I've been thinking (which is admittedly dangerous)...

These are some of my most anticipated games, regardless of whether I own the console or not.

We tend to ramble on and on about how serious these games are, but are they really? All will probably score above 85%. I think all of them have certain level of cheesiness, campiness, and immaturity. I don't mind, I like how games are fun and light hearted. That is why I play games 2-4 hours a day instead of watching TV. If these were films or books though it would be hard for any to gain critical or academic admiration.

Mario is one of my favorites, on one level it's like an expressionist or a surrealist painting but on the other it would appear outlandish if it were a work of traditional art or a piece of literature. The rest on the list are just silly. Whether you're given a sword from the gods, fighting WWII era deep sea divers who protect blood drinking little girls with drill arms, or being corrupted by phazon, none of these are going to be taken seriously by people outside the gaming circle. The concepts sound great to (most of) us, and I will get and play as many of these and more as possible. The popular facination with sci-fi or fantasy, Star Trek or Conan, and other fantasy stories are taken lightly and in good humor by most. While the hardcore fans and the sheer number of these movies, books, or games do a disservice to the art behind the campiness.

(Why am I suddenly getting philosophical: I am trying to understand how Nintendo, Blizzard, and movie-game makers use tools from popular culture and traditional past times outside of gaming to bring people into gaming, so that I can understand the psychology of the mass market. I used to own a business, got out of it to go back to school and work with a friend; now I am looking to form sound principles for when I get back into selling my own goods and services.)

That is one reason I have shied away from Nintendo games, because they are not story driven. That is not to say that Nintendo doesn't produce fantastic games, I am just not compelled by Mario's quest to save the princess.

I am still dying to play Super Mario Galaxy in any case. I am not willing to purchase a Wii for it though. I do appreciate the artistic break the designers have taken with the game though, because it looks fantastic and very surreal. Definitely a step in the right direction.

My point is that the games are cheesy accross the board (by mainstream standards), and didn't mention graphics or storytelling independently of the overall game presentation and story-arc/plot.

I said:
"Whether you're given a sword from the gods, fighting WWII era deep sea divers who protect blood drinking little girls with drill arms, or being corrupted by phazon, none of these are going to be taken seriously by people outside the gaming circle"

One game I didn't include on the list was Haze. While I think that there is some campy humor, the idea that the games takes on drug use, the military industrial complex, and neocolonialism is one of the deepest plots of any game I can think of.

bingo, the same for me, gameplay has always been fun with nintendo, but i also think story is almost as important in some games. Look at the FF series, if not for its fantastic story telling it wouldnt be where it is today.

I'd say the majority of film and television productions are just as cheesy, but far less creative about it. Many of those cheesy productions receive mainstream and critical success.

I'll admit that critically successful novels tend to have less fromage, but visual stories like film, television, and even video games seem to almost require a little quick and dirty campiness to get the story across in their more limited time frames.

Although you throw Bioshock in with other video games as being kind of tacky, most of the reviews I've seen have praised the emotional depth of the title. Isn't emotional depth the biggest distinction between your typical critically successful video game and your typical critically successful film?

You're getting philosofical because you're drunk?
No really, i liked the starting post.

People seem to respect old over new, like something older would be more valuable than something new. I don't expect book critics to respect movies or movie critics to respect games. That's the it just is.

Non-gaming audience doesn't respect gaming, since they mostly see it non-social (which single player epic games usually are) or no-life activity as just running around headless and a bunch of brats swearing (which online multiplayer gaming usually is).

In games, also the interactivity scares some people, since people just want easy living, in this particular matter, they rather watch soap operas and Dr. Phil on TV, telling them to get a hold of themselves (do as Dr. Phil tells you; get a hold of yourself and don't watch Dr. Phil, it's a really brain damaged activity).
In interactive entertainment, you have to really do something, not just lie around being passive.

How to appeal to non-gamers. I think that teenage boys are easy, everything "rebel who does what he wants with no responsibility" or "big guns, big boys and testosterone" basically will do. Other way is to appeal is sociality, since Homo Sapiens is a social animal. One thing is online community and the other is being social with your friend playing party games.
I see also easy-to-access games, which are easy to control and the looks of the game, like something that no one can really hate, appealing to non-gamers.

So, it's impossible to make a game, that everyone would like, but you can make multiple games with each its own targeted audience.

Did i get anywhere near what you were meaning. :)

Where is the cheese in Bioshock or Halo or Warhawk or FF XIII (we dunno anything about it)?

Anyway, why does this have anything to do with the whole core games versus casual games debate.

Lack of cheesiness is not a quality of a core game (?), it's the way the game is played that determines the category. Every game on your list is a core game.

No one ever claimed that core games are always serious... the best parts of MGS is the ridiculous humor, the best parts of Mario is the light hearted fun and gameplay.

It's not a question of serious versus non serious at all. Killer 7 is one of the least casual friendly games ever (least gamer friendly too) and it's nothing short of total insanity and silliness.

Actually it would be exactly where it is today... because that's where it is.  IMO Square hasn't told a good FF story since 6 and even 6's story kinda slowed down in the World of Ruin.  It's all be rehashes and repeats of the same cliche characters since then. 

u shudnt call those hardcore games silly considering every1 on this site is hardcore and will defend those games to the hill...but i c ur point

I consider all those games hardcore.