A recent discussion of the hatred surrounding popular games, such as Modern Warfare 2, raised an interesting dilemma that has concerned me a bit over the years.  Games face the unique problem of popularity dictating quality and content, leaving little room for taste.  The rising cost of game development, paired with the rapid technological advancement, castrates creative experimentation.  High-quality games pretty much ignore narrative innovation and niche appeal.
 
Compare this with film.  While there is a wide range of film budgets, cutting through the bullshit leaves it quite possible to make a technically great film for a fairly small amount of money.  Because of this, we have films that cater to just about every niche imaginable.  Cannibal Holocaust, Tromeo & Juliet,Slaughtered Vomit Dolls, Satanico Pandemonium, the Ilsa series...There are many examples of films that can be successful without appealing to the masses.  People can develop and refine their tastes; many of us have done so to the point that we just don't give a shit about the latest blockbuster.  There are films that can give us the same quality of experience for very specific subject matter.  There are movies aiming to be liked by millions, but there are also movies aiming to be loved by thousands.
 
The gaming industry, however, does not do this.  If you want top-notch technical fidelity, you're stuck with the big-budget, artistically neutered AAA titles geared toward the masses.  There's very little in the way of intellectually challenging themes, transgressive narrative, or artistic exploration going on in top-tier gaming.  There are certainly games that attempt these things, but they tend to be low-budget affairs with little technical prowess.  These games are great, but by no means are they a comparative experience.  
 
Uncharted 2 is a great example.  It has solid gameplay and features some great storytelling.  The story told, however, is white-bread bullshit, devoid of meaning, that wallows in mediocrity.  How great would it be if a game on that level didn't have to play it safe?  
 
The practical side of the gaming industry is preventing true artistic freedom in any competitive sense.  Unlike other mediums, high-budgets are necessary for technical quality in gaming.  As such, games must have mass appeal to turn a profit.  Anything of quality is so rigorously market-tested and tweaked to the point that anything deep, transgressive, experimental, or bizarre is weeded out.  I can't blame the industry, but it's a problem that needs to be addressed if games are to be taken seriously as an artistic medium.

It seems that the new chic among lazy and inarticulate gamers is to denounce criticism of popular games by saying that people only pretend to dislike them to look cool by hating the popular.
 
Bullshit.
 
People have different tastes and nothing will please everybody.  The reason that popular games receive more bashing is two-fold and quite easy to see.  As more people become familiar with the game, more people will dislike the game.  Additionally, high-profile games tend to have such media saturation that their critics are inundated to the point that they're more likely to say something.
 
How so many people can be too stupid to realize such a simple fact is beyond me.  The charge that critics are only trying to be cool has quite a holier-than-thou ring to it, and is virtually never true.  Sure, there will always be people in a forum who just say something to get a rise, but to automatically assume that everyone who hates a game falls in this very small minority is absurd in the highest order.
 
I tied this post to Modern Warfare 2 because this game's discussion seems to exemplify this problem in spades.  There is a lot of valid criticism for the game, and plenty of room to genuinely hate it.  If you can't understand this and come up with a reasonable argument or reply, why bother replying with this trite, intellectually void charge? 

The FCC is about to begin an inquiry into the possibility of a singular ratings system that would apply to television, game, and phone media. 
 
I've seen some discussion of this among gamers, and most of them do not seem to understand the problems that this would present.  While a single system might have an ostensible charm, allowing the FCC to continually overstep its bounds would be an egregious error.  Personally, I think the FCC has no business regulating content at all (they should stick to licensing).  Their penchant for meddling with what we're allowed to see on broadcast television, though, has a fair amount of legal precedent.  Do we really want to allow precedent for even more involvement?
 
On the other end of the spectrum, many are decrying censorship, game banning, and other such far-fetched ideas.  In all likelihood, such a system would operate much like the TV ratings (i.e. voluntary and determined by the networks themselves).  What this would probably mean for the game industry is a standardized system of ratings that carry no legal weight whatsoever and a likelihood of mandated parental controls for hardware.  The ratings could potentially be selected by the publishers, but would most likely be utilized by the ESRB.  
 
It is remotely possible that the commission would entertain an enforced ratings system, but such an idea would never fly and shouldn't be a major concern. 
 
Content rating has numerous flaws as-is (namely the absurd tolerance for "death-ratings"), however they have one strength that should be protected vigorously - independence.  Consoles already have parental controls in response to market pressure.  The demands of the people are being reasonably met, and there is no reason to tolerate a government entity clumsily crashing a working system.

The recent announcement of a new game from Jonathan Blow brings up something that I find rather bothersome.  He insists (as do many gamers) that his work is philosophical.  This claim, as is applied to games like Braid and Bioshock is horse-shit.
 
What was the philosophy in Braid?  Pretentiously ambiguous drivel?  Convolution for its own sake?  Ham-fisted, self-ascribed significance?  Do people who use this description even have a rudimentary understanding of what it means?  It seems to me that gamers use the "philosophical" label anytime something arises with more depth than Peggle in hopes that it will be taken more seriously.
 
In spite of Blow's self-aggrandizing take on his work, and the monumental pretension that surrounds it, Braid was a great game.  It had a solid atmosphere and an interesting approach to storytelling (hackneyed, but certainly interesting).  But does this amount to philosophy?  
 
Another game that regularly gets praised through the misapplication of this label is Bioshock.  The collective hard-on of gamers over the story is, at least to me, rather embarassing for our culture.  It was a fun game and little more.  The story was crap.  Granted, the storytelling was spot-on, but is there really anything impressive about a standard and predictable dystopia?  Is our culture so bankrupt that something this lacking in any originality qualifies as brilliance?  Defenders often cite the Randian influence throughout the game.  Aside from the fact that Rand was a poor excuse for a philosopher and never said anything remotely original, I've yet to find someone who makes this claim and is able to support it.  What ideas and tennets of a philosophy does Bioshock's cliched dystopia convey?  What aspect of the game is evocative of objectivism?  Is it the hand bees?
 
Gamers, it seems, are so desperate for their hobby to be taken seriously that they will fumble to ascribe characteristics they do not understand.  "Philosophical" is not a synonym for "meaningful," and the insistance of gamers on ignoring this fact makes them look just as silly as the twats who made a fuss over The Matrix (which at least related to a philosophical construct while containing no genuine philosophy).  
 
While I found the stories in these games to be vacuous crap, that is just a matter of taste (in that I have some).  There are certainly games out there with stories that are meaningful and thought-provoking.  There are well-handled relationship dynamics, social commentaries, and intellectually engaging premises.  None of that means a game is philosophical.  We can enjoy these games and tout the games-as-art line as much as we like without invoking a pretentious label just to sound sophisticated.