These look interesting

Kairo
http://www.igf.com/php-bin/entry2013.php?id=600

I played Kairo until the very end, although I can't quite vouch for it being anything other than a competent, atmospheric procession of puzzles whose combined meaning eludes me still. Last I heard, and given the turn taken in the discussion here, the developer was also struggling to have his game on Steam using that bulwark of democracy they call Greenlight. I'm fairly certain that he hasn't yet. Somehow I'm convinced that a few years ago, and with the old system, Perrin would have made the cut.

A Swedish friend of mine spoke fondly of the translation (and the fact that there was a Swedish translation to begin with). I thought the translators would like to know.

This one?

Yes.

Looking forward to Wednesday, Michaël.

I meant the Designing Rapture feature, the one where they compare Journey to most everything under the sun, from Zemeckis to Miyamoto, but not even once refer to Ueda or anything even remotely important to the game from a referential viewpoint. Furthermore, that writing is so sickly sweet and syrupy I not only felt sick to the stomach after three paragraphs, it gave my poor teeth cavities a most unpleasantly sharp sting.

Just thinking of it revives the memories of acute pain. Fortunately, I have a certain beta release here to console me on this rainy Saturday afternoon. Can you hear it, too? It's the tea kettle... whistling.

On the contrary: hype + entry = finalist, maybe winner.
I know, we have entered games that were finalists and games that were not.
I just have no energy for hyping any more.

When I said "offer no shielding", it means that the awards are vague enough for personal preferences, in themselves shaped by all sorts of popularity phenomena, to take precedence over a more objective and conscientious judgment. I don't doubt that some members of the organization work very hard to put it all together, but should logistics be our main concern here?

What article? The Edge one? I too felt disgusted.

The IGF has long been making the priorities of its organization very clear and unmistakable. Some years ago we were led to believe there existed value and potential to the initiative. With the unabashed introduction of award trends and the canonization of handpicked indie game developers, that nobility and genuineness which the festival could have aspired to was irrevocably lost in the haze. Personally, the only reason why I visit their website yearly derives from a complication far more serious than what preposterous new award they agreed upon introducing this time around. To an extent, independent creators have little alternatives but to enlist their games in that contest if they wish to gain some degree of visibility, whether they're pleased with the known rules or not; and they do so for the lack of a better and non-partisan mechanism that could ensure the needed exposure. This needs to be identified by what it truly is: hegemony, at plain sight.

And it all culminates in a gaudy award ceremony, of course. Everyone gets a fair shake and some even return home with an award, a fat cheque and a tale of personal glory. Non-winners get to be featured in the finalists' list. This is only the beginning, however: the entire festival has become a filtering process which offers to the upper crusts of video game entertainment a reasonable selection of projects which are entitled to popularity, which then enables them to claim their space in the prevalent distribution platforms and, above all, to deserve respect and admiration from an audience unwilling to perform conscientious choices. The majority of awards in this festival has always striked me as exceedingly vague. Worst of all, they offer no shielding from the persuasiveness of hype, not to mention an uneducated sense of quality or taste which continues to characterize a highly dubious selection process. There is no adjustment, no compromise, no unexpected or controversial alignments with other mindsets. A routine has now settled, as it has settled within the very bosom of independent games.

As I see it, "Narrative" is yet another shot aimed at the dead horse.

I've read more articles of this sort than I can remember, not that I disagree with their basic principle. Of course, before getting excited, one should prepare to be heavily disappointed by what the authors would consider an adult game. As I see it, there's a whole new and perhaps more meaningful discussion in that.

If you trust these studies they conduct, the majority of players in a market such as the United States is above thirty years of age and in a substantial percentage, nearer to the age of forty. If these players are investing their time in the games we know to exist today and which dominate that market, then we must therefore rethink the entire concept of adulthood in that (our?) society. Personally, I'm rather convinced that video games have been consistent and efficient, together with other entertainment media, in preventing consumers from coming of age intellectually, from broadening their horizons by holding them captive in a loop of purported novelty and the familiar comfort of a controlled environment. In fact this circular pattern is so powerful it has long begun to shape the face of independent game productions as well.

So, yes, we need something else.

I find it interesting how he uses the verb "kill". He could have said "remove", "be done with", "dispose of" or any of the other thirty ways of conveying a similar idea - excluding "frag", that is. But he imprinted violence to the notion of eliminating gameplay in order to achieve some form of improvement. Boorish? Yes. But very consistent, coming as it does from a former FPS developer.

I'm holding on to my thoughts on Bientôt as hard as I can. I suppose people far more watchful and knowledgeable are testing the program and sending valuable feedback, which enables me not to participate in this alpha testing as a tester with a tool belt around my waist, more like someone who's just silently delighted by the opportunity while while puffing large clouds of smoke. Because I've praised your work on more occasions than I can remember, I'll use this last sentence to mention that I find Walter Hus' contribution to the project to be of inestimable value - his music and sound design are gifted with a refinement and sophistication I don't think has ever been known in this format.

I also find it charming that the concept seems somewhat... autobiographical.

It's strange that you mention content since that is what I was looking for the most. So far, all I have read about it seems to be descriptive instead of interpretative, and Kairo truly strikes me as a game where very little is left to chance. I wanted to hear from someone who has also endured its puzzles and had any ideas as to what Kairo means as a statement. I'm not very certain about the sense I made of it.

(Please forgive me if this isn't the proper section of the forum in which to post this topic.)

After having purchased Locked Door Puzzle's Kairo a few days ago, I finally was able to complete it. I'm considering whether or not I should write about it, though in its benefit I would like to hear other opinions from anyone who has given it a good look. I ask because it was featured on the Notgames home page for quite a long time, which led me to believe this would be the appropriate place to start a new discussion. Thank you.

I desparately need videogames that treat me as an adult (looking at you, Unfinished Swan!…).

The prototype was so artsy, wasn't it? Not that I oppose to it being oriented towards younger audiences, as they also starve for something finer in taste. But selfishly speaking, I can't help feeling it was a missed opportunity.

My, you're inspired today Michaël.

I too believe this recent shifting of the focus back to interactivity is enabling unnecessary pressure to rest on designer's shoulders, as if the zenith of the medium was to achieve a plenitude in interactivity. It's a natural consequence of the industry reluctance to move forth from a technological viewpoint, players grab hold of what is within their reach. I'm somewhat disgusted to hear "interactivity" portrayed as the essence of all this, the sap from which players should nurture themselves. They even say it's the very substance which does not exist in film or painting, which therefore enables games to be different. A very cockeyed perspectives, yes.

Interactivity hides many great possibilities not yet tapped, true, but is rather shallow in itself when all other aspects of a creation aren't developed and refined. It's known to allow creative thought within reason, though above all the sort of problem-solving activity which is so typical to our (post)industrial age. Ultimately, it hinders most any other cognitive activity some of us find strictly necessary. This is why so many have chosen to characterize games as occasionally beautiful artifacts that are best kept at a distance.

God at Play raised an interesting point regarding the true nature of most so-called "interactivity" in games, a term which would be better coined as an often feudal variety of "interreactivity", as it doesn't abide by a basic principle of mutuality. A game of chess, or Crawford's example of a conversation, understand that both parts are the same, regardless of skill - meaning the ability to devise strategies or natural gift for eloquence, and so fort.

Early designers such as Mel Croucher tried to create an environment where the player could commence a dialog with the computer using text inputs and outputs, although one soon realizes that in spite of its value as a visionary practice - those were the eighties -, humans and computers need a buffer zone with which to adjust their intercommunication. Computer are required to make sense of our inputs, which is why the medium is mainly one of games: the restrictions offered by them are the ideal intermediate structure for computers to reach out to us on a mildly challenging level which nonetheless, and from the player's perspective, often involves stooping down to a pitifully circumscribed environment. This continued and repeated practice is in no way stimulating or even respecting plurality of human thought, of conscience, of reason, memory or culture.

My point being that the best way to rethink interactivity is to end its worshiping cult, to understand its veritable implications and how its sparing and conscientious use tends to add renewed value to any experience. The case of Dear Esther is rather illustrative of this and perhaps, with greater substance to it, who knows if it couldn't have been conclusive even?