More on that . . .

Yes, I understand that it's hard for some to accept that video games are art. But really, there shouldn't be an argument: They passed the threshold when they started involving emotions beyond winning and losing.

This was directly involved with the rise of narrative within the games, though that's not the entire story. Using narrative within the games made it possible to deepen the emotional response and take it into different directions. Even some of the earliest role playing games (admittedly computer based, but still) were on this track.

Incorporating the "real" world into the narrative has been a strategy in art at least since man started drawing on cave walls. Whether the "real" world is contemporary or historic, you're really doing the same thing. (A point that was missed in the NYT story I'm referring to below.)

Yes, the form has a long way to go. Right now, there's too much separation in most games between narration and gameplay, removing the player from the experience and reminding him that he's playing Red Dead Redemption a game, rather than leaving him totally immersed. Check out the number of cut scenes in Red, considered by many one of the best contemporary narrative shooters. The next hurdle will be to find a way to tell the story entirely through continuous gameplay, keeping the player, ever restoring the fourth wall until the end of the experience.

That was one of the ideas that we started with when we were working on Ace. There are a number of limitations, technical and in storytelling. But it will be nailed soon. And then games will get to a whole new level.