I'm sure the answers have little to do with the superiority of media. Unless of course you define superior as what most people want, in which case you'd probably have porn pictures and sports TV as the highest art forms, joined by reality TV, soap operas and match-3 games.

As for why imaginative people don't just read books all the time, it's because they are typically also creative and like to do other things which stimulate their minds.

It's not so much the "debate" but the obnoxiousness. I've told you this before, you don't actually know how to debate, you just get very defensive.

Example:"You do realize there are plenty of forums out there where everyone thinks like you(forums for book people)."

Implying what? That because he doesn't agree with you he should go to those forums where they ostensibly do agree with him? That he should only post opinions that are aligned with the opinions of other forum denizens (or rather, you, seeing as how you have the minority opinion)? Whatever you meant by that I can assure you it has no place in a proper debate.

You previous talked about telling stories, and that's content. If we're not talking about that, I'm not sure what we're talking about.

As for people, novels require the ability to read and understand what's written (form an image of the story), so at its base it requires more than TV or games. That doesn't mean that people who watch TV or games are illiterate, just that at its base reading is more demanding.

As for the ability to tell a story I believe that in theory games > books > TV. Games encompass interactive novels and interactive movies, and therefore should in theory be able to achieve everything that novels and movies can plus more. However in practice I think that the best writing in games is still worse than the best novels and similarly for movies. Whether this is just a symptom of games being newer, or an inherent problem due to the need for interactivity is something I can't tell.