Oh well... it figures. Cart Life is right up that sort of crowd's alley. At least they got the nominations right for the most part this year, so I can't complain. And good old Kentucky earned some deserved recognition.

I am very torn over Cart Life. I am not certain whether I am unfairly negative about it. It just does not grab me, nor does explanation of its virtues grab me. Quite the opposite. Perhaps it does everything I dislike. But then, I feel I might be unfair to this type of expression and thus the rift in my thinking

(EDIT: In a way I need to know what you all think about it to know whether my thoughts are just whimsy or rational.)

I was not very happy with this year's IGF. I am happy Little Inferno got an award but in a category which does not encompass what I thought what was special about it... and the Narrative going to Cart Life... perhaps fair, perhaps not. I think the idea of the narrative award is a wobbly one and I do not understand what exactly it is meant to honour.

It is nice to see FTL present - it is out of 'our area' of games but I happen to rather like it

Mr Dale,

I have thought about your point of 'easing' people into games. I found it hard to respond to because it is part of the 'great struggle' I have in me about this exact point. At one end, I took time to read, sometimes in the way of the essay forcing myself to read, in order to know something. I studied some philosophy, some art history, know a little about musical notation, make certain I go to concerts... this gives me a body of knowledge which I never find enough. I would even say I am far below the level that I would consider 'normal'. At the other end, we are facing an audience which has (by large) not made the investment but is very acquainted with another side of culture, one in which I am not and never will be at home; and producing work in this medium means (by large) engaging that audience.

To me it feels that to produce great works, one should have an audience that is far superior to what constitutes my own present knowledge. John Donne, for instance, writes absolutely staggering poems (when in a good mood) that I with effort on my side can understand; though never as well as a contemporary with a proper classical education (I do not even read Latin, &c.). I could write in his style and (when in a good mood) do attempt to. When showing the poems to others I realize they are struggling with them in the same way I struggle with Donne; we are ill-prepared to read the metaphysical conceits as humorous and instead expect 'shallow' metaphors. (This is not to say my poems are also simply not good enough.) But I feel that expectation is a fault easily remedied; we simply need to read more poetry of a different order.

What I am perturbed and conflicted by is this:

Were I a poet, I would want nothing less than to study and write at Donne's level. I know times have changed and tastes have changed with them, but like many artists I can look back to different times (be they Classical, Medieval, Renaissance, Modern) and know that my work, when viewed in that context, can have merit and can be something of Value in a sense that is more than mere taste. So at heart I feel myself a 'struggling artist' who is in the wrong time for the work he adores most. I would be willing to thin my wine with water if that means I can reach a better audience; perhaps grow them with me.

However, what you suggest (and nobly so, in many ways) is not for me to write as an easy Donne. What you suggest is that we all make games far below Donne's level. It will be as-if Donne never existed and we will have to re-invent culture from scratch. It practically infuriates me when bad poetry appears in games and is 'acceptable' because apparently games exist in the universe in which the metaphysical poets never existed; or bad 'concept-art' is lauded while it is only okay because in the game bubble Vermeer never existed. Games have a lot of new components (because playground games and sport could never compare to Rayman) but act as-if all components are new. They are not. Every game lends from things but often refuses to acknowledge this or learn from it. I know there are opposite cases but I rarely find a case where it is more than an exception in the context of games.

So what you suggest probably is wise from many points of view. But at the same time I literally find the idea of making games culturally easy a retarded approach. You are ignoring the culture which already exists because it is new to game culture. But I do not even like game culture. I am not sure I am the person to gently nudge people in the right direction if I cannot be at home in game culture. I want to be the person who strides forwards and innovates, not a food processing unit. I would like to be the Lamb of games, yes, but for an audience that knows Lamb already. I do not want to be the Lamb that makes Lamb easy for non-readers.

Of course you are far more nuanced than I might make you sound; but this is my inner conflict. Because for me, making games at Lamb's level does not mean the actual level of Lamb. We should be easy in terms of learning games (as Michaël often writes) but people can already read Lamb. We should not lower ourselves and teach an audience what other media already have 'learning curves' for.

Perhaps I am outdated in my beliefs but an audience should educate itself for art, not be educated by the art. The essay I summarize precisely puts that the reader should start with Lamb in order to move on; games should be the product of 'existing games' + 'a world in which Lamb is read', not 'existing games' + 'something that in 50 years will re-evolve Lamb'.

And yet I know you are right in many ways. Hence my inner conflict.

(I actually quite liked Lamb and must confess myself a liker of what often is considered simpler authors, especially late at night.)

Short of making the game aware, I do wonder whether we can be more clear on what 'our' games are like. That seems to be difficult no matter how much you describe it; players will assume the competition. The culture of games runs very deep to the point where people defend the violence as being 'part of the story'. Why that has to be 10 hours of shooting is rarely clear.

I also believe there ought to be no way to fail (or win) in my games. I do try with Cheongsam to reward the player for acting naturally and to offer no encouragement for him trying to game the system (though there is no permanence of data for over 10 seconds so this is impossible). I thought of having an auto-cue system to encourage the player to do things; thinking gamers (including myself) like to follow orders when in doubt. A seasoned player would not have to do that.

Perhaps that type of 'tutorial' is possible, if not absurd. The Path had the 'don't go off the path', which I did not do (you told me not to!) and which every other person I did do. Perhaps you can play with this? Or even a straight-up tutorial and a non-tutorial version; the former version instructing the player on the purpose, the goal, &c. A little like a the information sheet you get at concerts. Your tutorial may actually have a 'stand still, breathe in the air, walk around...' type of text. The danger would be meta-narration but for someone like me (who struggles with Bientôt l'été on an experience level) it might show what you intend. In the same way I would want a friend to instruct me when he introduces me to something dear to him.

PS: I mean 'goal' in the same way books have a 'goal' and purpose, not in a quantifiable outcome.

Portal's story is about as involved as a ballet's story. I think it clever but it remains a simple seasoning to the puzzles... what the Portal storytelling is celebrated for is nothing new to any other form of art

I think there is a fallacy in expecting content creators to not make things too difficult and get the 'full' audience - there is no full audience. I think all art lives in a context within which there are certain expectations and demands. If I read a  mystery novel by Wilkie Collins I expect the plot to be thin and the characters thick; if I read a novel by Hugo I expect (by now) essays and moralism. You could say that Hugo 'squanders' my goodwill and investment in the characters, but that would be only if I was ignorant of the school Hugo comes from.

The original 'side-quest' (why you would name it that I cannot begin to phantom) giving a 'lesson' to earn the trust unlike 2001 is just hypothetical audience reading. What does it matter what some aggregated average percentage thinks? Popularity is no measurement of value or success. I can appreciate 2001 for how it runs - you do not have to 'earn my trust'.

As to whether we not ought to reach as many people as possible - no, we ought no such thing. You could, but I would prefer my audience to be educated in the same matters as I and enjoy matters in that way. I do not see the audience as some large ocean - it is a series of lakes, rivers and ponds. One can choose which pond one belongs to - but there is no meaningful 'mass' to which you could appeal. Mass audience Hollywood productions, for instance, do not appeal to anybody in my own circles. It is a lie that my circles would somehow not be as validating as the (non-existing) general audience.

EDIT: Perhaps my point is that any thought hinging on 'the audience' without defining the audience is a fallacy.

I just wonder what this non-explicit elitism will be. I greatly worry about intellectuals feeling they have to stoop down lest they not be understood. It might be a difficult time for intellectual pursuits but it is not made any easier with intellectuals themselves losing their standards.

Of course, I do not believe humanity as a species is doomed; or if it is, it is not something I am directly capable of halting. For me the present time in terms of intellectual is more like surviving in a bunker until the radioactive winter passes. For me it is better to hold precious what we have and can make than to venturing outside.

Possibly your non-elitism is not my non-elitism, however, and I do wonder what your intent is. If you start wrapping 'seeds of intellectualism' in endless jumping, shooting and what-not and making everything bite-size and easy to follow - then I cannot but despair for the little corner of games we have created so far.

I have looked at the links you provided, albeit shortly (because life is too short). The first link mentions LIMBO as an 'games as art done right', which says enough.

I think you should not let these people get to you. Yes, you have made a modernist work which surprised me as well. I dislike modernism and I find Duras difficult - but I can see the value of the work and, what is more, so do others who greatly enjoy it.

In recent writings you increasingly seem to be wish to pander to mass appeal. This would be fine if this mass would be some clearly educated group. Instead, they write with a 'in crowd', jokey, self-complacent, entitled tone. They care nothing about art or its future and they care nothing about you. They see something which is 'wrong' and like a Dalek they wish to exterminate Bientôt l'été from the Steam store. I cannot say whether you ought or ought not to make more modernist works - but certainly you should not take nitwit's comments as-if they offer some insight.

I hope you will keep making good work for a brighter future, Michaël, and not be tempted to go lie in the same gutter as most of the other game developers; because 'in the gutter is where the audience is.' We live in an age where intellectualism is extinguishing itself by not wish to be too bright.

That is a truly remarkable point, Bruno!

Arguably the reason Steam takes a share of the profits is more than just the maintenance costs; it is because it is a curator of sorts and it takes risks on games as well as taking time and effort to select them. But they are now here, as with the Team Fortress hats, becoming a 'marketplace' which takes a heavy cut for providing rather than managing. I am all but certain they themselves see this as a great positive.

Curating the list would be important but is difficult with the wild-growth of games. It would befall small authors (such as your good self) to advice; but the audience to be reached with that is microscopic next to being in the featured box on Steam. Audience wisdom of the field could also help but is a pipe dream.

To be fair we regularly discuss this. I think a 'notSteam' and a 'notAudience' are like a chicken and egg scenario where we have chicken nor egg to begin with.

Whether the games will or will not be published on Steam literally has no influence on me.

I also preferred them to curate Steam or to have Greenlight as a 2nd option if the game is not selected. Though to be fair I suspect Dinner Date only got on Steam because of the IGF to begin with.

I would love to see a bad game awarded for fascinating content, meaningful theme, original way to look at subject matter, poetic style, depth, truthfulness, etc (the hallmarks of "excellence in narrative" in my book). But I doubt that will happen as long as the jury remains mostly game-crazy. The first requirement in any category seems to always be that the game is fun —in the very base sense that video games are fun.

But you're right. It's a step forward.

Are you a judge this year, Jeroen?
(or was last year too much for you as well)

That is a real jury problem. The interesting thing is that games like Coming Home or Thirty Flights of Loving are not really seen as 'bad games', the genre has been opened by games like Dear Esther. There is a real lack of importance on the word 'fun' in how some games are discussed these days, I notice. There is the more stubborn group of gamers who still mutter 'experiment, bad game', but there is also a group of people who knows how to pick these things up. Not to the extent that you or I want of course.

I am a judge this year, yes. There is a gradual shift from last year where there still is a 'is this a game' reaction to some things but it does not always have a large voice. Which is good.

I do feel our type of games needs to be represented as part of the whole so I will take some personal discomfort in exchange for representation

But I think games are a wonderful medium for storytelling - as is film

I agree to disagree

I am not a film fanatic, though - I prefer tv-series exactly because they become more similar to book lengths. I think films are bad at storytelling in the way books are good at it and vice versa. Just to say I am not one of the 'gamers are superior to films are superior to books' crowd.

I actually think this is a good step - not to say that your other concerns are not valid; I much agree on the reliance on distribution platforms and the 'inbred' culture that games have become.

But I think games are a wonderful medium for storytelling - as is film. Films need not tell a story; nor need games. But I rather like games that make a story interactive and this years IGF has an amount of them. I personally like games that tell stories and having a category to honour that is excellent for me.

The exact choice of 'narrative' is a little puzzling but I can only hope it is a fluid category that can include story in the more abstract senses as well. I am still not certain where this leaves a game where you 'just explore', which has little 'story story', or even a game such as Dear Esther. But at least it is a step towards having a more full array of categories. I share the reservations as to whether this will be 'actual' good writing or 'good for games' - but then, this is an award that comes from inside games. I fear we need to be patient for games to mature and have other relevant festivals.

And on me; ballet without a story never quite grasps me.

It is an interesting discussion. Interaction can increase the sense of involvement but the wrong kind turns the interaction into the game theory type of play; about numbers and statistics and measurable best outcomes. I like strategy so I am not opposed to the later. But I think there needs to be a certain passivity (as Michaël often writes) for the taking of art. Not passivity in the sense of a cutscene but of doing actions that do not allow you to 'game' the game.

With Cheongsam now I only have interaction that is responded to in body language; the game as a whole is fixed in the Dinner Date sense. I am becoming quite pleased with the sense of liveliness subtle reactions get you.

Please do say any recommendations. I have been going over the list a few times but I can miss things

Not too charmed by the amount of games which I would actually care to play, sadly, but then, 'twas ever thus. A handful games worth voting for, this year, but I miss that tingling sensation of 'this is new!' Of course that is my own fault by having played quite a few of my favourites already, some in previous form.

 

I noticed this article as well; but I took it as the typical example of someone using the noun 'players' as a mouthpiece for his own tastes.

Not that I really want to come to the defence of the 'use X on Y' variety of puzzles; but 'hitting things and using spells' always gives me the 'I have to fight again? I'll just quit and go do something useful' itch.

Jump cuts are hardly revolutionary for videogames since pretty much all older games had them whenever you went to a new level, though I guess that was a bit different due to the loading times and the fact that the games would come to a halt before restarting at these points.

That is more analogue to changing rolls of film than a 'proper' jump-cut. I had not seen anything like the cuts of going from the party back to the airport before; though I would much like to see a game which has done it.

It is interesting you put it like that, György, because I think I really liked the technique exactly because it made me less 'responsible' for the end product. Being so directed it gave a clear sign what to do; and being able to 'guess' within a split second what the game expected next was a pleasurable experience for me.

So I very much like a linear and directed experience which allows me to interact in some way. That said, I feel more and more of late as-if games do not as-of-yet have a form of interaction which works well enough to place them on par with film or literature. We are still stuck with 'walking around' or 'choosing an option'; and that combined with a lack of cinematic language (such as jump-cuts) quite makes me feel like games are being held back.

I was just thinking about this discussing a scene in a film with a friend; and he quite knew a way to turn it into a game in which you can 'explore' the scene; but ultimately that would ruin the entire pacing and wit of the scene (in my view). But apart from putting the player on-rails in some way, I am not even sure how to solve this. It needs another form of interaction and a director with a more fluent sense of cinematic language -- which is why jump cuts enthuse me. They solve at least the pacing problem.

Did you view the commentary Jeroen? If not, do not forget about that

It was interesting how unaware he seems of what is special I really liked his thinking and the details. And, of course, to discover that the cut-away scenes are indeed populated by clone-characters.

That brings me to the thought of the technical challenges of doing jump-cutting outside of this 'lone first person' format; having rooms with multiple lighting solutions, having the streaming capacity of 'jumping' everything simultaneously across time and, of course, not leaving behind particles of physics objects. And heaven forfend you want to do a cross-fade to 'a few minutes later' in the same space. It is a very interesting series of challenges.