The increasing popularity of games may hurt games as an art.

[Spummbuddy]

It's nice to see lots of peoples opinions and thoughts on this topic, as there tends to be a range of comments.

Sorry to anyone if I came across as the "Why can't you all stop being beneath me like little rats and like what I like?" type, that's not what I was trying to say or meant, the games I choose to like are my taste, there are games that are particularly good and well designed I can think of that I didn't like because of an aspect of that genre that just doesn't interest me. I don't want people to like the games I like, I want people to like games that have some effort put into them, and that trait exists beyond my approval. I'm just another person not the all-mighty decider of worthyness.

And In case you don't believe that, I wouldn't bother coming here trying to convince people that the games I like are better than the games they like, because I've been on the internet long enough to know you can't ever convince anyone of anything, they will always already have an opinion, and they won't be convinced otherwise, I came here to discuss the topic, not to try to make people conform to my taste, I know it wouldn't work, why would I waste my goddamn time?

And about the Wii, going into this gen I was expecting the new input method to create some great new ideas, but it's become more of a cheap gimmick rather than a new creative area to explore. The design of the Wii as a system was good, but the way things have turned out upsets me.

Most of the games I did mention are modern, because they're the ones I could remember at the time being in more recent memory, I don't think games have become shit now, I just wonder and worry if they will.

I don't remember who said games should try to focus on fun (And I'm too lazy to go back through and check :) ) but I'll still comment on that. Games Interactivity is what separates it and makes games as an art particularly special. Fun isn't the enemy of game-art, its more part of the diversity of it, a game doesn't have to have an amazingly written story to be good, the example I gave Serious Sam, is easily one of the most plot-hole filled poorly written games ever, but it chose to play that as a strength, got the stupid writing out of the way as fast as possible, and then used its time on a large range of monsters to deal with, so it invested its time into where it'll be the best at and that is fun. What annoys me is games that surround themselves with an atmosphere of boring (Note: Atmosphere != Writing, but they are closely related) then go on to be not that special or particularly well designed.

There are typically 2 loud "Things need to change" shouters, those saying games need to get more serious and challenge us as a person and our ideas and beliefs, and those who say games need to get back to being fun and that its the most important trait of games. I don't know why these two groups separate themselves, they're both under the "Game devs should put some goddamn effort into it" idea, and those two kinds of games can exist without harming each other.

@Silicon: Yes, digital distribution is a good hope for games, Steam for example has the potential to grow into a more innovative market place for games, as risk-taking doesn't risk as much profit loss, and is good for small-time devs starting out.