I've been in this mode of thinking for some time lately.  I've thought about a bunch of games I like and games I dont, and the state of the industry.  I think a lot of the problems come from the fact that there is more than one system, marketing overuns things and people (especially in North America) have a stereotyped opinion of the demographic for games (kids and nerds).

But especially recently, I think I realised that its how we look at games, how we define them, how we say that they are 'games', and more importantly that developers and media feed this ideal.  Im not saying its wrong, Just my opinion is maybe we need to stop focusing on putting the narative INTO the game and telling the story the conventional way.  Easier said than done no doubt, but its like a book or a movie or a play.  They all tell a story in a linear fashion.  Essentially games rely on that approach by emulating movies (cut-scenes) which needs to change.  Look at a sculpture or a painting.  It usually has a message a purpose something that makes the person reflect, but there is no way for that sculpture to tell you what it is.  It lets you focus on it and come to your own conclusion.  Oscar Wilde said that art is not a reflection of society or the artist; art is a reflection of the viewer this couldnt be more true for games.  

I think games need to stop treating themselves as mindless entertainment, as games; and more as an interactive way to say a message.  a lot of games rely on repetitive gameplay, like you said about the rpg taking 80 hours.  Most of that is repetition in battles and leveling up.  usually a game picks a genre one or a few simple gameplay mechanics and repeats them mindlessly; the whole Halo repeats 15 seconds of gameplay thing.  When you say something like brain age is smarter than an fps you're right.  but BA is still a very basic thing.  I dont want to refer to Roger Ebert here, but he did say that a study he observed about the brain and people playing games has a point.  in the beginning the brain lit up and was active, but once people figured out the controls, it went down almost to an inactive level.  Like an fps, in the first few minutes you have to get used to the mechanics, then you go through the motions, its just getting those polygons into the crosshairs.  It becomes mindless, you can do it without thinking, how many times have you read a book and had a full conversation with someone at the same time; taxing isnt it?  

so games IMHO need to be like an interactive sculpture (if you can follow my abstract anology).  They need to be designed no less, not just the whole sanbox approach let the player make his own story, which I'm sorry is a lazy excuse.  But let the story be experienced by choices.  The designer should always have a purpose in designing and a message, but you learn that by playing, by experiencing.  In that sense it ceases to be a game, because you technincally cant win.  I'd akin it to this:  a movie or book being linear is like a lecture.  Someone preaching their opinion through the story.  A game is more like a classroom, you can question , alter (to some degree) and engage in that lesson, but the lesson is still there, and its still designed.  Its up to the teacher to make the lesson fun, but also make the lesson worth doing.

This is getting long winded, but yeah, it basically comes down to, how do you define 'game'?

Start Rant.

Heres one:
http://www.etc.cmu.edu/proje
cts/peacemaker/
Concept of promoting peace. Make a world a better place. :)

We can do it. it is possible. but the question is do we want to?

First we need to think does the game industry and the public(players) will accept this? Will they buy this idea? How can we educate the public and games industry to start promoting games that will enhance and add values to their life? How can we make them BUY this type of "product"??

In the public's minds, generally the idea of games (as in console and PC) is a form of entertaiment and escapism. Some think of it as a tool to have fun and social with friends (Halo,Nintendos family games), some use it..to do as time waster, pumps ego, e-friends, escapsim to another reality (Wow), some do it for the stories (Final fantasy, Baldur's Gate) and etc etc etc.

The barrier we need to break through is to remove the "labelling" in everybody's mind. What is a game actually? Just like what hmjohnny said. We can define game in anyway we want.

The best game are the game that shape and reflect reality (timon). The ones that immerse us, relate us and ultimately teach us and show us something that we did not discover about reality and ourselves???

Okie...i admit, i might be talking crap here (i'm a good crap talker :P). Ultimately in conclusion, we can make games that make a world a better place, the problem is these questions:

1)will the general public (players) accept it and want to play it? (OOohh i want to blast people, i dunwan to train my body to have six packs.Its too much work).

2)can we get the support we need to promote it?? (game industry - how can we make money out of this, is this a safe product to covers the cost and earn profit??).

3)We can do it if we want to and i belive we can be successfully if we want to change the gaming world. It might be easier if you have the power and influence to do it. We need to ask this question to ourselves:Are you willing to place your commitment to do this?

End Rant.

P/S sorry, i'm bored lol. Love your site, gregg!

You mentioned books and movies. The thing about movies that are meaningful is that most are based on good books in the first place. It all boils down to there being few really talented writers out there (and I guess few really talented directors who can tell a good story via a visual medium).

Can this be done in games? I felt the love story in Final Fantasy X was fairly engaging (as was the other plot lines). So my 80 hours invested didn't feel like a waste of time. But if I spent 80 hours in Doom 3 shooting at monsters, I could only say I did it out of boredom. (Silent Hill 2 also managed to keep my interest by thrusting me in a strange world, without explanation; Left me wondering if the people I encountered were alive or dead; And finally in the end there was a twist ending. I think it took anywhere from 8 to 12 hours in that one).

But since games are meant to be fun and interactive, you have to wonder if optioning a good book to turn into a game would even work in the same way as it does for the movie industry. There are the costs involved that would have to match what Hollywood is willing to pay. Game developers would need writers on par with the movie industry's highest paid script writers (we're talking what, anywhere from $200k to over a million just for a script).

But would it even work? Is this even a model worth pursuing? Movies engage a passive audience for less than 2 hours, and tell them a story in that time span which is mostly "reality based" ("real" people, with human frailties). In "The Sum of All Fears", when the bomb goes off, it's a major shock. We are so used to seeing such plots foiled by the protagonist that it came as a complete surprise to see it happen. And then the realistic detail of the aftermath was equally engaging. But would this work in a game? Players are so used to seeing shit blow up, and are usually not as engaged as they would be watching a movie. It's hard to really "believe" what you're watching, when it looks like a cartoon or the humans involved look like "puppets".

But let's switch gears here and ask ourselves WHY do we need to gain anything from our time investment in games? Perhaps to a person in our age range, such a question starts to matter more simply because: A) We've spent many years playing games. B) As we age we start to value things differently. It's easy when we are young to not care about our health, our future, and how we use our resources. It's easy to indulge. Easy to spend. Easy to think that old age is very far away. It's therefore easy to "waste" time playing games.

It also depends on the type of person you are. I find that the more intelligent and creative types tend to want to create things. So it's only natural to value your time more if you end up with nothing to show for your time. The average person though doesn't usually have this drive. They come home from a day job and the last thing they want is to "be productive". They could also care less about creating anything. And just remember, what is the real difference between sitting in front of the tube watching something idiotic like "Ghost Whisperer" and playing a video game? What is the difference between sitting in a stadium for 4 hours while a bunch of men in tight pants run around chasing a ball? I'll take 4 hours of gaming over that any time!

Hi Greggman,

Over the last few years there has been a movement towards making games with intent other than just to entertain. There are groups like Games For Change, who want to use games as a media for making people aware of political issues; Women in Games, for concerned feminists about gender issues both within the industry and the way females are portrayed in games, and educational groups like Breakaway and SimuLearn who are encouraging more interesting and useful educational simulations and game based learning. The American military is investing millions on game based training, simulation, recruiting software and hardware. I have an associate in India whoose company makes military simulations for less wealthy countries. So, certainly there are already serious uses for game media, and we can expect to see more as the industry develops and gains acceptance.

I am interested in the uses of simulation and game based learning. I attended the GDC last year for the Serious Games Summit. The general feeling is that the serious games industry, why currently very marginal, has great potential growth over the next few years.

I found this article today that might be interesting: http://www.politicsonline.co
m/blog/archives/2006/05/chan
ging_the_wo.php

Did you hear about Re-Mission, the videogame which helps people fight cancer?

http://www.hopelab.org/remis
sion.html

Inspiring stuff.