I was very interested in going to Dennis Dyack's talk on games as the eight art, it seemed like a bit of a silly talk in some respects, he was explaining how he feels the telling of stories is going to become much more noticeably dominant than gameplay, which myself and I'm sure a large portion of the audience didn't really agree with. There were a large amount of questions raised on his opinions at the end of the talk.
Going back on Jenova Chen's talk and his "visual bucket" way of creating a good game through creating an even flow between each element is where I would agree. Dyack's example was of Myst being one of his favourite games, which of course being a point and click/interactive narrative/graphic adventure or what you may wish to define it as, although being a well laid out story, just like every other point and click, it doesn't captivate all players and then targets a niche market in terms of consumers.
Dyack feels that every single game has a narrative, which doesn't essentially mean the story of it, so for example his idea of the narrative of an RTS game is defined by telling your friends about what happened in the game when you played it, then creating your own unique story.
One subject he touched which I don't essentially agree with is Dyack feels that games can only really be compared alongside film once there is one console for all games, as he felt with three main consoles out they aren't broadly accepted by all. The reason he claims this will make games become more accepted is as he feels there is only one way for film to get across to the general population, which isn't necessarily true.
Although it did seem that the only reason he felt games needed to become recognised as an art form, is so that they would be taken seriously, which I don't think is hugely essential, as people's views are constantly changing on games as time passes by.
Overall it was a fairly interesting view into his view on games, the questions at the end were a little negative towards him though.