And why I desire to make art in the future that is easier to understand.

I believe that you can certainly do easier than Bientôt l'été. Although I can't quite imagine you ever doing easy. And even easy, curiously enough, offers no assurance that controversy can be sidestepped these days, bearing the example of Proteus in mind: the single most innocuous, straightforward, tenderhearted videogame-like game in recent memory, and yet it is still employed as a target for the occasional tirade.

It is most most admirable when the person being slapped in the cheek, so to speak, can nevertheless see the offender as a human being; and his aggression as an act with meaning. How very truly Christian of you, Michaël.

Bientôt l'été is, or is easily mistakable within certain spheres as an exclusive experience - as opposed to inclusive. Player's hard-earned skills, their instincts, their conceptions of difficulty and learning curve are of no use in this game which they cannot tolerate, not because they're less perceptive than their fellow man who sees value in such an experience; but because they have been conditioned to respond aggressively when something comes along that appeals to certain - may I say pitifully underdeveloped - sensibilities. Not to mention, as I did before, that this is an object which radiates a very powerful and distinctive feminine aura.

Like a Pavlov canine - and this analogy is not to be taken lightly, much less as an insult, I underline - they bark back fiercely whenever they sense a threat that this soft spot may be exposed; it revealing the weaknesses of their sentimental education, as it clashes no doubt with the outer fences of their own identity, especially with the average male adult; it also being falsely perceived as a strength.

We must consider all these factors before dismissing these voices as irrational and hollow. Because we know they're not, only symptomatic of a prevailing sociocultural and psychological condition.

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

Remarkably put, Jeroen.

Truth is irrelevant here. Faith is what matters. And the outcome of our actions.

I thought as much, Michaël. And if I may add, faith is underrated too often, and has been for too long.

Provocations can lead to change, but I don't care enough about "the games industry" to want to change it. My artistic goals are beyond the scope of videogames. Videogames are just a means.

You're already a part of it. Deliberately or not. But it's comforting to hear that your pursuit lies further than this; that video games are simply the desert that needs to be crossed for you to reach your destination. All sorts of positive reactions came from this hatred so, right or wrong, I think we can agree upon the fact that it was rather purposeful.

I think you underestimate how far I've traveled, Bruno. But that is understandable in this context.

You have your reasons for saying what you say, I'm only interested in knowing them in greater detail, bearing in mind the parallels and asymmetries which bring us closer, and at the same time set us apart from our ancestors - I say it since this question is indissociable from its own historic essence, as I'm sure you would agree.

Since History and Psychology - and how they intermingle - are my own fields of expertise, I'd certainly benefit from hearing different points of view other than those I already know. I don't underestimate your acquired wisdom. When I put any reasoning to question is because I'm already willing to accept it as being potentially relevant or ultimately truthful.

So what is it about our times that makes you state that we're - by we I take it you mean Western society - more unwilling to fight back than before? Have we grown too reliant on the comforts that economy and technology provide us? Is it a deformity, an outcome of the profound changes witnessed in education and cultural formation? As I said before, being pessimistic and fatalist about contemporaneity is one of the few aspects of cultural history that truly does repeat with each generation. To wit, I once again ask you to remember Yeats' poem from Ceremony of Innocence, written nearly a full century ago.

Modernity alone may not be at the root of this indignation as much as Bientôt l'été's unusual and genuine commitment to it. That is what makes it unparalleled in a field where superficial glimpses at Modernity have even generated award-winning bestsellers. Paradoxically, I believe that these "haters" you speak of have a more accurate perception of Bientôt l'été's unique qualities than those who, for a variety of non-confrontational and politically correct reasons I'm sure, are only too willing to praise it without the slightest indication of a motive. As such, we may establish that they're of importance - right or wrong seems beside the point here.

Hatred is but a confirmation that the conservative and overly protectionist audience it has reached of late promptly recognized those attributes which, they believe, pose a threat to the treasured establishment as it exists. Those who made an anathema out of Bientôt would do well to remember that this willful appropriation of game technology doesn't necessarily make an endangered species out of their favorite pastime. But on the other hand I cannot discard their impetuosity altogether - however inflexible and callous these manifestations - as I have long claimed that Steam is not a suitable milieu for this creation. Unless you want it to be.

It would be wise to take some time to ponder what can inferred from the extremism behind the insults and death wishes. No single factor could account for it, though I would underline once more how the very mention of high art, as well as foreign culture and language, seems to trigger that mechanism of prejudice in a culturally impoverished North-American (or for that effect Americanized) society even quicker than the mention of that known taboo that is the word "notgame". A cultural clash is taking place here, undeniably. And perhaps the presence of Bientôt l'été on Steam suits more than a purely commercial purpose, it working as a formidable agent provocateur of sorts, creating dissonance at the very heart of a problem we've debated here only too often.

I'm afraid I'm out of my depth here.

Video games are traditionally about offering the player a sense of satisfaction, not only by means of a challenge tailored for that effect, but also by manipulating the player into believing that the overcoming of its obstacles is valorous in itself - at which content has been known to lend a helping hand. Content, again traditionally, follows that lead alone, as superficial elements of drama or comedy are repeatedly borrowed for the purpose of heightening that satisfaction; by making it more engaging and meaningful if under that dominant, functional basis. I would argue that Jumpman doesn't vault over barrels and climbs ladders because he wishes to save his girlfriend from the claws of a goofy primate - he does it because cheating death in a record time is good fun, not to mention addictive.

A best seller like Call of Duty strikes me as a telling example, given its two distinct game modes: one built around a film-like experience with a context, a plot with its own little twists and stereotyped Hollywood characters, id est content; another, a pure game of aiming and shooting in closed arenas, possessing no narrative or setting, only pure gun combat fantasy. Content-oriented gameplay and, on the other hand, the sheer thrill of competing, provide players with satisfaction in different ways, as two ice cream flavors can be equally pleasing though stimulating different parts of the palate.

Devoid of form and content, Shadow of the Colossus would be, merely, another Donkey Kong; and The Path would amount to nearly nothing. Optimistic content doesn't necessarily mean lighthearted or frivolous, despite that other tradition which tend to see dark as promisingly complex and white as predictably straightforward.

That word, "now" - there it is again. What freedom do you speak of and when was it ever known to our society in any period in history? Ours is a civilization erected on the scarred backs of slavery, and yet those subjected to that social order opted for a life of unending pain instead of death. For the farmer working the fields of his feudal master, conformity with unreasonable and humiliating imperatives was also preferred to death. Were they idealists too, did they wish for change? Were they realists and chose simply to act accordingly without fantasizing about change? Were they defeatists, knowing not once the meaning of the word hope in their entire lives? Were they, perhaps, like many of us now, fatalist about the times they lived in? Yes, our ancestors were all this and more.

Technology has changed the face of the world, brought new ways to manage and keep the grieving at bay, though without ever solving it completely; it also introduced new exceptions to the old rules, new statutes even and, accordingly, very profound cultural mutations. But the condition of the human being in itself has not changed as drastically as many would believe, in fact we appear to cling to faith and ideals as a method of self-defense more than ever before in history: we're in a permanent dream state wherein we fail to acknowledge reality and how little we have improved since those days we're only too happy to deem remote. Ours has been a long walk, no doubt, but that does not ensure distance.

Embracing this permanent illusion could also be considered another expression of a desire to live, but that is too intricate a subject to be properly discussed herein.

Especially now, with civilization at an all time low and faced with  the destruction of the planet as a habitable environment.

Why now? Ever since the end of WWII we've been faced with that prospect: if not the a-bomb, then the h-bomb; if not a gap in the ozone layer, then a great new ice age; if not some incurable strain of influenza, then the perils of global warming. Oh well...

Interesting question. The creation of notgames or, on the other hand, independent games, presupposes a certain mindset and sensibility; not to mention a noticeable exhaustion from the recurrent stylistic motives which dominate the games industry, which shifts between the ultra-violent and über-cuddly neglecting all the gradations that exist in between.

As a consequence, developers show a greater esteem for those themes not yet explored and try to confer them with greater ambiguity and subtlety. It is also a very functional means of highlighting the often tenuous line between industrial/mainstream and artisanal/independent. Themes such as Violence or War can and indeed should be explored under the same awareness as Love and Peace, although seeking different emotional responses. If not, all this will be about nothing more than providing a marketable alternative; as opposed to an intellectual effort of true width and depth.

The point you make seems to be more related to style than the nature of the contents themselves. Just a few days ago I played a very interesting and experimental notgame (we could call it that) named Slave of God where the audiovisuals are quite rough. It's not a violent experience, but it certainly casts doubt upon the notion that leftfield independent games are formally obsessed with peaceful ambiances and tranquilizing sounds. The same could be said about the upcoming Memory of a Broken Dimension, Dear Esther or the recent Kairo where the emptied vistas and aural moods can be very disconcerting.

That is a truly remarkable point, Bruno!

As is yours, my good friend. Perhaps there is a reason why we return to this tired question over and over. Even if we're to meet some form of resolution to this predicament in times to come, that doesn't seem to be of much reassurance to those who could do with some help at the moment. In this business, for the lack of a better word, the time is always now.

Realigning myself with the topic at hand, I hoped to find mention of Cheongsam at IGF this year, although I realize it must still be too soon for a working prototype to be delivered. I trust all is moving swiftly through the course?

Interesting text here:

http://postplay.tumblr.com/post/39114433775/misenabyme

Huzzah! Someone read it.

At first, Steam educated their clientele on the specifics of a certain philosophy of game playing/consuming which showed them the threshold of what was considered acceptable to that platform. By transferring the power of choice to users, after presenting them with a foolproof example, they have no doubt smoothed the crude edges of their discernment, the same weaknesses - from a corporative viewpoint that is - that enabled certain games, however unusual or unsuccessful in the end, to rub shoulders there with the best-sellers and games-of-the-year. In one fell swoop, the option to create a user-sustainable system alleviated the company itself from any form of risk taking, which so far was an integral part of any form of business, except for the contemporary banking practices; and made it more appealing to users who, unwillingly, began giving away for free the best form of market probing and research there exists, meaning the system itself establishes which products are sought-after the most in order to, again, lower the risk factor and expenses to a record minimum.

As such, throwing developers into the lion's den - which at times may not seem that wild an analogy if one cares to look further - is deemed acceptable for the sake of elevating and perfecting their profit turning mechanism. Greenlight or no Greenlight, the necessity for an alternative seems as urgent today as it did before: not necessarily one of proportionate size or growth rate, but one that can ensure stability for both ends, meaning developers and online retailers, to reach a juster agreement.