"Super Mario Galaxy!" The jolly voice of the grand-old-man of game-characters always brings a smile to my face. The game with the same name has proven to be one of the best gaming-experiences I've ever had. Now, Mario has always been about gaming with a capital G. The latest iteration is an incredible collection of creative playfullness when it comes to game-mechanics and I'm thrilled with how the developers at Nintendo have managed to constantly surprise me with new ways to play the game without ever breaking the internal logics. As a "game for the fun of it" this is about as good as it gets.

But can games be more than pure entertainment? And should they be more? Now, in some respects they already are. Improved eye to hand coordination is a well known positive effect and a recent study from the University of Toronto indicates improved spatial skills from gaming as well. But this is not what I'm looking for. I'm awaiting the moment where games can truly be considered great art. Now "art" is a fairly elusive subject, I know. The "certified-art" stamp on it's own isn't necessarily worth a lot. Obviously games already have a lot of artistic elements about them, but I'm still awaiting that one clearly defined moment where a game changes our understanding of society.

Most(?) people have probably had experiences with art that have changed their outlook on life and/or society. Perhaps a book, a film, a painting or any of the other clearly defined artforms. Even more impressively a handfull of artworks can actually be said to have transformed society itself. But a game? I've had my share of "wow this is great"-experiences but none that could be said to have changed my outlook on the world. How often do games put you in a truly moral dilema? I believe part of the problem comes from the nature of games. You play to win. People don't care why they have to kill the aliens as long as the action provides the necessary rush. I am not requesting optional paths for the player to choose in mechanical fashion. No, it could be as simple as changing the perceived reality a bit during the span of a game. What if you start out as a butch alien-killer only to find out that the aliens you have been killing are friendly creatures with families. This might seem cruel but if games never provokes us to think like this they'll for always be the funny, but shallow, cousin of the art-family.

Hopefully I'll be able to experience the La Guernica of gaming in my lifetime...

* Yes I know there are female gamers as well, it's just the way I write...

Don't judge a book by its cover...

As some of you know games are one of my many interests. Now, I really don't play that much anymore (it's true honey!) but I still enjoy playing every now and then. My interest in games as a media far exceeds the time I spend actually playing them though. I was therefore quick to order Raph Koster's "A Theory of Fun for Game Design" when I came across it at Amazon.

Mr. Koster is a game designer and has worked on both Star Wars Galaxies and Ultima Online. His credentials, as well as the title of the book, hinted towards an interesting read. Luckily the hints were right as the book is well paced and a offered a pleasant journey. The author's emotional anecdotes from his family made it easy to connect with the text.

Unfortunately the book is somewhat let down by the presentation. Mr. Koster have decided to illustrate the book himself and while drawings are functional they border on helpless from an aestethic point-of-view. Furthermore the whole layout of the book feels more like an advanced hobby-project than something a publisher should let slip out the door. You might argue that it's content, not presentation, that matters but the content looses a lot of credibility when presented like this. The credibility is further harmed when the author far too quickly brushes over research and studies that's supposed to support his ideas. As Mr. Koster seems reluctant to give away much detail about these studies the sceptic in me is awaken. The result is that even a layman like myself is not entirely convinced despite the obvious intellect displayed through the text. It's a sad irony that a man that insists that his own craft has the potential become "art" has not bothered to hire a decent illustrator. Fortunately this does not make this is a bad book by any means. Despite my reservations, Mr. Koster's sense of humor even manages to transcend the poorly executed visuals occasionally.

...or by its illustrations.

So, should you buy it? Well, I would not recommend it to everyone. It is at it's best a fascinating journey into one man's ideas about games as a medium and where it is/should be going. The book contains a lot of food for thought and I already feel a blog-post about some of these thoughts trying to break free. I am personally pleased to have it in my collection. So, not a must-buy then. But, if you have a more than fleeting interest in games and the night-stand is currently a book short you could do a lot worse than getting a copy of "A Theory of Fun"...