Very interesting topic, Matt.

To answer your question briefly, I think that the distinction between process and content is very clear. I've always maintained that what makes videogames a unique, promising medium - unlike any other - is the fact that it's entirely dependent on the "computer" as the enabling mechanism for dynamic behaviour.

This simply means that with other media the "content" is encoded in a static, unchangeable form; other forms of art do not have "behaviours" and what makes them interesting is the way we interpret them. In short, all of the processing takes place in our minds. At the time of conception the content is created by the author, artist, composer, and so on and remains as is for the rest of its life. At the time of reception, the content, static as it is, becomes embedded in the minds of the audience where it is interpreted and "processed" (i.e. experienced in conjunction with the person's make up and life experience).

This need not be the case with videogames!

Certainly, we are a lot more familiar with creating static content and that is of course possible to do with videogames as well. In fact, if taken to the extreme, a videogame can be designed to be little more than a movie (e.g. Dragon's Lair).

But here is the thing: computation puts the emphasis on behaviour, not content. All other media are static by their very nature - they cannot think, therefore they cannot have interesting behaviours, or indeed ANY behaviours whatsoever. But computation is inherently dynamic; it is ALL about behaviours, preferrably interesting ones that can surprise and captivate their audience.

Procedural creation of content, in the context of videogames, should not be thought of as merely techniques for creating "on the fly" objects and environments for our game worlds. The most important thing to remember is that the videogame itself can now be thought of as having a mind of its own - or perhaps many of them, doing several different things together. It is precisely this that puts the "inter" in inter-action, for we can always act on any other item or content, but it won't reply back to our actions in any interesting way other than that which is dictated by the laws of nature (you can damage a painting but that is not to say that it being destroyed constitutes an interesting "processing" behaviour on its part).

As an interesting sidenote: you may know that Socrates absolutely refused to write down his ideas for others to read because, as he explained, they are dead; they can't actively respond to any questions the reader may have. Since every reader may be different those questions may be very important in the correct, meaningful (or in our case, fun) interpretation of those ideas. He preferred to communicate his ideas to others in person instead, by using a very intense form of interactive dialog. It's a little bit similar to the buddhist idea that you need to be taught the truth by a true master before it actually dawns on you. The truth can't be conveyed only in writing, you have to experience it and for this to happen you need to actively interact with "stuff" in far too large a number of interesting and complicated ways for them to be encapsulated in "static scripts".

Of course Socrates and the Buddhist philosophers were more concerned with the right message being communicated so as to avoid misleading people but you can substitute "true message" for "meaningful experience" or even "fun/interesting experience" and you will see why processing is so central to videogames being a uniquely powerful artform.

---------------

"Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it."

-- Dijkstra