As the full weight of the Annual Summer Drought hits the games industry, I was left wondering what on Earth to write about for Fire Flower this month: maybe an extensive piece on the aforementioned drought? Maybe an article on just how bored I'm getting? Perhaps even a little something on the triskaidekaphobia �the fear of the number 13, which seems to permeate the whole of civilisation?

Nah.

After playing Timesplitters 3 and Morrowind (again) the other day, I began thinking about the significance of art and action in games, whether or not modern-day titles with their graphical complexities and sonorous wonders should actually be works of art that accurately depict the soul of their creators. Or should they instead be all about bigger guns, more realistic facial expressions and rollercoaster thrill rides?

There's certainly a case to be argued for both interpretations: Games such as ICO, for example, have always been at the forefront of debates on the artistic and soulful beauty that games exude when developers put heart and soul lovingly into their creations. Certainly when you play games such as Oddworld, Final Fantasy and ICO you become aware of the deeper core of the game, the centre of the work that oozes style, emotion and power. These games often initially overwhelm the senses with the veritable cornucopia of breathtaking flair and effortless complexity: they really embody the exact opposite of the "pick-up-and-play" mentality that the casual gamer searches for. That is as good an explanation as any for why a lot of the more artistic games are doomed to cult status, forgotten by the majority of the collective consciousness, favoured by the more open-minded, but sometimes elitist, minority of full-time gamers.

Titles such as those mentioned above frequently score very highly in the gaming press, who recognise a breath of fresh air when they see one. However, the truth is that a lot of the more "arty" games are not only daunting initially, but downright difficult to understand as a whole. It sometimes feels as if the developers themselves have decided that they are artists and will not compromise their artistic vision in order to make the game more accessible to the masses. It is almost as if they want to alienate people from their design in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, to push away so many players in order to create a hardcore following of those "worthy" of their masterwork.

Of course, this is pretty much a sure-fire way to get your artistic little ass out of a job and working a night shift in the warehouse of the software giant that realised games not only have to look good - they also have to play good.

The opposite of all this art comes in the form of the easy to play, hard to put down games that often get such a bad reputation from the press and the snootier gamers. These games are not worthy to be mentioned in the same breath as the masterful and awe-inspiringly soulful titles that they sit next to unobtrusively on the shelf, waiting to be bought by an unsuspecting parent, or an uneducated player.

Yet there is still a great deal of value in these games; after all, the games industry is an entertainment sector. If you cannot entertain a player, then you cannot guarantee that they will purchase the next title in the series. What a lot of the less 'hardcore' gamers want are simpler games that they can show off to their friends; loud, showy explosions and a new trick with a football are the order of the day. Not particularly full of heart and soul, but they manage to do the job that they have set out to do well enough. Games such as these may not score highly, or be particularly memorable in their execution; however, these games are the bread and butter of the industry that needs to make money.

But when you have made the largest, deadliest Sci-Fi gun to take out the most eye-splittingly awesome final guardian, where do you go from there?

If developers aren't already asking themselves this question, then they should be. The games industry is in danger of going the same way as the music industry: too many manufactured games and bands that look good and play good, but have a short shelf-life are overrunning the music and games charts. While at the same time, the deeper games and bands are becoming fewer and farther between as they seemingly alienate the audience and appeal to an iron-willed, closed-minded minority that buy fewer and fewer games and CDs.

Perhaps you could argue that Nintendo, with its shady revelations about the Revolution, are trying to push the envelope a little further by sacrificing power for innovation and fresh design. But this is a double-edged sword: casual gamers will take one swift look at the Revolution and pick something that's far easier to understand and spend lots of money on. The elitists will pick the Revolution, but need to own other consoles as developers realise that they will not make a great deal of money on Nintendo's console by selling to a dwindling minority and instead keep their casual games for the more profitable consoles.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, only time will tell. The key to the continued success of the industry is, above all else, balance between beauty and bullets.

[email protected]