I had an interesting experience years ago with the game "Traitor's gate",  a secret agent story that takes place in the Tower of London. A few years after I finished it I had the opportunity to go there in real life. And it really felt like I had been there already, because I knew exactly what the place looked like, even the parts that weren't accessible to the public (assuming the game developers modeled those areas as faithfully as the rest, of course). All in all, I think my memories of the game are much more vivid than my memories of the real place...

Michaël: What would you want to change in that game, without changing the basic setting, gameplay mechanics, story etc?

On average, I wonder how many percent of the people who buy those big budget games actually finish them... 10? 15? I mean it is quite a big project most of the time, even if it weren't for those close to impossible segments... hm.

Now, now. Being a martyr never helped anyone.

Try doing something constructive instead. Why not create a review system where these things can be rated, so people can help each other avoid games that make these mistakes?

Cause not all games do.

[Creativity.]

I tried to come up with a list of the type of interesting experiences that we can have with software or interaction. I think it could be useful when analyzing experiences or thinking of what to focus a notgame on.

• Creativity. The user can combine and arrange simple components freely, to create something more intricate.
• Aesthetics. The user experiences artwork, animation, words, music and sounds as they are, their inherent artistic and aesthetic qualities.
• Emotional response. The user experiences an emotion or state of mind, provoked by the experience as a whole. This could be relaxation, fear, anger, humour, excitement, awe, sadness, flow, etc.
• Atmosphere. The user experiences a sense of place or the mood of a certain environment, provoked by environmental cues.
• Exploration, travel. The user moves around in or travels a place of some kind to explore it and learn what's there.
• Discovery, understanding. The user interacts with a system or mechanic to learn to use it, understand how it works and how it can help him or her achieve something.
• Story. The user experiences a narrative, either passively or as an active, driving part of it.
• Collecting. The user strives to collect objects or items, or more abstract things such as points or achievements.
• Social interaction. The user interacts socially with others, either virtual characters or other players.

I think some of these may fundamentally be the same thing, for instance atmosphere might simply be a combination of exploration and emotional response. I'm not sure. And there are probably tons of experiences that cannot easily be put into any of these categories. What would you change or add?

Good article. I wonder how a "sandbox" game with focus on emotion and social interaction could be made.

I was so impressed with what Scribblenauts did, their ambitious library of almost any imaginable object with rudimentary functionality and context. I wonder if some similar system could be created for personality, dialog and social interaction? Would it be possible to create a world of NPCs that interact socially with each other? They could do kind or evil things to each other, have different personalities, different ambitions, opinions, secrets and problems, fall in love or dislike each other, lie or feel embarrassed, etc. It could all be displayed through text, in simple dialog trees.

If you managed to get that right you could tell all kinds of storys simply by setting up a certain combinations of characters and letting them interact with each other.

It should be easier for non-trained people to approach them.

Easier is a non-argument, since that is just as valid for game creation software.

Perhaps we should start a thread on what (y)our ideal creation environment ( using conventional hardware ) would look like?

Indeed it is a non-argument, but I don't have any better arguments or descriptions, since I haven't given it more than some superficial thought... do start a thread, it might turn out quite interesting.

@Utforska - What would you envision to be the primary difference between such a tool and a "traditional" game creation tool?

I haven't a clue to tell you the truth, except that it should be easier for non-trained people to approach them. There are probably a thousand ways that could be done, some good, some bad. It might not even be possible, or it's too hard/expensive to be worth doing.

That requires it to be easier to issue interactive pieces. Maybe that's a pragmatic way to reach our goals here quicker - create good "game" creation software that doesn't assume you actually want to create a "game".

[commit genocide]

It says right there in the article: "Plugging your brain into a virtual world that you see with your own eyes, feel beneath your own feet, and commit genocide upon its inhabitants with a napalm launcher in your own hands." I guess it's a joke, but it's a bit too close to what those games are like to be much fun imo.

The different interfaces are good for different things. Most button based games are very binary in the control mechanics - you press one button to do a certain action, but it's performed the exact same way every time. It's do or don't do. With a motion controller, you have the possibility to do more analog movements - do something half the way, faster, slower, etc. His model of "thought → large movement → however long it takes for the console to register that movement → action" doesn't hold up if the game gets it right. It would start to work on the action as soon as you start your movement, and then let the action follow along with what you do.

But of course it's not a good idea to try and cram the types of games that have developed around the button model into this new interface without any modifications. A game like Super Mario is based completely around the button pressing mechanics, and wouldn't be as much fun if you had to control the characters analog-ously. Much like playing chess with a keyboard is pretty worthless.

Then there's also the problem of buttons being anonymous. So why should I press A and not B to get the map? Why is B + X + Left + C a roundhouse kick? How am I supposed to figure that out anyway? This is actually quite a big hurdle to get over before you can enjoy a game, and I'd guess that's part of why Guitar Hero is so popular - the specially designed controller clearly shows what each button is for. Motion controllers still have buttons, but they get a little bit closer to a natural interface.

Sick violent fantasies? You don't play many first person shooters, do you?

Not really... are you expected to enjoy committing genocide if you do, or what?

I agree with part of what he says - that the ultimate and inevitable goal of immersive technology is the direct senses-computer-brain interface that could render virtual worlds indistiguishable from the real world. But I can't understand his conclusion that until we have that type of tech, those interfaces we came up with back in the 70's will continue to trump everything.

Same kind of argument that erroneously dooms iPad and other touch screens. "I'm a serious computer user/gamer and I do work/play games with a keyboard and mouse/buttoned controller, I couldn't possibly do serious work/play on this new interface". What they miss is that there are six billion people on this planet, the majority of whom aren't serious gamers or dependent on keyboard shortcuts.

I'm all for more natural interfaces, whether they're about direct manipulation or about natural movement. It's not a gimmick. The 1:1 translation of the users actions makes it so much easier to get into. That doesn't mean that there isn't a place for the current type of interfaces as well, they both serve their respective purpose well.

And what's up with his sick, violent fantasies? I hope they're jokes...

I think this could be a really cool opportunity for certain types of games, but maybe not all. I'm sure future gaming platforms could distribute the computing between the player's hardware and the server. So the fast, timing sensitive stuff could be executed locally, while the cloud could serve stuff that takes a lot of disk space or requires very specialized hardware. For instance if you had huge amounts of disk space, you could get some pretty advanced combinations of prerendered and real-time graphics... this could make that feasible.

Shouldn't it be nice for developers too? Make the game on what ever platform fits best, yet it can be played on just about everything with a good connection.

Wow, a pretty massive collection there Kjell! Many of which I hadn't seen. Interesting. Madworld looks cool, though the gameplay probably isn't my cup of tea...

I'd like to add Kometen and pretty much everything by Tale of tales - both of course involving people active at this forum.

Except for Kometen and Vanitas, here are a few other interesting iPhone games.
Enviro Bear:

Edge:

Zen Bound:

Memovator:



I also enjoyed the flash game Little Wheel:


Paper Moon is also very pretty:


Then everything by Vectorpark, such as Windosill:

Just watched some of a "let's play" of Heavy Rain. It struck me how that kind of gameplay could almost be created with filmed actors... since they keep cutting between different camera angles, it shouldn't hard to branch the possible actions without advanced video editing. Wouldn't it be cool to play something like that with actual, real actors?

I wonder if it would be more or less expensive than doing it with animation...

I think Limbo has something very interesting going on. Conceptually the visuals are kind of simple, but it seems like they're being extremely consistent with the style. It's the kind of style that, if you see a screenshot, you'd think "oh, nice concept art, but of course the actual gameplay isn't going to look anything like that". But then it actually looks exactly like that.

Since it's such a visual medium, I thought it could be interesting to collect examples of games (or notgames) with interesting visuals. There are tons of games going for realism, but often something more stylized can be so much more striking.

Have any examples?