However, he also contends that "the art of the game" is more than just the underlying mechanics of chasing something around on a screen (or a board). In this regard, I tend to agree with his sentiment that "film is not solely the art of cinematography or scriptwriting or directing or acting. The art of the game is the whole." As a result, no matter what the conceptual design of a game is in the abstract, there remains a place to review its "semantic freight." For example, he writes:

Let's picture a mass murder game wherein there is a gas chamber shaped like a well. You the player are dropping innocent victims down into the gas chamber, and they come in all shapes and sizes. There are old ones and young ones, fat ones and tall ones. As they fall to the bottom, they grab onto each other and try to form human pyramids to get to the top of the well. Should they manage to get out, the game is over and you lose. But if you pack them in tightly enough, the ones on the bottom succumb to the gas and die.

Much like Koster, "I do not want to play this game." One has to admit that from a conceptual level, the game would play essentially like Tetris. But that's the funny thing about the metaphorical side of games. It isn't the packing of shapes in a well that is the problem (even though that is the essence of the game); it is the dressing surrounding the game. For Koster, that doesn't alter the fact that "creators in all media have a social obligation to be responsible with their creations."

Koster clearly wants to reach a point where games are recognized as a form of artistic expression, and he is trying to articulate a worthwhile conceptual framework to explore what games really mean, both to us as individuals and to society as a whole. Some portions of the book are more clearly directed to game designers than others, but on the whole I'd say that there is much in A Theory of Fun for Game Design to interest even those who would rather play games than design them.