I loved it. I was honestly sad when I've lost my last strenght.
I really like the peculiar ways of ball-box to behave. Plus, it's a arkanoid-like game so it made me happy

Really nice. And I love the music.

Did it help people understand your presentation?
I ask because panel/presentation/lecture is a one/few men talking and group of men listening. There is little communication that way. But if people can ask questions they simply communicate and many things might become obvious that way.

Or perhaps it is that you are a peculiar unique person and you have put some part of yourself into the presentation and people didn't respond to that as much as you would like to due to little knowledge of you. I think it's probable
Which makes me ask: do you do your (not)games the same way? Put yourself into your creation in the intimate way?

From my experiences I would say that there should be freedom of exploration (within the restricted, prepared by designer/coder world) and if things might be confusing, adding some (optional or not) tips or guidelines.

Tips or guidelines can be like riddles, this opens some space for additional play between designer and player. They can be more or less obvious. But they will never treat a man behind the screen like a baby whose brain and emotions are in a state of stagnation.

There is something to the fact that vast majority of this industry wants player to be comfortably numb by which kids, teenagers and even adults become less sensitive, less thoughtful or insightful. I believe it is wrong. Morally, for sure. But I think there is something more to it. We create. We can create. Not everyone on this planet can. We are minority. Treating it in a COOL way, we have some tiny special powers. Let's use them for something more than turning other people's brains into pulp

I agree. I think that you don't find stories in most of games interesting (and so do I) because they really share the pattern with porn movies. Story is there only to be there. It's a fulfillment. It's like cream added at the end of cooking to already good soup. Will look better and taste a little better, too, but everyone could deal without it.

Still, the basic concept of visiting paintings and exploring them as they would be parallel, or sister, worlds to ours is tempting. Perhaps when moving from our reality to reality of a painting our reality (from the perspective of new reality we've just got into) should look exactly the same, like a painting. Who are painters, then? Masters of creation? And which one reality is real?
I see some potential for intersting, SF, symbolical or metaphorical story here that can be well executed even with simple interactivity. If there will be interesting characters along the journey (like in "Alice", for instance) then it could perhaps become something great.

I don't know. I really like the idea that interactive medium could give birth to classics just like literature, theatre and cinema did. At the bottom of every classic there is a great story and that's, imho, what creators of things like Drawn should concentrate on.

Well, hello there

Now, that's interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Hm0OjGtH0

How book written long time ago can be brought from the past and interpreted with completely different medium.

http://www.drawngame.com/

Interesting concept. Fantastic potential. Nonsensical puzzles crucified them both.

Did you have time to answer people's questions after the presentation? Did they have any questions?

I'm saddened by some of the simplistic responses to our presentation here and there. Some people seem to interpret it as just a statement about videogames not being art or something. They don't see the multiple layers in the text, let alone the humour. People don't seem to realize how subtle the text is. Sure we performed it like a manifesto...

Perhaps a carrot would help? 

Michael, Jeroen (and anyone else who thinks similar to them), I don't know what you guys want to achieve my making something interactive but notgame. What I know, though, is what I want to achieve and these are digital interactive stories that do something different than stories tell with any other medium, while in the same time try to offer what any good story would have to offer. Which means that I don't give a shit, absolutely don't give a damn about something a trivial as FUN. Dear player, want to have fun? Go and buy yourself "kill more Germans" game or jump from one platform to another with your exciting Mario. But, if you want to read my interactive stories, interact with them, participate in them and explore my artistic vision, then I want you to laugh, to cry, to feel melancholic, shocked, moved, touched, surprised, etc. I don't want you to feel happy. What am I, a pet? I want you to feel exactly what you would feel in theatre, cinema, reading a book, observing a painting/graphic or listening to music, but in different, new way as all mediums differ one way or another. And that's it. I'm not a clown, I'm not an entertainer, I do not perform on the street. I write stories and begin with the stories because story is always the most important part of experience to me. I believe that problem with interactive medium is that:
1) It can be treated as a vessel for stories. BUT also...
2) Can be treated as a medium to show beautiful artwork or groundbreaking special effects.
3) Interactivity is something unexplored.

First way shares the path with literature and theatre. And most likely with the cinema which, although tries to be more and more pretty in look, is highly acclaimed by unique stories and ways they have been presented (camera work, music, lighting, etc.). Paintings and this part of cinema that looks concentrates on looks seems to share the second path for (not)games.
Third one is a big problem so far.

So now, I can turn every single story that I use for my interactive stories into a play, novel or a script. And if the story isn't compelling enough for my reader/viewer/player, then there is nothing more I want to do. As a creator and author I would be seriously offended to give my reader candies for getting through another chapters of my works. If he/she doesn't appreciate, understand, response to my work because of what it is and what it represents, then OK, alright, doesn't have to. But if she/he response to it, understand it, interpret it, then I want it to be done because of the story and the way I present it with the interactive medium, not thanks to manipulation. Not by a carrot that offends me and my audience. My and their intelligence and emotions. And, what is worse, wastes their time and is obvious waste of my time that I have in my life to do something more. Much more.

That's what I believe in and I speak for myself. If you find it interesting or inspiring (one way or another), then it's fine. If you don't, it's fine as well. We are all different and difference should not be lost in the world of ours that tries to be more and more unified and alike.

I've tried this one out some time ago and I loved it
I wouldn't call it a videogame myself, though. Every way has its name, or explanation. And this is the main focus of me as a person who interacts with your work. Experience is the goal here. And surprisingly, your valentine love letter is very encouraging to think about love. Much more than any interactive piece I have tried before.

This is really great, Josh! 
Any chance for a video that simultaneously shows what happens on the screen and what you do with the pad? I'm most curious of this part.

Great. So, when will I get my candy for going for a movie?

What's with the avatar?