T_ConX said:
Gone Home and The Stanley Parable.
You don't like these games because they're 'smart', and you're smart for playing them. You like them because they make you feel smart.
How are those comparable/related? The Stanley Parable was dry humor in a British accent. Gone Home was a painfully cliched teen romance delivered via bludgeoning the audience to death with 90's references.
"It's pretentious" is a cop-out criticism, as is saying it's "overrated." Both of those things are critiquing other people's reaction to the game rather than the game itself.
I didn't like "Gone Home," but it annoys me that criticism of it mostly comes in the form of "Not a game" and "It's pretentious." Even The Stanley Parable, which I enjoyed, has actual faults which could be criticized appropriately, but no. It's just "pretentious" and "a walking simulator," or whatever new buzzword has been recently derived for things deemed unworthy of the holey status of "a game"
For the sake of keeping on topic, the way people criticize games they don't like is a joke.
A somewhat related example is how any first person shooter that doesn't live up to a given gamer's standards is "Just call of duty with [inset trivial feature]". The other day I saw someone say that Planetside 2 was just "Call of Duty in space" for lack of the ability to go prone. Nevermind vehicles, the squad system, resources, the emphasis on support classes, the map system, 3-way battles, being free to play, and having purple spandex unrivaled by any other game to date, the fact that it doesn't have prone (which call of duty does have) makes it call of duty.
We get it. You don't like call of duty. But there are actually things about it that define what it is. You can't just use it as a word for "bad," you call-of-dutying call of duty.