Another school is that of the "New Arcade" as people from Kokoromi call it. There's also this new art+games festival that's happening right now in Toronto: http://www.creativeapplications.net/events/vector-torontos-gameart-convergence/

Here are some other mobile examples to check out: Ruben & Lullaby, The Lake (http://maybeitsthelighting.com/the-lake/), Year Walk, Guru Meditation, Today I Die

In the absence of a wide library of great notgames of varying complexity, it is my humble suggestion that we strive, for the time being, to emulate Charles Lamb. The time for James Joyce is later.

And that is a great explanation for why we're using "content" as a difficulty ramp.

[back on topic]

To get back on topic, I just came across an awesome description of how Portal delivered its story (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/02/14/cara-vs-crysis-3-was-never-a-fair-fight/):

Look at that game affectionately known as Portal plants you into an easy to understand situation that immediately compels you to explore – and to escape. It then proceeds to tell you a more detailed story gradually through every facet of its environment – level design, audio, decals on the walls, even the glimpses of Chell’s body via a portal. Because the information comes in small doses, you have time to let it dissolve slowly in your mouth like a really piquant cola cube. Sometimes at night I would dream of those brand new sugary doses of story scrawled on the wall of a test chamber.

One idea Ryan and I are exploring in That Dragon, Cancer is the idea of using accessibility as a challenge axis itself. As you go, you essentially teach the audience to deal with more and more challenging content. At that point, you can essentially apply all the usual tools of building a difficulty ramp.

I'm with Tyler. I think it depends on what you're going for more specifically. Fiero is clearly the triumphant sort of happiness that comes from beating a hard game.

To me, the Landscape prototype posted here depicted happiness very well. I thought that depicted a sense of wonder of systems without requiring you to actually defeat them. If Proteus is about exploring a happy place, Landscape is about exploring a happy logic.

Well, obviously I think this is awesome ^_^

And as I said in my YouTube comment, your team over there (including Emily Short) really seems to understand that the best interactive fiction is not like choose-your-own-adventure, which is probably what so many websites covering Versu will want to suggest. And that makes sense, since IF is pretty mature at this point.

Instead, it's like creating the story as you read it, which is much different.

Also, I would like to point out how interesting it would be if the other characters didn't necessarily care a lot about you. A lot of times we want to make the game centered around the player, but when it comes to videogames based on social interactions, I think it can be really believable to not be the focus. Of course this concept has been discussed here before, I just wanted to reiterate.

Is it "soon" yet?

I just heard about your videogame on Thursday, I think via someone's twitter? I'm so glad you made your way to this community. Welcome, and keep up the great work

I don't really want to give you any feedback without being able to actually experience what you've made. WINK WINK

Welcome

I'm guessing many developers have heard of it; it's just that most of them either think its crazy/dumb/wrong or aren't interested in participating.

Speaking of a filter-less, it'd be great to have some kind of setting to tone down the glow. My retinas...

Sounds good, look forward to it.

Just to report:
I noticed that most of the time I'd just be waiting on the first screen. A couple times I got to the second screen where I was sitting down, but never was able to match with someone in the end.

Anyone around? I keep waiting for partners but am not getting matched up at all.

Finally played through this for the first time yesterday. I thought it was an awesome experience. I felt very refreshed after playing it.

My favorite part was definitely the co-op part; I thought it was genuinely intimate (in the companionship sense of the word) when my partner and I touched each other to charge up our scarves.

It's very easy for me to suspend my disbelief and allow myself to go on an escapist ride, so the hand-holding nature of the design and storytelling didn't bother me.

They may think we're pulling their leg, making fun of their lack of experience by presenting incomprehensible randomness.

I think this is a key element, including with this videogame so far, which I just started playing last night in preparation for the stress test in a couple hours. To me, the experience seemed too inaccessible; I got the feeling that you're still carrying a large part of the experience of reading the novels with you inside your head. I simply don't have the same feelings you do when playing this, and my conclusion is that it's because I haven't read the books.

Therefore, I could see how the reviewer could refer to this as pretentious. You discuss how you feel all these things while playing it, but maybe it's because this experience has become a way to enhance the experience of reading the novels, instead of something that stands on its own?

On your blog you talk about doing nothing and letting your own internalization lead the experience. But I fear that the stimulation from reading the novels is a large part of that internalization, and those of us who haven't read the books simply don't have that experience to go to.

I'm a bit let down because he didn't address what this is based on. Maybe he just doesn't like that kind of fiction? As it stands, he's not clear about it.

Yeah...huh. That's happened a couple times now