> Compare, for example, the ubiquitous software application PowerPoint [171] and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas [211]. We can identify four key differences in in

> Compare, for example, the ubiquitous software application PowerPoint [171] and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas [211]. We can identify four key differences in interaction which help to characterise video game play as distinct. First, in using PowerPoint, a user’s primary objective is the creation of a presentation and the interaction is a means to this end. In playing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, however, a player’s primary objective is play and the interaction is an end in itself. Second, given this difference, users of PowerPoint expect the interface to be as unobtrusive as possible, while players of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas are specifically focused on the interface as they play: the interface is the game. Third, while we generally think of PowerPoint as solely facilitating our work, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas frequently assigns tasks such as killing gang members, evading the police, or navigating the world. Finally, in PowerPoint the ideal user experience is seamless and without error, but a successful playing of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas will inevitably and acceptably include mistakes, challenges, and the frequent death of the player’s avatar. This is the first thing I saw in his paper and I have to say those claims are, well, interesting. And I say this as someone who plays video games. I can think of numerous counterexamples to each claim and even examples that conflict with every claim. Take Dwarf Fortress, who's interface is the bane of every player's existence, or Human Resource Machine which is essentially a learn-to-program game and therefore most serves its purpose when its emulating a beginner's version of MSVC. Minecraft's creative mode offers no fail states, cathartic killing sprees or explicit challenge, but merely stimulates parts of the brain capable of 3D processing. Competitive gaming like CS:GO, COD, Dota (and about 30 more) also don't fit into this model of games. Admittedly I'm not a PhD in anything, much less video games, but this paper's analysis seems to fall short of explaining most games.