Let me ask you: what is a good medium for art? A painting, a sculpture? And while we're at it, what is Art, and what isn't? Often you have to search for meaning, even when it'is not actually put there purposely by the creator, just to lift your own experience of the thing. Better is a lazy adjective, and is used far too often in (pseudo-)objective arguments. But all vague, universal questions aside: So, you're saying a game can be "gamey", XOR an interactive experience. Isn't that thinking a bit black-and-white? (*rimshot* HAR HAR HAR) Why can't a game try both, and become an immersive, engaging puzzle platformer experience (like um.. Limbo for example). Is it impossible to achieve? Btw, a "gamey" platformer isn't per se Super Mario Bros. The question is do you find the B&W colour scheme just a gimmick? If the game had colours, would it have the same feel? I agree that B&W is overused and especially in photographs, but there it is (most of the time) absolutely unnecessary. It adds nothing. You seem to stumble over the art style and the "meaning", but what about the "Feel" of the game? The atmosphere, the movement of the character, the sound (too often forgotten), etc. Have you played it? Sure, you can strip out some elements of a game and say that it sucks or is terribly cliché, but you need to look at the thing as a whole. A game is - after all - (most of the time) better than the sum of its parts. You can say that VVVVVV is a terrible game because it has a nonsense story, no deeper meaning, and an artstyle that obviously tries to be "retro", but you'd be forgetting the moment it all comes together. I must admit that I haven't played Limbo myself, so I can't talk about the "wannabe SMB" gameplay you refer to, and I don't know whether it all comes together nicely, but I can only remark that you keep talking about complaints about some elements of the game, and about your aversion for art games that still want to be a game. For me, that's not sufficient to make an argument.