Sometimes I feel like I'm the only gamer on the internet who just plays for fun and nothing else.
I don't understand the continual complaints about developers, or providers, or the relative merits of this game or that. I don't know why people lay hate on Steam, or on (insert game company here) or on this new sequel to that old classic, or why this change or that change to some IP or another is bad.
Games can be art, I'll grant you that. But it's always been my belief that the ultimate function of a videogame is implied by the title: it is a recreational activity, a source of fun, delivered through a computerized medium. Everything else is secondary.
Are some games more fun than others? Certainly. Did some games cost more to make than others? Often. Can a game still be fun if it is not as fun as whatever game before it? I don't see why not. Is there something wrong with a game if it is not delivering the exact experience you hoped for? Probably not, unless you were intentionally given false expectations by whoever made the game and sold it to you (But even in that case, who is the bigger fool? The developer? Or you?).
I can see the merits in saying "I had more fun with this game than with that one." If that's how you feel, so be it. Far be it for me to dictate or criticize the preferences of others. But I fail to see the reasoning behind saying that one game is BETTER than another. I don't think there is any simple hierarchal supremacy chain that every game must take a place on; I think there's just games and other games, and personally I'm content to live and let live.
It perplexes me sometimes that some people choose to dismiss games based on certain qualities, when the real complaint that they have, deep down, is that they're not having as much fun as they think they should be having. That's too bad, but why worry about it? There'll always be other games, as long as there are people with the imagination to create them. Why not just download, play, and be merry?

I agree totally.
Plenty of elitists here at the GOG community. PLENTY.

Yes, and it costs money. I'll get back to that.
So... What you are saying is that essentially all advertising is false advertising, and anyone who believes anything a developer/publisher says about a game is an idiot?
As gamers, we are consumers. This means that we pay for an experience. If we are promised a certain experience, and we do not get it once we have paid for it, then we have every right to be dissatisfied.
What are you, made of money? Or are you simply a pirate? Games are not an infinite resource. They are limited by time and money. Many people simply don't have enough money to buy any game they want, at any time they want. Your happy-go-lucky attitude indicates that you have enough money to do just that, or that you, ah, "circumvent" the traditional mercantile channels of goods procurement.
Yes, but we are mostly adult, civilized elitists ;-p

Like you.

Well, let's be fair. Steam hate is not like Fallout 3 hate. It's more like Wal-mart hate or Radio Shack hate.

Yeah... Fallout 3 hate is more like hating Lays Chips or Pizza flavored Pringles...

I love Fallout 3 almost as much as I love Fallout 1 & 2. I love Lays chips as well.

I have this weird thing where when I play older games, I have fun with them despite the review scores. However, with newer games I think reviews factor heavily into my purchase pattern until a certain time threshold expires. Basically... I pay for the experience I think it's worth depending on the point of time I'm in. When my friends ask me about newer games my common response is "Yeah, it's fun and all...but I wouldn't pay 60 bucks for it, maybe 40, definitely 30." With that said, certain games like Infamous, and Red Faction: Guerrilla I gladly pay 60 bucks for.
I think with older games that idea is that I was too young, or forbidden by my parents to play some titles growing up ,and I still have that child-like yearning to play them...aged or not.

Exactly.

I suppose, to some extent, that is what I'm saying, yes. *shrug*.
I generally never buy any game when it's brand new on the market unless I've taken time to research it first. The reason for this is that I take it for granted that anyone who takes the time and effort to produce an object to sell will do everything in their power to sell it. They might not necessarily lie, but they will present their product in the best possible light, which may not be the same light you see it in when you own it yourself.
Fortunately, we live in the information age, and reviews of pretty much any product are just a few clicks away. People who do not take advantage of this information will face the consequences of making a decision in ignorance. I've made that mistake enough times that I know the phrase "Let the Buyer Beware" is a statement of absolute truth. Your rights as a consumer, in my mind, are limited mainly to complaining about obvious defects in your purchases, particularly if they injure you physically.
I'm not made of money, nor do I pirate anything. I'm not sure how you drew those conclusions from my post. Why would I be on this website if I met either of those criteria?
Games are just about as infinite as human imagination and energy. Time and money are limitations, yes, but when I think about the sheer number and variety of games that have ever been produced and still are being produced, I can't help but think that there's plenty of room for everyone to find something (or several somethings) they enjoy, provided that they take the time to look carefully and buy judiciously.
For myself, I'm content to sample all kinds of games and draw fond memories from the best of them. I do the same thing with restaurants, but I try to avoid the temptation to stop and say, "This meal isn't as good as my last one. I hate it." That kind of attitude doesn't accomplish anything positive, and may hamper my enjoyment of other good things in life.

There are 3 separate issues here that you've managed to lump into one pile. And I wouldn't call any of the 3 issues "elitism". Though that does exist in it's own form.
1. Fun factor - This is one element of the gaming experience, and really should be the focus. That seems to be what you're saying. But that's not the whole ball of wax. As you mentioned games can, and ultimately should be, viewed as art. If they aren't there yet, they will need to get there to survive and thrive in the long term. If fun factor was the only thing that mattered, we'd still be playing games similar to Tempest and Donkey Kong (the success of simple Flash games disproves my point here). The elements of visual presentation and story are just as important in many genres, and in some genres they are nearly 100%. (Have you ever played Syberia? It's not "fun" IMO, but it is very pretty and has a great story. And got great reviews because of it.) Also, game journalists need to justify their existence as critics. Critics are by definition paid to criticize, which leads to long winded analysis of the "finer points" of games. EDIT: Some of these finer points are really important for fun factor also. Have you ever said about a game "This game would be great if the camera didn't suck?" or "I'd really enjoy playing this if the controls weren't bad?"
2. Return on investment - As was mentioned above, most people don't have infinite money to purchase games, as so need to be informed what they will enjoy before spending the limited supply of money. Then there are those that have a decent supply of money, but have a limited supply of time. So it's important to communicate about what games are the best value for the money and time spent to enjoy them.
3. Company ethics, customer relations (i.e. DRM). The debates about which companies to deal with, and the "Steam hate" as you call it, often comes down to this issue. There are those of us (me included) who are fundamentally opposed to customer unfriendly behavior in all forms, and will make the choices of where to buy based on that. I do disagree with vitrol and fanboy arguments though. It's each person's personal choice.
It seems like you are opposed to subjective decisions being used to define "better", instead of treating things as personal preference. I sort of see your point, but there are many areas of life where "better" is always subjective (food for example). It is still necessary to make those judgments, in order to reward that which is "good" and not reward that which is "bad". There will never be 100% agreement, but general consensus can often be reached.
I'll admit that I sometimes don't play for "fun and nothing else". Sometimes I'll just buy or try a game to see what it looks like. Sometimes I'll play a game on easy just to experience the story. Sometimes I just want to study it from a technical perspective. Sometimes I do play just for fun though. Anyone who doesn't isn't really a gamer.
Where I see elitism in gaming is in a couple of different places than you mentioned. One is in high-end PC hardware, and the benchmark community. "My video card gets a higher score in <benchmark>, therefore my computer is better than yours." regardless of the fact that a computer with half the power will provide 99% of the gaming experience. The other place I see elitism in gaming is "violent first person shooters == hardcore gaming", "anything else != hardcore gaming". There are many lifetime gamers, who by any sane person would be considered hardcore, that happen to not like shooters, or maybe even violent games.
My two cents....

Isn't elitism a natural part of any passionate community? People will always promote and defend the things they're passionate about. Of course, how they do it is an entirely different matter...

I find those statements self-contradictory.
I found that playing Fallout 1 was a more pleasurable experience than playing Fallout 2. I can even narrow this down to a number of reasons.
Therefore, in my humble opinion, Fallout 1 is a better game than Fallout 2.
Based purely on your points (1) and (2), I believe I can come to come a logical conclusion (3), and provide examples to support my case.
Debating the nuances of games - technical, strategic, graphic, whatever - and coming to a conclusion about which is better is not limited to computer games. People rate and argue about books, films, sports, and just about everything ever created. Opinions about what is "better" are valid, and allow you to demonstrate your interest, experience and a keen understanding of what makes a game fun.
With an overwhelming number of products out there, I find it valuable to look for sources whose opinion I can trust, and then use their statements about which game is better to help direct my spending. For movies, this is my brother. For games, even metacritic has a place in my decision making now.

I think we may be using different definitions of "Fun" here. That's understandable, because what constitutes "Fun" is different for everyone.
The amount of "Fun" I get from any game is the sum of my gaming experience. Interactive gameplay, visual quality, story quality, sound quality, and other qualities combine to create something which is "Fun" in varying degrees. In that sense, "Fun" itself is difficult to describe because it can be broadly applied to anything pleasurable, whether it's the visceral thrill you get from firing your shotgun and watching your target explode into bloody chunks, or the intellectual self-satisfaction you get from solving a puzzle.
Pretty pictures are fun to look at. Good stories are fun to read. Fine music is fun to listen to, and so forth. The total of these things define how much fun a game is, at least for me.
The main place I see elitism in gaming is where people, any people, demonstrate an intolerance for games that do not match their specifications of what a good game should be, or what they think is "Most Fun." Shooter enthusiasts do this, yes, but it's something I also commonly see in RPG fans and occasionally some Simulator or Strategy addicts. The important part is in bold. What is better for you may not be better for everyone, and it's important to make it clear that your feelings are, in fact, your feelings and nothing more or less.

I agree with your points there. I think that better explains what you meant by your original post.
Even by that definition, there are times when I play for things other than "fun". Sometimes it's just curiosity. Sometimes it's that I want to learn about the craft. Being curious and learning could be considered fun as well, but they can also happen for the desire to gain knowledge. Gaining knowledge isn't always fun, but knowledge can be useful regardless.