While I agree with the fundamental sentiment of interaction being essential, Sterling has a history of advocating this notion of "fun" as absolutely vital to the form, an angle which I cannot agree with.
I feel that always applying the label "game" is limiting in this sense, considering the inherent connotations of the term. (i.e frivolity, amusement, entertainment)
Saints Row 2 is definitely a game, and a brilliant one at that.
I'm not sure I would describe The Void as a game, however.
That does not imply an assessment of value, mind you. I think both are perfectly legitimate approaches. I simply believe a distinction is called for, considering the radical difference in their respective sensibilities.
To continue on that point, the inclusion of The Path felt thoroughly incongruous.
What exactly is "weird" about it?
Granted, it's an allegorical account of Little Red Riding Hood, but we've seen that done many a time before. The fact that it operates on a symbolic rather than literal level doesn't render it incomprehensible, nor does it detract from the experience.
It is involving because it invites the participant to consider the manner in which he or she is complicit in the events unfolding.
Far Cry 2, a much more populist title, is quite similar in that respect as it asks the participant to commit the most heinous crimes, all under the guise of traditional progression through gameplay.
There seems to be a lot of moaning about pretensions and artistic snobbery abound, but honestly, does any medium evolve unless there's some level of pretension involved?
What I admire about a developer such as Tale of Tales is their seemingly endless desire to disregard the unspoken rules of the interactive medium as we know it today.
Be it successfully or not.
The Endless Forest, available free of charge, is probably the most original multiplayer experience I've had as of yet in its utter dismissal of established norms in online interaction.
I'll readily agree that this policy of theirs occasionally renders their work a bit too willfully obscure, however. The intentionally incomprehensible control scheme of "Fatale" is a perfect example of this self-indulgence. But frankly, I'd much rather spend my time being exposed to an interesting, new and unfamiliar approach; albeit genuinely confusing, than simply submit to yet another run-of-the-mill, predictable exercise in box-office lucre à la Epic Games.
P.S
I find it delightfully ironic that Sterling criticises something for being self-satisfied to the point of disregarding the enjoyment of its audience.
I still dislike his approach, and I still find him a very problematic commentator.
D.S