An excoworker mentioned this article to me. It's about how "high brow" computer games (and/or "video games", my distinction not really being important to this discussion) don't really exist.
Opera, ballet, Shakespeare retreads, all are vaguely "good for you" entertainment, but we don't really have that in games. Board Games have certain "classier" options. (Settlers of Catan and Ticket To Ride belong to a different category of games than Uno and Monopoly... but perhaps boardgames is a hard comparison to make.)
In the article, computer games are compared to comic books - both media are widely considered to be "kids' entertainment", and to some degree, graphic novels have managed to eke out a bit of respectability for "sequential art". We don't really have much like that on computers or on consoles.
I know there are comic fans reading this, and some people admit to playing games, so you might find the article interesting. I know that for myself, I cringe whenever someone assumes that the consumers of my work are 12 year old kids. (Ok, they happen to be for this project, but...) Seems to me that games should be as varied as film - some for kids, some for adults, some for the whole family, some serious, some insubstantial.)