Doesn't artist's shit in a can come perilously close? I don't know who's looking for artist's shit in a can except people looking for "art". Which may or may not be the point. Still, objects like this are why I've set my personal definition of art the way I have. In any case, the pitfall for video games still seems to be the player's interaction with the story. How can an author produce meaningful character development when he can't control the character's actions? If the author controls the character's actions, it's no longer really a game, but an interactive story. Since Shakespeare's being discussed, how would it be possible to translate, say, Hamlet, into a game without destroying the meaning? If the player decides he doesn't want Hamlet to kill Polonius, or he wants Hamlet to survive while killing everyone in the final scene - and more damaging, that outcome is a matter of gaming skill rather than thought - it throws a bit of a wrench in the works. It would, however, be quite funny. How do you control the meaning when you can't control the primary actor?