Blog #3 "Can a good game be bad?"

Most people would automatically answer, "Thats impossible, a good game has to be good cause (insert critic, friend, accomplice, person in higher authority) said it was a good game" or "Its good because everyone loves the game."
The largest example of these are with the absolute love given to Halo 3 and Super Smash Brothers Brawl. The main arguments I've seen for these games are "Such and such make this game good" and "everyone loves it so I have to too".
Well, if you love listening to higher authority so much then I'm sure you must love that collar as well becuase they match the color of the price tag on your forehead.
In the mean time, gamers with actual frontal lobes will start trying out games and doing the equivalent of rocket science in your world. They call it formulating an opinion. Which, surprisingly, can actually disagree with what other critics say.
But this asks the question, "can a good game be bad?". Taking out what everyone else says and what the "official" reviews say, how can you judge whether a game deemed "good" be bad or good?
In my own opinon, I believe its based upon whether the game is fun or not, and whether it truly does keep you within the world of the game instead of having you look around scratching your head muttering furiously the word "what?" and its many variations.
Of course, going along my own ideas, I also start my opinions with most games with "I hate this game" until it proves itself something worthy of affection. Its amazing how far in life this approach gets you as well.
Anyway, its through this approach that try to prove to myself whether a game, despite it's compliments earlier, is good or bad. In the sameway someone can always compliment a very pretty android while ignoring the fact that its powered by money, evil and garbage.
"Wait!" some people will say, "Doesn't the fact thats its an android powered by such things make it absolutely brilliant? afterall now we have a new feul source." Well heres the thing, you might say its pretty and a new form of feul, but it means that your going to have to throw ridiculous amounts of money at it to keep it running, punch little orphans on the street and be more wasteful just to keep the stupid machine happy.
Okay so I'm a little carried away with this simile, but the gist of it all is, if people keep reviewing terrible or mediocre games and declaring them some of the best games of the century your just poisoning the well that is the gaming market and turning it into a single monotone theme. Such as how everything now a days is stuck in the sci-fi gray ruins idea, while the main protagonist is constantly a male, space marine knock off. Just look at the Half Life series. Gordon Freeman is a mute male in a space marine like suit. At least Valve got the idea of keeping their environments new and colorful instead of a trip through disneyland in a 1960s documentary.
One must wonder if Portal could have ever been as important and loved as it was if it wasn't sold side by side with half life. Just having fans and developers alike realize that a new and innovative idea (such as portal) would go rewarded.
Why would gaming companies be so blind to what gamers need? Why would they further keep making games that clearly have little to no fan base? It also seems like most gaming companies out there are going by the motto of "Mediocrity is normality." Why can't gaming companies actually grow the testicular fortitude to make a new game? I mean, has anyone else noticed the overwhelming swarm of sequels, prequels, and trilogies? Where are all the new ideas?
Well, at least the acknowledgement of Portal's existance makes up for some of this. Dead Space had better be overwhelmingly terrifying EA, because your the biggest culprit of some of these crimes.