What I don't like is the old saying "it's just a game"--as if games are nothing but insignificant time-wasters.

As a kid in the 60s, I could look with awe upon the likes of Bobby Fischer. Chess was clearly *more* than just a game. To be a world champion chess player really meant something. Chess itself held ancient mysteries that few would uncover--but those few would be richly rewarded for their effort.

Nowadays many new games come out each year, and few (if any) of them are destined to be time-honored classics. We look for a "game of the year" award, buy a copy of that game to amuse ourselves with for a few months, then put it away and hunt for a new thrill.

It used to be that a game was something to admire, work at, puzzle over, and maybe even dedicate oneself to for life. A favorite game might be passed down from one generation to the next, becoming a family tradition. Now games are like recreational drugs--good for a few hours of pleasure until the kick wears off.

If a game is worth designing, publishing, learning, and playing, it ought to be worth cherishing, dedicating oneself to, and working to master. An excellent game should serve one for a lifetime and be passed on to the next generation. (OK, so I've got a conservative streak. What can I say?)