Robert Yang said:
The Philosophy of Game Design (part 1)
When you argue with your friends whether Starcraft 2 is a good game or if it sucks, it helps to actually define what makes a game "good." Robert Yang discusses game design using the philosophies of a couple Greek dudes you might have heard of before: Aristotle and Plato.
Read Full Article
In the end, video games are just going through exactly what music has spent the last few thousand years going through. Since the earliest days of written music, there have been two clear classes of music--"art" and "popular." And the debate has long raged over which is the REAL music.
"Art" is the music written as an expression of the composer's will, with all its complexities. It often "dares" the audience to figure it out. "Popular" music is just the music "of the people"--music that's meant for singing or dancing, often much simpler and accessible. The art folks will argue that it's just the uninitiated taking stabs at imitating what real music does... and the popular music proponents will say that the art folks are just missing the spirit of music. Often, neither will recognize the other as "real music."
And really, they are both parts of the same art. The argument really centers on which is the "more important" portion. Time to weigh the pros and cons here:
Art Music:
PROS
- Forward-thinking, innovative, experimental.
- Challenges the audience to grow, rather than just providing more of what they already like.
- Gradually increases the demand on the creators of music as audiences mature in their tastes and expectations.
CONS
- Often, doesn't have a "ground floor," so the audience ages over time with no new additions.
- As with any experiments, some just plain fail. There will be more that people DON'T like.
Popular Music:
PROS
- Accessible and inviting to the layperson.
- Safe and comfortable, ensuring maximum appeal.
CONS
- Can lead to utter stagnation of the art, as giving people more of what they are comfortable with will only increase their dependence on that comfort.
- Gradually decreases the demand on the creators of music as the list of "safe and accessible" techniques and ingredients becomes gradually boiled down to the lowest common denominator and a handful of stock formulas.
The exact same things are true of video games. You have your "high art" games--which aren't necessarily the ones you'd THINK of as art. These are the games that innovate and push the boundaries of challenge in order to reward achievers. You have your "popular" games (including the dreaded Farmville) which can serve as a 'ground floor' to a lot of people.
Both are necessary. The difficulty is that (as with music) no one seems willing to work in the area BETWEEN them and bridge the gap so that the willing can cross. (In music, this is what Aaron Copland tried to do.) We have two cold-warring factions, each uncompromising and unapologetic in their stubbornness, and few mediators in between.
And, as with music, it is the "hardcore" folks in the high art camp that speak the loudest. It doesn't mean they are the most right (or wrong), just that they (by the very nature of being "hardcore") are more passionate about it. However, they do often allow that passion to drive newcomers away.
If a game has a learning mode, with a sliding difficulty scale, they'll berate it as being too soft. If an MMO doesn't have a stiff enough death penalty, they'll call it a carebear factory. Any sign of compromise, and they become fanatically purist in what they consider good enough.
The other folks, who might be new or more casual in the gaming world, just want to play a diversionary game. If the environment of the hardcore gamer stresses them out, they just go elsewhere (and the market shows someone is always willing to provide an easier game). If they hit a puzzle that challenges them too much, they'll just look up a walkthrough and be done with it.
There can be "good games" in both of these categories. To my mind, however, the BEST games are those that work to bridge the gap between. A casual game that occasionally thwarts an expectation or rewards out-of-box thinking or presents a more demanding puzzle or problem... a hardcore game that has a robust learning feature that systematically teaches the player the requisite skills (rather than assuming they learning it from 'Earlier Game X') beyond just the basic controls.
I suppose I side more with the Developer-oriented side personally, simply because I'm more inclined to view games the way I view art. That is not to say "games are/aren't art," just that I view the craft in a similar way. The developer has a responsibility to give the players what they want inasmuch as it will draw them to the game... but the real challenge is "What do you do with them THEN?"
- If the answer is "take their money," both camps are fine as-is.
- If the answer is "make them better somehow," we need to find that middle ground.
As Handel said, after the massively-favorable reception to his oratorio "The Messiah":
"I should be sorry if I only entertained them, I wish to make them better"
). 
