I think that many games a essentially simulations, which make a major difference from literature. A game is “world modeled”, while novel is a “world made up”. So, naturally, it is much harder to built any conclusions into a game, if underlying model is rich enough, although the prospect is undoubtedly amazing. Proving a point in free, interactive model has a unqiue appeal, a sort of mathematical elegance.

I can remember a couple of games, which I think succeed in arguing that doing things in right and honest way generally sucks. One example is Dungeon Keeper, which is among my all time favourites.

An indispensable lesson I’ve learned from one of more recent creations is that it’s ok to promise and give anything of value to a guy you barely know. You can then bit him into a pulp, get it back, and erase his memory with a spell. Amazing, really.

Take Diablo for another example. What does it prove? That good guys always prevail? That it’s ok to beat someone into non-existence, if he is undead? That it’s fine to get hacked with an axe, provided that you have enough healing potions?

On the other hand Diablo, with its loose and random structure and perfect ambiance, is great to make up stories of your own while playing along, if you’re into that sort of thing.

Funny enough, it’s what happens sometimes with “bad” literature. I mean, take some cheap fantasy book, which is schematic, completely silly and preposterous. I often find it possible to “fill the gaps” on the fly, making it a nicely enjoyable experience. It still wears of, though, if I read long enough.

The discussion also reminds about Fallout, where final sequence was generated based on what you did before in the game.