Ian Bogost, who wrote a new book on persuasive games, makes a run on the Colbert Report, a bold move for any man (I'm a fan of the show).
Ian does a good job defending games as a medium and artistic expression. Colbert offers that Pac-Man is nothing more than a pill popping simulation, games Ian calls abstract.
Ian is interested in political and social issues in games. Oil God, for instance, is a game a lot of people might be interested in, while maybe shying away from the one about being a disgruntled copy store employee.
Games like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas offer up true life situations like eating food. The only food you can eat in San Andreas is from fast food restaurants. A stab at life in the 'hood? I don't think that was the best argument he could have used, but he was able to make the point.
I'll offer another one: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas also employs a fitness management model. Your character can go to a gym, work out over the course of a 5-10 gym sessions and see an increase in muscle mass, which makes your character run faster and longer. Or you could assume the roll of a fat guy, eat food all the time and be lazy by only getting around in vehicles.
What is interesting here is that while these types of simulation models work themselves into every game genre, gamers and game creators realize that the nature of gaming demands we have both types of games: games with simulation and games without. Some gamers like the meta-gaming built in so they can manipulate details and character statistics. Others don't want to deal with the hassle of management while gaming and just want to have fun.
Luckily the industry can support multiple types of games and the store shelves hold something for everyone.
