Experience/impression/perception/interpretation. No matter how many different words you label it by - unless you propose some testable/falsifiable consequences that one expects to observe from the distinction that you've drawn then it's just equivocation.
I have? What have I learned about reality by conceptualising it as a video game? How is that conception different than calling it 'real' or 'illusionary'.
It's just more equivocation, not knowledge.
OK. lets go with that assumption. It's testable. Go ahead and make an absolute claim. By giving you counter-examples to your "absolute" claim - I will demonstrate it to be probabilistic.