The easy answer is yes, of course. Here is a particularly strong example from Final Fantasy:
I think that the implicit assumption behind pointing out that this music or other music has something of a classical sound or feel is that the music is better because of it. Sounding vaguely classical is better than sounding vaguely pop or world music or whatever. But I think I want to question that on aesthetic grounds.
Aesthetic questions are always a bit awkward for the reason that they necessarily involve value judgments. Music theorists avoid all that by sticking to stuff like "the composer makes particularly adroit use of the secondary dominant to prepare the return of the main theme". One is never quite sure if this makes the music sound "good" or not. Value judgments tend to be subjective--in fact, capitalism depends on that! If you spend some money to buy something it is because you value the thing more than the money it cost to buy it. The transaction occurs because the seller prefers to have your money rather than what he is selling. So every free transaction depends on a different judgment of subjective value.
Similarly, every aesthetic judgment is subjective as well. But I think that there is also an objective value. Just as in the world of financial transactions it is objectively recognized that a Lamborghini will always cost more than a Volkswagen, and therefore be objectively more valuable than a Volkswagen, a particularly artwork can be recognized to be more valuable than another. After all, at auctions of famous paintings, no-one expects the Van Gogh to sell for less than something by a relatively unknown painter. I think we can make the argument that some pieces of music have greater aesthetic value than others, but due to the immaterial nature of music, this might be more difficult and we should probably allow a fair amount of wiggle room.
Still, I have had no hesitation in the past about talking about objective aesthetic value when it comes to music. This is a recurring theme or motif in this blog. The passage of time seems to sort out the good and the great from the dull and ordinary. Everyone knows the name of J. S. Bach, but the names of dozens or hundreds of his contemporaries are forgotten because their music is, compared to that of Bach, quite insignificant.
Now, back to our video game music. I want to make the argument that sounding vaguely classical is not an aesthetic virtue. The piano music in the clip above is nice-enough sounding, but of only modest aesthetic quality. This is probably because it imitates the accidents of classical music while ignoring the substance.
These categories of substance and accident go back to the philosophical theories of Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher. I make no claim of using this distinction in the same way or for the same purpose Aristotle did, but I am going to use the basic idea to create an aesthetic distinction in music. The article I linked above uses the example of a chair. The substance of the chair is the basic design and function, the accident is whatever materials are used. A chair can be made of wood or metal and it is still essentially a chair.
Now let's move over to music. When we usually think of "classical" music we tend to think of the accidents that are associated with it: a concert hall with musicians in formal dress, a conductor waving a baton, the sound of bowed string instruments or tympani, perhaps a soprano belting out an aria. These are not the substance of classical music, but rather the accidents. The Kronos Quartet playing their arrangement of "Purple Haze" by Jimi Hendrix while dressed in ordinary street clothes and playing in a non-typical environment are doing "classical" music in essence. But a symphony orchestra in formal attire with a conductor waving a baton playing pop songs in a traditional concert hall, I would argue, is NOT "classical" music but merely displays the accidents.
What makes something "classical" in my mind, and I want to stress that this definition may not be widely accepted, is the way the musical materials are handled. It has to do with the creativity involved more than the particular instrument or even style. Yes, a piano concerto by Mozart is classical music, but not because it is using an orchestra or the players are dressed a certain way. It is rather because of the creative way the music is put together.
In the piano clip from Final Fantasy above, we have the presentation of various sorts of musical elements that are common in classical music, but the piece as a whole is not very creatively structured and tends to wander aimlessly from one idea to another. In order to call it classical, I would prefer to hear a more creative approach. In fact, even though this piece sounds the way we think classical music should sound, with nice chords and scales, a piece by the Beatles, even though it sounds like pop music, is more what I would call "classical". Isn't that a funny way to look at it?
What I am always listening for in music is creative expression and one finds it in a lot of different places. A lot of what we call "classical" music really isn't, under my definition. But music in other styles and genres might be. How I am conceiving of classical music has a crucial component of aesthetic quality. Sure, there is something subjective about it as all judgments have a subjective component. But there is an objective component as well and arguing about that is what makes talk about music interesting.
Now let's hear Kronos play "Purple Haze" and make it classical:
Well, that was certainly deliberato, wasn't it?