I’m getting really sick and tired of listening to people who’ve built their careers by telling me what games are and what they aren’t (and there are a lot of ‘em). How many times do I have to listen to someone tell me that games could one day communicate through interaction, and not through cutscenes? How games need to strive to create experiences that really touch the human soul?

And if I hear anyone EVER ask, “Can a game make you cry?” I will make THEM cry by punching them repeatedly in the face. And then point them to Ico, Planetfall, Skies of Arcadia, or any number of games that have already done that.

So let’s be clear. Games already do these things. And maybe it can be hard to see, because they don’t look like one might expect them to look, but just because it doesn’t look like a book, or a movie, or some other “accepted” form of art doesn’t mean it isn’t.

Games encompass a huge variety of things, from vacuous, largely visceral entertainment to a really highbrow, subtle, and memorable way to express an idea. I think the beauty of games is in their breadth – there are so many tools at a creator’s disposal that you can express an idea in an unprecedented number of ways.

Sim City made a very bold personal statement about the efficacy of public transportation. And that was expressed entirely through its interactive systems. You wanted to make an optimal city? No problem – build a city without roads. No traffic jams, and the train system is wonderfully efficient, as long as you fund it properly. Happy citizens abound! That is a beautiful combination of authorial intent communicated through systemic behavior.

The Sims did something similar – but this time, it was a joke about trying to attain happiness & contentment through endless materialism. Buy stuff to make yourself happy. Get bored of that stuff. Get a better job to get more stuff. Wash, rinse, repeat until dead. I’ve never seen a method of communicating that futility that was funnier, more visceral, or more potent.

Even the most pop-culture blockbusters have interesting things to say, and interesting ways to say them. The point of the “No Russian” mission in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was that the interaction was what made things extraordinarily uncomfortable. Same with Manhunt, which I hated. Same with Shadow of the Colossus, which I couldn’t keep playing. Same with… Gitaroo-Man. Yeah – it’s abstract, hitting buttons to play guitar to win over the girl of your dreams, but when playing, you felt insecure.

You want something that captures the brilliance of some of the human content of film’s best works, but dramatically surpasses it in almost every way imaginable? Go to an MMO and immerse yourself socially – whether you’re role-playing or simply listening to someone’s personal stories or creating your own new memories with people you’ve only met in-game. With the breadth of people you’ll encounter, you’ll have a more “human” experience than the vast majority of movies can provide. You may lose authorial control over the long arc of the entire experience, but the short arcs of interaction with people, mediated by the game, can far surpass anything that film can provide. You may say that’s “social interaction” and not “gaming,” but I disagree.

You want a game about friendship? Trust? Kindness? Altruism? Something heartbreaking? Surprising? Shocking? Disgusting? Unbelievable? Tender? Loving? You want a social experience that builds lasting relationships? Games. With people. Already happens all the time. Is the problem here the presence of people? I don’t see it that way. The system gives you a framework within which to interact. It gives you a means of expression, and it gives other players a means to respond. The designers create the mediating mechanisms, and by design, encourage specific types of behavior, just as in any game. If that’s not interactivity mediated through systems, I don’t know what is, and more, I don’t know why it’s not already widely recognized as such.

Take Fleck, for instance. It’s simple, but one of the things we wanted to do was create a social experience that encourages people to interact with each other in positive, cooperative ways. Whether it’s helping each other maintain their plants, showing someone around your neighborhood, or shooting zombies together, the mechanics of the game encourage friendly interactions between players at a relaxed, low-pressure pace. Different kinds of games may bring people together in similar ways, but the social experience in Fleck is a very different experience than playing Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer. That’s not an accident.

The thing that drives me crazy is simple – you have a bunch of people talking about how games should be more than they are, but in the midst of those conversations, you have a lot of people ignoring what games already are, and what the hardworking people in the industry are striving to create, dismissing it as pop-culture pablum.

The thing is, since they’re too busy comparing them to film & books & comics & whatever existing media they’re aspiring to, they’ve already missed what makes games different.

You want meaning through systemic interaction? It already exists. You want games that are about deep parts of the human experience? They’re already here. Sometimes they involve actual humans, but they’re still games – they’re still videogames, and the rules that the creators build dramatically impact those interactions.

So, stop complaining that games aren’t what you want them to be, just because you can’t see what they already are. Thousands of people, every day, are working really hard to make games that push the boundaries – that create new ways to interact with the world – to create novel new experiences that already are what you’re looking for and more.

If you can’t see that, then maybe you should stop talking and start playing.