I saw things at GDC a bit differently. It felt to me as if people were finally recognizing that play -- interaction, choice, fun in its varied forms -- is the medium we work in, and that as we develop command over our medium, it might be possible to leverage "the sense of ownership of the events" that players feel and communicate something more to them than "a winner is you!" It wasn't so much "woe is me, we're not art" as "of course we're art, now let's up the ante a bit." YMMV, of course.

Picasso took a rather cool, formal style of painting and used it to drive home the horrors and costs of war more forcefully than anyone imagined possible. That wasn't an accident. Is it possible to make a game that's as meaningful as Guernica? I don't know. But we're not going to find out if all we ever aim for is Saving Private Ryan.

You use World of Warcraft as an example, but can it be said that Halo or Call of Duty provide the same "framework for meaningful occurrences"? Sure games are entertainment, but so are movies, books and music. I don't think it's such a stretch to ask for more from a medium that offers true interaction with its audience.

You use World of Warcraft as an example, but what happens when clones like Lord of the Rings Online comes out, and Warhammer online? Then it's just a whole industry devoted to copying one meaningless game into another, leaving little opinion other than the fans of those franchises playing those games.

I think that having some games without meaning is fine (some of these meaningless games are my favorites and I do think they're excellent), but I think it's important to also pursue other areas as well, especially when you start adding characters and locales to games that feel so real, people are in general going to expect something more than just grabbing a gun/axe/staff/sword and killing people. We're not really cave men anymore, and games can be more than just killing other people.

What this year's GDC made me think about was: video games are engaging for their interactivity, but does that interactivity necessarily have to take the form of a traditional "game" based on a formal ruleset which is exposed to the player? Maybe more people will begin to find video games meaningful when they stop having to learn the rules of a gameworld, and instead are able to simply exist in it.

I think the "games should make you cry" vibe was much more palpable this year, sadly. The whole shift away from "games qua games" and towards games as narrative medium is horrible and stupid.

I suppose you could argue that great works of architecture have a meaning, but it's not as if that was their primary purpose! Similarly, the games I enjoy most are enjoyable not for the message they convey (if there is any, which is just as debatable as with architecture), but simply for themselves. Maybe it's for the interesting systems I enjoy interacting with, I don't know..

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to make a game that makes someone cry, but if the only parts making people cry are the non-interactive bits, we haven't exactly fulfilled the promise of a new medium, have we?

So yes I think the "systems one enjoys interacting with" are what we need to get better at.

My problem with "make you cry" is twofold. It treats emotion as an end in itself rather than a means of communicating something truly important, personal, whatever. It also tokenizes emotion in a way that ultimately trivializes it.

Basically it is going to suck hard if games finally achieve emotion as a bullet point: "Make you cry? CHECK! Next? Upgradeable weapons!"

Someone came on TIGSource irc the other month, and started complaining bitterly how "everyone is so down on stories and linearity in games these days. everyone wants to make stuff totally freeform. man, what's their problem?"

I was a little bit shocked, because while I can agree that the general standard of writing in games is not very high (sturgeon's law can account for that) normally it's people like me whining about how everyone assumes a game needs a wrote story, and why can't they try something which suits the medium better?

I told him not to be bitter, because the games industry's basic state of entropy focuses far more on the tried and true principles of passive entertainment (including storytelling) and technological novelties than forwarding game design.

It's funny that just as that's starting to change (with even mainstream publishers putting significant cash into games which do move fairly deep into new territories), a new voice emerges to decry it.

I've no problem with games qua games, but the point is, they're already here, and they're not going to be thrown asunder because some pretentious knave gets pretentious. No need to be defensive.

However, bringing about a new order of things is about the hardest thing you can do in life, and you can start to see why when people start actively worrying about the future of stinking rich, risk-averse mega-publishers. God forbid people should aspire to do more with the medium! Won't someone please think of the corporations? Bring back the spinning jenny!

Oh, and if the added implication is that artsy games can't be enjoyable on a game-qua-game level, then I'm calling that out as a bunk conflation, too.

(Sorry to triple post. I want to apologize already. I let my "angry young man" out of the bag after about 5 years of gagging him, so I think I came off a bit harsh.)

I completely agree with the idea that "art for art's sake" is idiotic, and that meaning on a purely mechanical level isn't the be-all and end all of game design. I also believe that every path is justified, and if people want to fill those kinds of areas with their expressions, then I'm happy just to be able to bask in the variety. I just feel that there's nothing wrong with someone exploring a different avenue to the one you would. Walking off the beaten track already has enough inherent pitfalls as it is. While I'm happy to look at criticizing the works created as a result of treading a path, I'm not so comfortable criticizing their reasons for taking the path. Our reasons are entirely our own. Whether we make games to make money, or because we need to express our inner artfag, or because we want to make a fun game, or because we have a life long vendetta with CliffyB, or because we just enjoy the creative process... it's sort of irrelevant, and not really anyone else's business. I don't know what one can achieve by criticizing the seed of the desire.

Hate the game, not the player.

I disagree that "games qua games" are here, at least in terms of non-indies. They _were_ here, but they've been supplanted by narrative-heavy interactive-action-movie type things (Gears/God of War, etc).

The latest Burnout is a good "pure game", Loco Roco was too. There aren't many though!

If Ebert wants a game to make him cry, all he needs to do is play the very last level in N+ ;p

I am SO going to the GDC next year...

I think we're on a wave towards games "meaning something" that started several years ago. I can remember hearing about cries for games that had more meat, something more then just point, shoot, level up. It feels to me that we're nearing the crest of that wave.

Being a writer myself, I enjoy seeing stories being told in game form. My favorite being the non-linear ones that allow you the freedom to experience the universe based on your decisions. Can we get a game that makes folks cry? I dunno. My first thought is... that's going to take a lot of work! Does a work have to achieve that ranking in order to be considered art? Sheesh, I hope not.

I think what you said about interaction and intepretation hits the nail squarely on the head.

So games are like framework which meaningful experiences can be formed? I see your point, but that's not that artistic to me since I view art as a communication. If there was no intention from creators then no message is delivered... but they're created by players. And that message certainly isn't something creators wanted to tell.

And I think creators of other medium actually do formulate their work aiming to deliver certain kind of meaning to consumers, like novels or movies. If not, it'll be a messy, not focused, and dispersed experience nobody will appreciate (like Ultra Violet..oh God).

But can't there be immersive, truly interactive stories, or movies?