It has been said that the unique aspect of games–that makes them unique as cultural artifacts– is their interactivity. I’d like to question that a bit, and present a slightly different idea.
It’s true that for as long as there has been a popular culture, it has been mostly one-directional. You hear a story or music; you watch a play or movie; you read a book. That’s just passive consumption, right? Or is it? Some forms of media which are perceived as passive (e.g., literature) engage the imagination in significant ways. I’d like to suggest that the act of envisioning scenes in a book makes the reader into an active participant–the reader’s background and experiences become inextricably linked to the experience of reading. Likewise, there are certainly participatory forms of culture: dancing would be a good example.
Another aspect of all forms of popular culture is their ability to give us a common ground for conversation, perspective and experience. Because of popular culture’s wide accessibility and appeal to universal attributes of human experience, these “shared memories” give us the ability to connect with each other. That’s another form of interactivity.
If it isn’t the interactivity of games that make them unique, what is it?
I’d argue that it is the power of decision that is central to the idea of games. No other type of media that I can imagine involves participants in ways that weave together shared challenges, dilemmas and consequences. Even other forms of participatory culture (e.g., dance) tend to focus more on skill than the actual act of decision.
One can find games that vary to the degree in which they involve decisions; some are almost entirely about decisions–others are not. And to make the decision-making process a part of shared experience, it needs to be social in some respect. While this seems to be the area that make games most unique, I’d argue that it continues to be the area where designers still have the most room to explore.
on 
