I've been reading this interesting blog post from Frictional Games (makers of Penumbra) about how gameplay and narrative are detrimental to games having meaning.
While I don't 100% agree with everything he says, I think the guy makes some interesting points about new ways that the gaming medium might evolve. Obviously it doesn't apply to all games (chess for example is all about gameplay, some other games are all about story).
I liked the point about meaning being separate from implementation.
http://frictionalgames.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-gameplay-and-narrative-kill-meaning.html

But without a gameplay and without narrative, there would be no reason for the game's existence. How can you justify a game without what makes it unique?
I disagree. RPGs have a narrative, but it's very much interactive and non linear. The narrative, I believe is the core of any game (that has one, anyway). If you make a story good and you engineer it so that it allows for a very open experience, you can do that. If you want to make it shitty and make it so that nobody wants to touch it, you can do that too.
Yeah, I get what he's on about, less on the story and more on... whatever, but it just does not seem like something you can call a game. Gameplay and narratives are what makes games games. Strip that away and you have a shell of what appears to be some kind of interactive thing.
That's just my $0.02.

I had to think of The Path.

Hmm, interesting article. I have to agree with the thought that narrative is the most important element but the narrative should grow from the meaning the designer wants to express otherwise the separation will lead to a disjointed end product.
I'm incredibly biased in this regard since I'm a "story beats everything" kind of person, I've finished many a godawful game and watched many a 'used to be awesome but now is awful' tv show purely to see what happened in the story. Focussing entirely on meaning could well lead to a product that looks like 'developer being pretentiously arty with his head up his arse' wanky shit, much the same as focussing entirely on story can lead to "Oh so I get control of my game again for 5 minutes?"
Probably the biggest problem is that we're all different. Many people would say that story doesn't matter at all as long as there's gameplay and the number of games where story is interchangable, cliched or simply nonexistant but which are nevertheless good examples of their genre is proof that it works. Is Space Invaders an inspiring tale of "Horatio At The Bridge" heroism or simply the perfectly distilled elements of a atavistic 3rd person shooter?
I don't think that narrative necessarily needs a meaning to be effective but I do think that a meaning requires a strong and tightly scripted narrative to convey the nuances or it'll be open to interpretation and thus not be A MEANING (specific) but a THEME (general). Braid is an excellent example of this, the meaning wasn't communicated with as much clarity as it could have been and lacked reenforcement so when the storybooks started talking about the atomic bomb tests, the internet was abuzz with arguments over the meaning of it, was it a clever allegory or the developer trying to sound clever with pretentious crap.?
When both elements work in tandem you get particularly strong end product. Planescape Torment is an example of it being done right. The meaning was stated several times through the game but not overdone and both the core meaning and the supporting elements periodically reenforced so as long as you paid attention the whole thing kept a solid structure, maintained a coherent narrative (depending on who you talked to, it IS Sigil), never lost sight of its meaning and objectives and had jennifer hale to voice a hot succubus. End result: One of the best games ever made.

It seems to me that "games" generally break down into 3 main types.
Gameplay games that are based entirely around the mechanics. These don't need any narrative or meaning at all. This might include many puzzle games, board games, and possibly multiplayer competitive games.
Story "games" that are based around telling a set story in a mostly linear way. Even though they allow some freedom and choice, it usually means that the "player" has to go through required parts for exposition.
Emergent games (for want of a better word) that are more about the experience and the player finding their own enjoyment. I guess you could include parts of sandbox games in this category.
I guess the kind of game he's talking about would mostly be related to the third type. A game where things occur, or are observed, or not, and the player's actions and interpretations are less prescribed.
I hope that games can evolve in this direction, otherwise I fear that we are doomed to a future of shooty games and quick-time events, as that's the only way games can deliver their stories. If you think about the broad range of genres and messages that are encompassed by books, movies and tv shows... and then compare it to the vast majority of games - there's a very limited focus on the games side.

Thats kind of what he's saying with the usage of the term Game being a detriment in itself (sure as fuck is to our R18+ issue). Sadly he's more than 2 decades too late to change that. They're games now and any attempt to rename them to provide broader meaning is just going to fail. Look at movies, the name stems from "OMG! PICTURES THAT MOVE!!!" and even though that'd been common enough for nigh on a century, the name has stuck and trying to call them anything else just makes you look like a dick.
Same goes for games, if they try to brand something as an interactive entertainment experience then it'll get lost even faster in the market since it looks either wanky or ill defined

Assassins Creed pissed me off so much, they gave you story to the point where you started skipping side missions because you wanted closure and then like angling a steak in front of a lions cage they give you "neon vision" and give the player a big middle finger...
I was so disappointed that i screamed when i saw that was it.... Endings are what games are about, i want a good solid ending, Sonic 2 had a bad ass ending... Hitman: Blood Money now that gave me chills... System Shock 2, no spoilers just an experience... Final Fantasy VII, i high doubrt i need to say more... Unreal 2, i freaking cried like a girl...
Vagabond this is for you... Wing Commander III, if you played though up till then... im getting goosebumps thinking of it.... and yes i jumped up screaming!
Story meets game play with good solid endings: Deus Ex, Mass Effect, God of War 2 (if you played 1 and beat that) I watched that cinematic more then any other... digital perfection!
Grim Fandango wrapped up everything you only had a few questions but mainly everything got explained
Shadows of Colossus my #1 favorite game Ive ever played in the history of all that is and will be. This game is easy, very easy... its a story, nay an experience that must be played though from start to finish... Ive never cried while beating a final boss before, hell Ive never gotten so emotionally attached to a game character before... this is Unreal 2 were my emotional roller-coasters....

Isn't that called a "movie"? I mean, you have controls like "play", "pause", "stop", "next chapter", and "put disc on shelf to forget about it until friend sees it and wonders why you bought that awful piece of crap so you have to make up an excuse like 'aunt gave it to me for christmas'".

Ahh I see you bought a copy of Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes too!
AC was designed from the start to be part of a trilogy whereas all of the games you mentioned as examples of doing it well (definitely agree on hitman, best "credits sequence" ever) were all self contained products with no concrete future plans.
Not that its an excuse for doing it like that but that's the sort of thing that would have been going through their heads when making AC 1 & 2. Give them the ending to Altair & Ezio's stories but not give them the ending to Desmond's story until the end of the trilogy

I rather liked the way psychonauts had all the little kid's individual stories that progressed throughout the game, but when and how you picked up on those stories seemed to be up to you. You probably could have played the whole game without ever talking to or really witnessing any of those side stories...

*SPOILERS*
Ive yet to play AC2, but I agree, end the respective time lines with a solid point so you feel satisfied instead of cheated.. im cool with the Desmond issues but just leaving Altiar in front of *it* really ruined it for me... i wanted to see what happens? i can assume he took over control and leadership but i guess i wont know till 2 or 3... and DAMMIT if Ubisoft hasn't announced more Assassins Creed after the trilogy... "milk milk milk"

While I understand that for the ending (after all, you're not forced to put a "true" end in a game that is supposed to have a story "to be continued"), in my point of view, AC1 has failed miserably on the story.
The background (not to be confused with the story that evolves all along the game) was nice, but everything in this game has been made to highlight the technical part (game engine, graphics, animations, "cool-moves" that you don't really control, etc...), and so, to seduce the casual masses, nothing more.
Now that I think of it, that could be the definition to any recent Ubi game.

How about Phantasmagoria: no gameplay, no meaning, a terrible story - you do get to see a terrible actress trying to make a career for herself though *laughs*

Most FMV-laden games don't work anyway, because they are truly the epitome of linear.
Except that CIA agent game.

Ahh the Interactive Movie, one of the first genuine disappointments of a genre, didn't even manage to live up to its name