The quality of a game is almost completely objective unlike the likes of movies and music. Hence, games are almost reviewed as "great", "good" or "bad" (check Rotten Tomatoes for proof and comparisons to movies) instead of the largely mixed reviews often associated with most movie and music releases. This by itself suggests that your notion of new and old "value" systems is largely a creation that does not reflect facts. Wii Sports, Wii Fit and Mario Kart Wii are all games that got solid to great reviews - which would surely be contrary to your imaginary "value" system if it existed. Videogame reviewing takes place from a techical point of view, rather than an artistic point of view - there is therefore no value system involved despite what some might think or desire.

Oooh, this argument's good. Anybody want to argue it? YOU CAN'T.

On the contrary. Whilst I'm impressed by talk of "values" I'm reminded of the fact that they are simply fancy terms designed to complicate matters. I on the other hand would rather talk economics, which are themselves a set of fancy terms that complicate matters but luckily also have relevance.

The quality of a game is almost completely objective unlike the likes of movies and music. Hence, games are almost reviewed as "great", "good" or "bad" (check Rotten Tomatoes for proof and comparisons to movies) instead of the largely mixed reviews often associated with most movie and music releases. This by itself suggests that your notion of new and old "value" systems is largely a creation that does not reflect facts. Wii Sports, Wii Fit and Mario Kart Wii are all games that got solid to great reviews - which would surely be contrary to your imaginary "value" system if it existed. Videogame reviewing takes place from a techical point of view, rather than an artistic point of view - there is therefore no value system involved despite what some might think or desire.

 However, I digressed here is where the issue is and this is where my point stands (and shall continue to stand as it's unambiguously correct). True casual games designed to appeal to non-gamers or very casual gamers (therefore not including the likes of SMG, Halo 3, GTA IV etc that must necessarily have casual appeal) are on average low quality affairs and take resources away from other potential uses, its what economists call opportunity cost. In simple terms, every time a Nintendo makes a Wii Sports or Wii Fit they could've instead uses those resources on a new Mario, Zelda, Metroid - or god forbid a new high quality franchise. Every time someone makes a "High School Musical" game or a cheap movie tie-in they are using resources that could've been used to make something else, something potentially better. Therefore, its no surprise that long time gamers hate so called "casual" games as they use up scarce resources best used elsewhere.

Afterall, what do you think of Wii Fit as a game if it cost you a new Zelda or Mario game? Probably not as highly as you do when you consider it in isolation.