Well, I would say that the problem with argueing game design philsophy is that pretty much everything I've read so far seems to entirely omit money from the occasion. I don't think there is anything philsophical about the goals of the people making the games today, even though there might once have been. Few people in the industry really care about making a game that is good, as long as the game makes money. If a piece of shovelware sells a million copies, then that's a success, yet nobody including the industry considers it a good game. Various tie-in games to kids movies are an example of this. Maybe you could associate them with the logic of some great philsopher, but in the end it's nothing like that, some fat cat in a suit is figuring "Hey, this disney movie is coming out, parents will bring their kids to disney movies in massive droves without even thinking about it. Those kids will whine for the game. We buy the right to stamp that label on a game and we'll make tons of money!".
I'll also argue that innovation is not nessicarly a good thing. Too much innovation is just as bad as stagnation. People did not "retire" Chess entirely and stop playing it in favor of redoing the entire game and still trying to say it was Chess. People still play that game more or less unchaged today because it's pefect at what it does.
When looking at video games, people will make arguements about things like JRPGs, and Turn based combat, and similar things, and talk about stagnation. Those things and formats continue to exist because they are perfect at what they set out to do. Granted they might not have the sheer fanbase compared to the mainstream audiences for other titles, but there is nothign fundementally wrong with them except from perhaps a financial perspective where their fan base is not as large or profitable as that for flashier and more innovative games. Just as today not everyone plays Chess, in fact I'd argue that the majority of people probably don't know how to play Chess, but it still has a MASSIVE following viewed objectively, chess sets are still sold, and and no sane person suggests that we should change the rules to make it simpler, or officially rename the pieces after pop culture icons (ss opposed to simply making pieces in their likeness for those who enjoy that sort of thing) to make it more popular.
Such are my initial thoughts and opinions upon rading part 2.
Really, I'd like to see a more philosophical aproach to game design, and people trying to make good games for the sake of making objectively good games, but as we're dealing with a huge and corperate business that doesn't seem likely.
