Recording some video from Sunset intended to be submitted to a film festival made me realize how awkward a game looks when controlled in the conventional fashion.

Sunset uses the WASD-mouselook convention for navigation. And while that feels alright to play, like moving a sort of cursor through a 3D space, it's damn horrible to look at. The camera jerks all over the place, there's no aesthetic logic in the motions, many movements happen sort of by accident, or as a result of moving the gaze from one point to another. It's awkward and terrible and really makes the 3D world look much worse that it actually is.

Third person controls tend to feature a much better camera. And even if the consistency of the screen composition is kind of boring, the constant gaze on the avatar also gives something to hold on too, aesthetically. The problem here arises with the animation of the avatar. Combing the motions of its body with the control that the player has over it again results in awkward movement. Not of the camera this time but of the body. So by controlling the avatar you make it look less natural.

Second person navigation, as in point and click to tell an avatar where to go, can solve the camera problem completely by allowing cuts, if possibly adding some disorientation. But it doesn't solve the awkwardness of avatar motion entirely. The player can still make the avatar do stupid things like walk into a wall. And the algorithms that take care of collisions, avoidance and relating to the rest of the world never look quite natural.

I would like to figure out a way of playing with a character in a space that removes the awkwardness.

 - We may need to give up the notion of direct control, of camera or avatar, and to consider the character as another person. This might harm the feeling of presence, though. But maybe there's ways to compensate for that.

 - We can't rely on the computer controlling the character because that always looks awkward. So all animation needs to be baked. Unless the character is controlled by a computer in the fiction (or is awkward, or cartoony perhaps). Which I consider a serious candidate but it does limit the stories we can tell.

 - Maybe we should abandon the always-on realtime nature of the medium. A pause functionality might alleviate lots. Just stop the animation before the character starts doing something awkward. And ponder the still screen before continuing.

Any other ideas? Or examples?

Hello!

I have clicked the YES button. :-)

I was really enjoying driving the car. And then I noticed somebody sitting besides me. And then they started talking.

I have no idea how to run pirated games on a console.

But I recommend downloading Noby Noby Boy from the Playstation online store.
And of course flOw, Flower and Journey!
And Linger in Shadows.

I also think Beyond: Two Souls and Heavy Rain are worth playing.
LA Noire has its moments.
For a bit of silly pretty fun, Bayonetta is great.

Purchased! Looking forward to playing this.

Thanks! Looking forward to giving this a try.

I'm also excited about Michael Samyn

Hello! 

But you also can find closure with a painting.

I can't. When I'm really enjoying a painting, walking away from it feels like breaking up with a lover. Made worse because I'm breaking up with this one to immediately attempt to engage with another.

I was initially attracted to this medium because of its lack of closure. The idea of a novel that never needs to end still has great appeal for me.

I know that many people don't feel the same. But I wonder if the desire for closure in medium is not a result of conditioning. Maybe we can learn to appreciate it more. There's other things we can enjoy without closure: the sun on our skin, the wind in our hair, walking barefoot in the sand, swimming, etc. Maybe videogames can be more like that.

I like how this makes me feel creative (after I cheated to be sure that my choice between the three options made a difference). Like I'm writing this story, deciding where to take my emotional experience. Very clever. Were you inspired by anything in particular? (I haven't paid much attention to text-based games at all, ever)

I have always been more interested in software than hardware.
(And in imagination than representation.)

[moved from http://notgames.org/forum/index.php?topic=826.0]

So you don't think VR is narrow?

Please email us if you'd like to still get the bundle.

Since our next game will be use first person navigation in a blatant attempt to pander to the tastes of the audience for more artistic games, I've been doing some research into first person shooters (I did not renew my New Year's resolution to not kill virtual creatures).

And I have made a surprising discovery: Battlefield and Call of Duty are really good! And inspiring.

Battlefield and Call of Duty have a bad reputation among the connoisseurs of games who will always sing the praises of the likes of Bioshock, Dishonored or Deus Ex. But I found (and have always found) the latter to be stale and rigid and stuck in design concepts from the Wolfenstein and Doom era. And their attempts at storytelling not only clash with the gunplay but are also delivered in a non-subtle hyperconventional way. On top of that, these games are punishingly difficult even in easy mode. They have the same game-as-test mechanics as the old arcade games. For no other reason than to require that the player prove how "skilled" they are -completely ruining all entertainment and immersion in the process.

I used to assume that Battlefield and Call of Duty were like this, only worse. And the military setting of these games has always repulsed me. But now that I have forced myself to play them, my eyes have opened.

Battlefield and Call of Duty have removed all game elements that don't support the entertainment they want to deliver. In that sense, I'd even argue that they follow principles very similar to the notgames idea. They are far more mature as interactive entertainment than they are given credit for in game criticism (such as it exists). Playing such a game is a wild ride through believable environments. And they both cleverly don't put you in the hero's position. You just play one of the hangers-on and your mates do a lot of the work that otherwise feels so awkward in first person (opening doors, creating ad hoc bridges, generally instructing you). You play different people even. There is also a constant stream of voice acting going on (with none of the usual listening in on conversations by puppets who will never move from their position). The experience just keep going. And the few times you actually die, it doesn't feel like you lost a game, it feels like you got a bullet in your head because you had not been careful enough in a dangerous, chaotic environment.

There is a lot for us to learn here!

It has really opened my eyes as to the taste of the audience of games that I am in touch with. They now seem like nerds of the verge of autism to me. All they want is the same old game over and over again with some added flourishes to make it feel relevant or deep. They're not looking for immersion or entertainment or even beauty. They just want their fix: their nerdy "interaction with systems". Now I finally understand why these people don't seem to get art.

Of course, Call of Duty and Battlefield take the easy road by using the chaotic setting of war and the convenient mechanic of shooting. But this stuff is difficult enough as it is and I don't blame them. It is, however, time to move on, though. Or we risk getting stuck there. That's where we come in.

I am also encouraged by the commercial success of Battlefield and Call of Duty, in my instinct about abandoning game conventions to reach a wider audience. We just need to get beyond the narrow subject matter.

Impressive work! When will we be able to play this?