It would probably surprise you to know, then, that both these things do get critiqued, especially in academic circles but also in general pop culture. You could consider Star Wars the most populist of entertainment, but RedLetterMedia did a whole video series dissecting Episodes I-III to examine why those movies were such abject failures. Or to speak more directly to your point,
this was on the very first page of the Google search results for "critical reading steven seagal":
I would look up academic critiques of porn for you but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Less academic critiques of porn include porn publishers and directors trying to push more diverse body styles, ethnicities and gender identities into porn.
There's this underlying assumption in a lot of the discussion about what is "fair" to criticize and what is not that says anything that isn't "high art" isn't worth of critique. Two things wrong with this statement, as I see it: one, video games as a whole have been considered, in different eras and even by people in this one (ex. the late Roger Ebert), to be "low art" or even not art at all. This is something lots of people who play games have fought against, and for good reason. You can't have it both ways--you can't agitate for video games to be considered an art, and then reject artistic, political and socioeconomic critiques that other artistic endeavors embrace as part of the tradition.
But even if you're the kind of person that rejects this wholeheartedly and says, no, I don't care if video games are art or not or what kind of art they are, it's still problematic to say some video games should be criticized and some shouldn't. You say that something that isn't "high art" shouldn't be criticized in the same way because it never had aspirations to be "good," for whatever value of "good" you're rejecting--i.e. this game never tried to have strong female characters so why should it be criticized on those grounds when clearly the developers never cared. But people don't make games in a vacuum and we don't critique games solely on whether the final product meets the standards of their creators. Anyone who makes a game and says "this isn't intended to be a political statement" is essentially making a political statement anyway. That's the definition of
hegemony: a cultural or political norm that is seen as the status quo, or "the way things have always been." It's a political stance by default, essentially: by saying politics aren't involved, you're saying "I'm okay with whatever is going on now."
And that's fine! Games and their creators are totally allowed to do this. No Steven Seagal film is ever going to truly challenge the political status quo (although even On Deadly Ground tried to make a statement, so there!). But critique is still valuable in that it can tell us HOW a piece of art supports the status quo, and may even give us insight into countercultural readings of a work.
There's no such thing as a game that isn't worthy of a cultural critique. The worst game I played this year is worthy of a cultural critique. (It's Starlight Inception, by the way.) It doesn't matter what the intentions of the creator were, and it doesn't matter if the game is supposed to be trashy good fun or has higher pretentions.
. 
Makes me so glad forums like this are moderated.