If there is a problem with gaming, it's simultaneously that the entire medium seems to focus entirely on a very limited range of the human condition and that people seem to take it into their heads that games can somehow be forced to be artistic rather than developing as art gradually.
Don't get me wrong, I love the games that are available to me today, and some games do begin to touch hints of brilliance, but anytime I want to discuss how games are able to form a dialogue in a way that isn't possible for any other medium, it's always using single examples from assorted games, or talking about what a game was trying to do. Think about all of the games that we hold up as paragons of the medium as an art form. Whether a really long progression or shooting, punching, or stabbing people in the face with bits of ham handed angst or convoluted conspiracy nonsense in between, or a surrealist salad that was created entirely on the fly with little coherency, games can almost always be summed up as a response to the question "you know would be cool?" On the rare occasion that a game does manage to go beyond such a question, it's usually a small part of the game that is in no way the driving force of the series. Before you leap up and say "moral choice," the problem is that moral choices in games are almost always an abstract thought experiment or essentially an aesthetic option. Rarely does a game ask a player what matters to them, and then force the player to deal with the total results of their decisions.
On the flip side, you have the crowd that has accepted the criticism above already, but has decided to interpret it in an incredibly myopic way. Id est, it's the group of people who try to find every last game that bears even a passing resemblance to art and proceed to lavish it with praise as though it's the second coming of christ. Does a game happen to have a character with a tragic back story that has little to know bearing on the actual game play apart from an occasional bit of angst? Then it's obviously a profound exploration into darker parts of human nature. Does a game force you to make a binary decision between being a sane/normal human being and a complete psychopath? It must totally be an in depth exploration into the complexities of morality. Have a comic book villain with a completely asinine evil plan and a sexy accent and set of mannerisms? It's totally a deep character portrait. Yeah, I realize that these might be verging on straw man arguments, and I haven't given any specific examples (something I would probably tear this post a new one for if I hadn't posted it myself), but the point stands.
Why does this bother my so? It's because if we try to limit what games can be to what we have today, I'm afraid that we're setting the bar too low. I have no doubt the games will produce works of art that challenge all of our assumptions and preconceptions, but it won't be because a bunch of fanatics decided to spew outright propaganda about the subject of their lust. Games don't need a Citizen Cain, games need a game good enough that people don't need to compare it to other works of art to give it legitimacy.
