In a way, id's responses in this interview seem far more disconcerting. Peter Moore could be forgiven for his answers - he was the face of the XBox's marketing campaign at the time. This interview included id's CEO, sure, but it also included one of the game's artists. That neither of them were able (or willing) to adequately articulate why their game is, like, so totally awesome is pretty crazy.
@Shoe I agree wholeheartedly. These guys could have benefited greatly from a personality like Bleszinkski or Jaffe in their camp. Regardless of how you feel about those guys, they always manage to be both candid and on-messag"
http://nygamecritics.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/the-state-of-videogame-journalism/
The stakes have never been higher for the games press to start moving in a variety of bold new directions. Not just one will do. Experimentation with different creative ideas - to say nothing of new methods of profitability - are needed. Now."









You could argue that some games use "addictiveness," "education," or "fear" as their engaging hook and games like Dear Esther engage players in a different way - fun just isn't the word to describe it. Games can be recreational, enjoyable, and interesting, all without having to maintain this sense of "fun" that feels super familiar to hardcore gamers.
This isn't a controversial concept in gaming academia - games don't have to be fun to be interesting, period. They just have to be engaging. But try telling that to someone who plops down $60 with the expectations of having a totally radical badass gaming experience."