Over time, conventions began to form. You could go to different games and expect that the controls would operate the same way. Generally speaking, this homogenization of game mechanics was a good thing. It freed players from having to re-learn moves all over again every time they wanted to play something new. It allowed game designers to concentrate on making their games truly distinct from one another outside of trivial matters like the precise way a character might walk when crouching, or whether or not a gunship should recoil with each shot fired.

In fact, these standardized controls and mechanics were accepted so totally that over time, they became invisible to the player. We stopped thinking about them except when they didn't perform the way we expected them to. Then we'd use those dashed expectations against the game when explaining why we didn't like it. It became less about the core gameplay, and more about how the incidental mechanics ruined the overall experience. Yet in the arcade days we would have just learned to deal with it and persevered. It would be seen as part of the experience, not as detracting from it.

And now we've come so far in that direction that when we're reminded that we're playing a game, we resent it. If you're playing a game where you kill all enemies in a room, leave, then come back to the room to find the enemies are alive again, then it's "game-y". But a different angle on that approach gives us challenge instead of annoyance. That simply is the way the game wants us to play it.

Of course, there are many instances of game mechanics and control schemes that simply do not work as they ought to, and that's not the same thing as the game-y phenomenon. That's just bad design and implementation, and there are numerous reasons for that. But it's not fair to call a game out for trivial details like health packs in a first person shooter, or opening crates for ammunition. We've arrived at these things because they were good ideas in the first place, and so they've been reiterated for other games. You might deride the seeming lack of innovation, but that innovation is best used for major gameplay elements.

Let's not forget that to argue for realism -- the perceived opposite of game-y mechanics -- is slightly ridiculous when the entire concept of the game revolves around your being the hero, a person who never gets tired, never needs to use the restroom, is a master of every weapon, has health that regenerates in many cases, and many other benefits that we take for granted. The entire video game is a study in figuring out ways to get the player to the point where they can enjoy the object of the game itself. Think of it like reading a novel. Some writers are better wordsmiths than others; some are better plotters than others. The first group makes sure you enjoy the journey of making your way through the story, even if the actual ideas themselves aren't innovative or new. The second group wants you to pay attention to the concepts they're talking about, even if the way they express them might be a little less polished. Video games are more like the second group, and that's the way it should be. Who cares if you have the world's greatest interface if you don't have a great game idea to wrap it around? Let's be a little easier on all our little game-y quirks and try to enjoy the overall experience; we get better value for our money that way.