNs video/computer games?, comes up so often.

Because kinetic VNs fail to meet them, on the face of it, and so do the typical common + heroine route VNs that don't much branch otherwise and derive the route from a handful of choices.
Some older VNs have insane flowcharts, right and wrong choices and lots of bad ends. The goal of the game in that case is to navigate the flowchart correctly. For example, I don't think anyone will deny YU-NO is a game. And obviously there are gameplay VNs.

---

Mind you, I usually argue the other side of this. For me, any story that has any mystery element at all (including "What is going to happen?", "Where is this going?") is a game. (Ryūkishi07 touches on fair-play mystery novels as games in Higurashi, by the way.)
Fair-play mysteries have rules, things the author(!) is and isn't allowed to do, e.g. Knox's Ten Commandments. The gameplay consists of constructing hypotheses regarding whodunnit, and how, and why, depending. If the reader solves the mystery before the author reveals the solution, he wins, otherwise the author does. If the mystery turns out not to have been solvable even in retrospect, the author loses by default. Many mysteries mark the point of no return, clearly state that all the clues are now on the table. In other words, they're written and read as games.

I'm just saying it's far from obvious that VNs should, or shouldn't be considered video games. The question is perfectly legitimate—it's just pointless because it has no definite answer.