Having written the original "Must-Have Games" question I wasn't sure I should comment due to bias, however I guess that doesn't disqualify me from an opinion.
Let me start by saying that I really have no problem if games-related questions are off-limits and will be closed, but if that is the outcome can we at least have a 'No Games Questions' reason or some such, since 'Not Computer Related' just reads silly.
Having said that, I specifically asked my question because I have not been gaming for some time, and I do not want to waste my new-found time on games that do not have something special about them. As such I specifically tried to word my question to receive more thoughtful responses than just whatever game people were currently playing. Based on the high-scoring answers that I actually recognise from either having played them or read about them, I have no doubt that people weren't just throwing out random games (or at the least that those that floated to the top are actually going to be worth my time).
As a final thought I think that writing down rules in absolute terms is a mistake; some judgement needs to be involved, because otherwise worthwhile/fun things will be disallowed too. Take as an example the huge "Jon Skeet Facts?" thread on Stack Overflow which is still an open CW (and rightfully so in my opinion), but strictly speaking that is not even computer related in the sense that people are advocating here.
Unrelated note: (unrelated to my main point at least)
Is there any way to make the CW tickbox a bit more prominent? So far every question I have asked that was made into CW after-the-fact it was actually my intent right from the start for it to be CW. Call it a case of the "attachment-less-email" syndrome, but by the time I have written my question and attached tags, I often forget to check the tickbox before clicking post.
To illustrate my point, this Playstation Network question (closed by Jeff, so not sure how well that'll do to support my case :P) is, although terribly worded, in essence a perfectly valid question from a guy that needs tips for troubleshooting a bad connection... the fact that he identifies the most likely culprit himself (wireless) does not mean it couldn't be something else, and he clearly does not know how to establish this with certainty himself.
On the other hand this iPhone question (coincidentally also closed by Jeff) does not ask anything overtly wrong; the iPhone is a perfectly valid topic, and asking for useful features has already been proven valid on other questions. The reason this is a bad question has nothing to do with its content as such, but rather that its answers are not going to actually matter to anyone, including the author of the question. Then again, had this been Steve Jobs asking the exact same question, it would be an entirely different matter.
Maybe what we need more than anything else is a close-reason "Leads to Inconsequential Answers", which pretty much sums up most (all?) of the content people actually object to, while not outright black-listing specific topics.