I agree - it takes control of pacing, framing, &c, away from the player and would only fit a game where that is the intent.

While I would not advocate it, I have been pondering whether you could tell Dear Esther by starting with the fall in the caves, and while you explore those do smooth cross-fades back to the island; occasionally bringing you back into the caves from the 'flashback' of the island. I wonder how this would influence the manner in which the game would run.

I should probably mention I am inching closer to being more interested in games representing reality rather than simulation, so I will impatiently welcome film language used with interaction. I do not advocate rash cutting; I am just startled by Thirty Flights doing it so confidently and getting it right that it is like finding that one spice you never knew you liked, and suddenly wanting it in everything.

I thought it was one of the most inspiring things I have played in a long time. The way it was cut together and the way scenes were made really made me think that almost any game of a reasonable pace could be incredibly improved by jump-cutting. I even think that a traditional game, such as Half Life 2, could be improved with jumping between different scenes, in and out of combat, in and out of the car... and it would all be more snappy.

It even offers a solution to the Death Problem that shows in horror games; the moment the monster has almost mauled you, one could jump cut to an unrelated (but complimenting) scene and later jump back, contriving that the monster has not actually caught you. That way you can even turn death into exposition and get rid of things which 'were shown but did not happen'.

What I think Thirty Flights of Loving made me see was that games have been making films in the traditional 'show everything' way, minutely opening doors, crossing the threshold, closing the door - whereas, really, it would be so much more impressive if we got rid of the 'must make sense as one continued experience' stick and gave it a bit of flair. Adding some cross-fades, jump cuts, time cuts, throwing around the story. All, of course, outside of cutscenes.

The airport sequence is brilliant, as is the party, for rapidly jumping forward through time. Suddenly I feel that really making the player descend all those stairs again is not just unimaginative, it is also plain lazy and lacking in aesthetic judgement to make the player suffer through some childish hanging-on-to of 'since conscious moment' acting. Seeing cutting happen makes me feel that not cutting is the strange choice, and suddenly it makes no sense we have not been cutting for so many years.

I am incredibly excited, which is exciting in itself by now

I am sorry to hear this - hopefully when you find another form of income you will have the time to still work on small things?

Would be a shame to see you depart from the forums all-together!

It is a little ironic to see someone say what games 'are' and then to cry out notgames are not games.

I realize the point of the genre question you are making, Thomas, and I agree that it is best to have notgames as a 'not sure what but not this' type of movement rather than a genre. An invitation; not to have "NP-hard" problems or challenge or any such and for that to be OK as long as the end-result is in some way important.

I think Kyratzes has a point (though he bears himself as-if someone had just thrown a drink in his partner's face) in his complaint of "notgames" supposedly being the anti-games. I even agree with him, it is not.

Of course I shan't touch the debate with a 10-foot stick

I think the games suggest we are working 'towards' something; an ultimately goal that gives all the small (highly pleasant) steps meaning. Some people go for this; I tend to 'snap out of it' quickly after a few minutes because I realize the larger goal of mastering the game means little to me. Plants vs Zombies had me for a while and then I realize I could go do something.

The most fundamental biological game is highly repetative, but players rarely seem to get bored of that - at least, not quickly.

Do you mean sex?
If so, the repetition is not just repetition, is it? It's continued stimulation, through repetitive gestures, yes, but with a linear progression of emotion/intensity, that may go up and down, but is not exactly repetitive. In fact, the male is well known for his limited capacity to repeat the act.

If sex is 'highly repetitive' we may as well call playing an instrument 'highly repetitive'. I sing the same songs over and over again; place hundreds of somewhat identical lines in drawing, talk about the same subjects again with friends, go for the same circles on a horse. But my favourite quote is Annand's "Since it aince for pleisure / Sing it twice for joy". The joy of repetition is in the mutations and being swept up in something, giving it your full concentration... giving the same emotional and intellectual thrill one can get from sex.

Are not a great many of leisure activities 'continued stimulation'? All the passages in the books and all the scenes in films... and some require a different form of stimulation, but the repetition is still a medium to deliver higher content; the repetition of which gives a different pleasure still.

Though perhaps the defence would say that playing a piece on the piano is equally highly repetitively pressing keys.

Hello Bruno, how nice to see you here!

It is a strange thing, but after going to England last week and doing some very hefty recording days (by the end I was too tired to be satisfied - and then the pubbing starts, and then the clubbing continues), I have been unable to even read game news. It is like it just exists in some pocket universe with no relation to the exciting life I had been having. I find myself drawn to learning the piano, studying, drawing, corresponding... The idea of playing a game seems absurd after such richness. I feel sort-of through with the whole thing. I am really looking forward to some things, like Botanicula, but even for that I have all kinds of 'could give that game to...' plans which make it half a cute social thing. But all the other things seem like wasting enormous amounts of time.

After last week I seem to have lost the 'should give it a chance for what it is worth'-trigger. ...Oh dear, perhaps I am free now and I can finally do useful things without feeling any need to spend time on it.

politics = depth

ignorance = strength!

I think I have extrapolated your opinion, Michael it may explain why I have not yet ran off to friends with PS3's and demanded to play it.

The problem, I suppose, is that the term "Art" carries so many connotations, many of them negative. Art can mean pretention, hubris, exclusivity. The brilliance of Journey is the way in which it has got people to think about and engage with the experience as they would a work of art, without necessarilyhaving to be conscious that they're doing so. Journey is art without all the baggage; it is art without a gallery, art without a critical elite telling you what it means or where it fits in to their esoteric pantheon.

What a Philistine. Very painful to read that paragraph on many grounds.

@KnifeFightBob

I agree with what you write in your last paragraph. Obviously I do not agree with your tastes or perhaps even the way you look at the world, but I am happy you are open about art as such - I want to be too. I hope you did not mistake my argumentation for 'we do not serve your kind here'. But obviously I argue for my taste; my taste would render me a solipsist if I did not engage others.

In fact, I think for culture to get any solidity it needs to have some form of dogma - though all in "this manner of looking". Only a chaos-appreciating culture would benefit from nobody being allowed to hold any claim to a truth larger than themselves I am happy to always serve the guests at the table from the right if that pleases decorum.

My problem with contemporary art, to just underline, is that I do not commonly like it, that there is a lot of it, and that culturally it has laid mines for other forms of art. However: The moment neo-classical art rivals its popularity I will happily co-exist in the same sense that I am somewhat able to co-exist with people who think t-shirts are decent enough to walk the streets with.

I am merely disliking something out of lack of cultural power, in that sense. I have no problem with you personally, even if I will be tempted to bicker with you until the forum runs out of disk space.

(To illustrate this: I still think flowers are more potent than machine guns to an attuned mind )

I certainly am arguing here from my own point of view, and mostly for the sake of argument, rather than representing any group

I see your point, and I think we simply have opposite delectations; total havoc gives me no life-affirming existentialism, havoc gives me absolute nihilism. For me to take BF3 serious would probably mean enticing myself to depression as I would be part of a world and an experience that has no meaning to me.

And equally, I do not feel the flower is always there; all flowers die. To me feeling alive is enjoying the flower while it is there, or revelling in realizing some mathematical equation, or to see a returning smile from a stranger; a moment that life may be appreciated, understood or shared, it may be thrilling and yet tranquil.

This is truly into 'how I experience it' territory - but meditation, trance, 'engulfment' in sex bore me to no end. Instead, I seek control over my voice in singing (which may in experience come close to trance), see sex as an artistic medium in itself (much like cooking) that, if anything, channels my thoughts. In reaching a gallop with a horse it is thrilling to exert control over oneself, one's fear of the speed, and yet also directly finding a way to comprehend, compliment and release the horse. The enjoyment of me comes from such understanding and mastery in myself or another, rather than being overcome.

But I think now that we simply have differing reactions. BF3 does not engage me because to me, there is no transcendental nature and I find my brain running out of fuel before succumbing to lethargy. And conversely, I do remember one scene in Swan Lake which comes close to transcending life; as-if for one moment I had in my mind perfect movement, the combination of control and elegance, like for one moment my whole understanding of the moment came together.

In that sense, I would not say I am fooled by the representational - far from it. Despite many dissuasions I have learned to enjoy the representational and see it as the goal of my life to enjoy. We use different lines of thinking to add to our lives. I do not think that on an aesthetic level seeing a depiction of a horse as I understand a horse is any less important than a depiction of war which overwhelms me. That I prefer things to 'come together in clarity' is clearly my preference; and personally, perhaps, I simply do not see 'edges' where you see them.

I noticed this the other day - I am rather happy to see it, myself.

I hope once realism (or romantic realism) has a more clear subgrouop it can afford to be less strenuous and work more delicately.

It is a great thought we could all go right now and see it and the trouble would be the distance to Australia rather than the existence of the exhibit.

(@KnifeFightBob)

I certainly am not ironic - that a view of life's ultimately purpose as being pleasant is prone to be seen 'ironic' is almost my entire problem with the state of art.

We do not agree on BF3. I see your point about BF3 and I do get incredibly emotional seeing anything related to war. I might say that I experience a grief which I never quite can place; yes, and fear, awe, scale, camaraderie, and so forth. And there certainly can be a beauty in the depiction of war.

You take the elements of war, and you 'enrich the flowering meadow with the fiery orchids of machine guns', and you take that to mean the machine guns are, I suppose, powerful? More important? They are, yes, but they only are because they are so gruesome. It is powerful in the sense that a knife cutting me is more powerful than a hand caressing me. Perhaps our views differ because I have the distinct impression that my life would be better if we all focussed on the hand rather than the knife, and because you seem to find the gore awesome... for what purpose? Does it make you feel alive? Does it make you feel like you are seeing something true?

I get a similar experience of 'truth' when attuning myself to a horse; and I have a great moment of realization when I 'get' how the horse thinks. Understanding an animal in such a nature can work into my wider aesthetic enjoyment of sympathy and empathy, making it part of life to me.

To me pain, or grief or sadness is something I have to cope with. I do not relish in it. I do not see the death of a relative as something super-real, or some proof of the true nature of the world. The entire moment you describe in BF3 is, for me, eclipsed by the experience of seeing a young child discover the world and asking his parents questions - not because a machine gun to me is less 'real' than a child, but rather because I do not want my thoughts to hinge on what is materially more powerful; my whole idea of refinement is that I do not interpret the world in that vein. In a way, for me, refinement is about being able to concentrate on one sound over another for one's betterment.

In that sense I find in Dear Esther a kinder master than BF3. With BF3 mere imagery turns me off - because it is powerful, and it is, to my feelings, a powerful artistic weapon wielded by a group of barbarians. Dear Esther can reach emotions beneath fear, awe, scale and camaraderie. I can relate to Dear Esther in daily life through my own walking holidays and my own fear of obsession over things I am ultimately powerless over. Exactly because we can hear the flowers rather than the machine guns the flowers can reach us. When I am at ease, in pleasant company or in fine spirits, it is always easier for me to have grand experiences of beauty.

Perhaps this means I smother the 'true sounds' of death so I can remember flowers more fondly - so I smother the sound of traffic to listen to Bach. And when thus finely tuned, I can hear many things in Dear Esther which make it more relevant to me than BF3.

I am not sure how I am incapable of addressing serious issues. I am currently making a game about love and daring to be open about one's enjoyment of beauty. I would say that this is, within one aspect of human life, quite as serious as it can get.

When I still lived near an arthouse cinema I would go every week or so and there usually would be something which caught my eye - from emotional personal stories about transexuality to an epic about Genghis Khan or the later denied wife of Mussolini. I have never, during this time, felt that I now saw some format, or that the scenes where a character says nothing but you can see what plays on his mind would be better conveyed in a novel. They were always deeply engaging in a different way than I find books engaging.

I do not think it is 'old-fashioned' to prefer books for storytelling in the sense that theatre precedes books.

But perhaps I am considering those 'storyless scenes' as part of the story; as the countless dialogue-less scenes of Wagner endlessly dragging his piano through the snow to me is part of a coherent narrative about Wagner. Or perhaps I just do not see 'story' as a crutch and rather part of the whole, in varying degrees?

I must admit I am at a complete loss of how you see 'story', 'cinema' and what you consider good and bad points. I am half-considering that what you consider a film which is 'not merely story' to me is simply a normal film

Is 'storytelling' here to be taken to be purely oral?

Otherwise I would think cinema (which to me, additionally, has no reason to be dead) and games are excellent media for storytelling. I would even say that storytelling is one of the high artistic purposes; and the one I feel most interested in.

It is all a matter of preference and style, of course, but both as an audience and as an author I like the reigns to be kept tight