I have to agree with many things that Jake has said. I was a bit worried when Professor Sample explained the difficulties that we might face with the reading. However, as I began to read the essay, I became interested enough to keep reading. Galloway took an approach toward video games which is along the lines of what I am used to. The explanations and descriptions were detailed yet in logical manner. Yes, he did get technical with his statements but overall I enjoyed the passages. Being a chemistry major, I am used to seeing things and understanding things with clear outlines and concise flow. He took the reader on a journey to understanding each and every corner of a video games. Even if the reader was a gamer, he or she would be able to understand the content of this essay pretty well. Games, of course, are difficult to define and so is the idea of play and fun. But Galloway defines games and their components quite well. It was interesting how he referred to a gamer as an operator and a game as a machine. This sounds horribly boring, as he hinted but to be honest even though I play games on a daily basis, he is right. When it comes to bare bone of things, playing a game is actually like being an operator of something. There was one passage which was interesting to read since I have never noticed what he was talking about in real life. He compared the difference between arcade games and console games at home. Having a fixed amount of life compared to having a health that needs to maintained is something I have never even thought about but the comparison sets a great distinction between the two types of games.  This is probably narrative gameplay was more realistic, and more fun on arcades compared to game consoles. Since there are limited life, and limited time, there are only few chances to succeed in the games, whereas in game consoles now-a –days, gamers can save games before doing something daring or taking on challenges. Which gives the game a more unrealistic feel.