Just a thought that I Have been thinking about for a while, not sure that there is much to say about it: with games I see a conflict between the General and the Specific, the specific is the unique content that is desgined for the game (cool artwork, well designed levels, interesting characters in rpgs) whereas the General is that which makes the game more than just a puzzle (where there is only one possible solution to the problem) this means making a game which is responsive to whatever the player may try, and all the combinations of that... ie. make general gameplay rules and object interactions. Too much specificness coupled with not enough generalness and the game becomes interesting to look at but not very responsive to the user (a jigsaw puzzle): Too much genericness and the game can be really good, but may not hold the attention due to the lack of individual scenarios: Say Tetris, or does that disprove my point? Ie. It is very addictive but can become a little boring after a while. Maybe a good example of a mid=point game (for a puzzle game)between g and s, is Bust a Move, which has laws governing the interaction of bubbles and it has many varied levels which provide interesting situations because the starting conditions affect how the player must play ie. it adds a pulley which must be balanced by the player etc.