[Talbain]

Games are potentially the most powerful form of communication we have. Think about it. They can be art, they can be movies, they can be music, they can be books. Yet at the same time, they are none of these, and they lack what makes each of these unique. The biggest problem that I can see with the industry today is that there is a cycle, as you mentioned; but the cycle itself is not a particular problem. Despite the fact that there are problems in all forms within the cycle, the cycle is also something that sustains each into their respective role.

Were the gang bangers not around, the cops would be out of work, were the mayor not around, the cops would be out of work, yet the gangs would run wild. The cycle, while not perfect, actually helps things to work, in a twisted sort of way. Thus, I believe the most accessible way to approach this problem is to look at it as though it were a bad cycle; the cycle for publishing a book, or producing a movie, or getting onto a CD label, all are inherently poorly conceived. Yet all of them have managed to create what one might call "high art," despite your disdain for the word.

Because this cycle is here, what it means is that the cycle needs to be worked on, it needs to have the twisted efficiency of the others to create similar products of value. I think this is where the real problem comes in with games; when you are looking at something that takes so many people to bring to fruition, what is lost along the way is the individual. The experience from the game is ultimately something that is not taken away and stored by all who experience it. This is the problem I see with the industry today, and the best way to solve it, I believe, is to simply bring it back. Games started out this way much more than they are now. The idea of Tetris, for example, is simple, yet almost everyone remembers more than just the game. Why? Because it imposed almost no limits on what you experienced. The experience was your own, every time you played the game, and the experience was never the same. It's similar to going back through a good book. You don't read the book the same way you did the last time you read it, you come out with something different.

Now, I'm not trying to say what we're looking for is Tetris, but the simplicity of design and adaptability of experience is something that games in today's genre sorely lack. Almost all games are now played with set paths, with defined or roughly defined purpose and places. Yet for a story to be engrossing, to have a sense of immediacy, and to really immerse you, the story must seem relevant. Tetris lacks this altogether. There's nothing immersive about the experience at all, you're basically playing Jenga with a random number generator. So, the experience of immersion is what a game needs, alongside the feeling that the experience is unique to you (i.e., it affects your immediate reality). This can be done with current technology, yet the industry still lacks a creator with enough personal vision (and in the end, such games are about a creator's vision) to do so.

I do not believe that is the fault of the structure of the industry that such games have not revealed themselves, rather, if anyone I would blame the consumer, for continuing to buy games that are below a level anyone would call sophisticated. You have to remember, even writers, artists, and movie directors have to feed their industry; and only if consumers are ready to drink fine wine and eat fine meats will they do so, instead of enjoying fried pig slop.
_________________

[Talbain]

Games are a bigger industry, but that's because it takes a lot more to develop a game than a movie, or a book, or a CD. The cost of entry into any of these is basically having a computer and some free time, these days. But a game requires much more than this to even be viable in such a wide market. Because of this, not only has the cost to developers increased, but the cost to the consumer has as well. Just my take on the so-called "size" of the games industry. In dollars and cents, maybe, but in terms of actual market penetration, games are still very elitist.

So Koji, perhaps what you're waiting for is something like this?

Interfaces have always been a problem for games, but I don't believe it's a fundamental problem; World of Warcraft is an excellent example of a game with an EXTREMELY complicated interface, and yet it retains a huge player base.
_________________

[Talbain]

You're correct, abstraction is an advantage, but just as a game such WoW does, most people will still need to have that initial, simple access. WoW starts out very simple, and defines more and more of what you can do as you go along. It may seem rudimentary to those who have already played games before, or even those who have used computers or played MMOs before; but the market is broader than that. You have to be able to introduce an interface that is so simple a child can start out using; however, you also have to make this abstract form malleable enough to do advanced abstractions, such as typing, organization, games, and so on. Wii's a step in the right direction, but you have to remember that most of the world has never actually seen a TV, much less a computer; thus, the entire concept is foreign to them, and trying to tell them that this button or that click does something, would typically be considered "complicated." As such, starting simplistically and moving into greater and greater abstraction would likely be a better way to approach not only computers, but games as well.
_________________