I think you're overlooking the fundamental purpose of video games. No matter the epic, it's not going to be categorized on the same level as that of classic literature. Video games create too much of a difference of opinion and there's not much basis of objective logic regarding what is considered a "good" game or not.
With novels/literature, on the other hand, there are experts who spend countless hours of research investigating it on an "objective" level - creating dissertations, research paper, reports, and the likes on one novel. Until video games get beyond the "this is entertainment/fun" and more into the "this is a work of literature merit", your proposed ideal world will never happen. This would also require all video games to be unified to a specific "process". Storylines would have to follow a linear progression (with minor deviation), there would need to be structure (localization would not occur until the "literary merit" of a game had been established so that a team with a track record of being genuine with translations could undertake it in their respective country), and similar objective processes that would essentially kill the gaming industry.
TL;DR: Video games are fundamentally designed for fun. If you're not having fun playing the game, don't play it. To expect anything more than fun means you're essentially overthinking the process and hoping for something that deviates from the purpose that the game was made for (which is fine for the self but would fail when implemented as a standard).
The same can be said of "classic literature", not everyone "likes" Shakespeare, of course. To be presumptuous and assume a literary work of human history is "ineligible" due to some perceived incomplete construction such as anime/video games, is but an arrogant and self-elevated opinion and not of any "objective" observation. Who is to say a 21 Century scholar is elevated above all of time? Indeed, as a cave painting of old may be "primitive", but some few select cases of contemporary value may exceed even the best historical works. The "form factor" is only but a reflection of the progression of human civilization at the time, and not to be disparaged.
In other words, don't write off video games, simply because "Harvard" does have a class on them. Or whatever. To assume such "elites" are somehow humanities absolute arbitrators of true value, is a presumptuous narrative, at that. And of course, to assume such "research" doesn't happen elsewhere, well perhaps I would suggest you study some WoW lore, perhaps. Or something, again.
And to say video games "are only for fun", would be an intellectual diservice to the very well established and self-professed works of the industry legends such as Miyamoto himself. Games are not meant only to be fun, but "learning" as well. Indeed, as there can be meaning in all things, from the most complex to most simple. It need not be something "written by academia" to somehow meet an arbitrary level of worth.
But it must start somewhere. Indeed, as with here, what could have been a *Great" game is, well, meh. Such is not an "one man's opinion", but something that can be scientifically quantified and compared; as for instance of such, to past titles in the series. Alas, it appears some "Peoples of Earth", even ones with a self-professed knowledge of understanding, seek to remain blind in this world. But in either case, no matter, indeed...
Indeed it is so...