Ha, great post, Bill. I read Steve Johnson's book "Everything Bad is Good For You" last year and highly recommend it--for many reasons--but one thing that sticks out in my mind is the author's tale about how he grew up playing a type of virtual baseball. It was a complicated, esoteric game that involved lots of dice, decisions, calculations, and statistics. Definitely not for all of us! Yet, there is a type of person who lives for such activities.

Again, though, I highly agree with the idea that we must keep the world's most financially successful (or popular) games distinct from the greatest. There is the same split in most other art forms. No one I know would seriously claim that Pirates of the Caribbean II is a great work. It's a fun work, it's a widely appealing work, and it's been highly successful. But great? No, way. That title is reserved for films that have more of an impact; that do much more than just entertain you for awhile. It also identifies films that show a mastery of direction and cinematography that is simply lacking in most films. Even though I didn't like the film Titanic, I don't deny that it is technically great, if for no other reason than the stunning attention to detail and the realism of the ship (for similar reasons, I'd award King Kong similar accolades).

However, it always comes back to films like Citizen Kane. After you've watched that film (with a critical, well-informed eye), you find yourself gasping at the greatness. Yet, do most people like Citizen Kane? No. Most people today wouldn't even bother to go see it, and would almost certainly argue that a film like Pirates of the Carribean II or the like is a better film. You know the type--they can't name a single work by Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven, yet claim they know great music (Tupac, Snoop Dogg, Brittany Spears, of course). Indeed, try showing even an accessible masterpiece like The Seven Samarai or Patton to a mixed audience. They lack the taste and sophistication to appreciate it.

Tetris seems to represent more or less the "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" of games. It's almost universally appealing. Still, even though we could talk all day about how charming, original, and technically inventive it was, I'd step back from calling it a great work.

The truth is, there is only one type of person who can really identify a great game. That's a person who has played and understood what was good and bad about countless other games, and has developed a very critical eye. Furthmore, such a person must be fiercely independent from all prejudices and must consider each work solely on its own merits, without feeling the need to consult sales figures and the like. Finally, he must be able to present clear and cogent arguments that support his opinion. Perhaps it's on this last matter that I've fallen short, so I see another post in the near future. :-)