Clint Hocking about interactive media

(Lecture at Futureplay)

He suggests that games can be places along 3 axis... we're currently focused on two:

Technology axis (group responsible: programmers)
This goes from data to resources
Either you rely on precomputed info or runtime. Think Myst vs some tiny game that creates textures on the fly

Representational axis (group responsible: creative team/artists)
Abstract vs simulation
Pong is abstract, it could represent anything. A game, or even a conversation. Rockstar's Table Tennis can't be argued to be anything else. It's a simulation.

His new concept:
The game "Call of Duty" is used as an example. You can play it, and think it's "fun". Well, the game designer has said it was inspired by the movie "Saving Private Ryan". It was of course a good movie, but when you get out of the movie do you say "wow, that was a fun movie!" ...? No, you don't - so he claims fun is not the right word.

"The solution I proposed was to stop talking about fun and start talking about an 'axis of meaning' that has at one end 'distraction' and at the other end 'engagement'."

Think Saving Private Ryan vs Snakes on a Plane, Final Fantasy vs Final Fight. Goes on to say distraction isn't bad, it's still enjoyment.

Continues to say that we're stuck as niche programmers making games to a niche group (18-35 male). Similar to other articles I've seen that talks about how the console wars are too focused on the core demographic.