Notgames Forum

The problem with rules and goals in games is that they absorb all the attention of the player and he stops caring about the fiction. But would implementing rules and goals on an extremely low level, where they just appeal to our reptile reflexes and our Skinner box instincts, not neutralize this effect? And if the addictive gameplay feels so natural that it almost seems to not be there, could it not be used to enhance the aesthetic pleasure?
(Does this already happen in literature, film and music?)

Judge for yourself!

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/591565

A case could be made for instants or whatever they're called in god of war/asuras wrath and the likes, where you just press buttons when there's a movie going on. For me, it may work sometimes. In Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit, no. Distracted and didn't give me much.

I found Dys4ia remarkable for just being a story and not relying on mechanics much for content. It's sort of just something to do while you're reading.

It's a good example, I guess. But I think we can go much further. The gameplay could be a lot more addictive and less neutral. And the pictures could be a lot prettier and engaging.

There could also be interactions on the top layer that are important (just not game-like). I do most certainly not wish to dismiss interactivity as a means of expression. It's just that when you use it only as expression, in my experience, you tend to lose many of the gamers in the audience.

I have this problem, too. I almost never can follow a story in a game, because I get distracted by my own actions/input.
What I remember from a game is the game world and the actions I performed. The story does not leave an impression.

Dudas: Many times, the story in games isn't very good also, which probably contributes to you not remembering it. Have you played far cry 2? It was designed with a purpose in mind: stories there are emergent, from the procedurally generated content, and people are supposed to have their own stories, stories which the designer haven't thought of. A bit lite dwarf fortress then, minus the intent maybe (I don't know actually what the designers of dwarf fortress had planned for it).

Samyn: What is the top layer you're referring to? And also, how could interaction on the reptile level improve the experience, do you have any ideas? I get the feeling that what you're getting at isn't how gameplay can make something more meaningful as such (mirroring the themes of the "story" to be more resonant), but something different.

I mean the aspect of the game that you are consciously engaging with. The part that you remember.


Addiction, I guess. Give gamers that thing that they crave so much. But bury it so deep in the design that they're almost not aware of getting it.


I think we can all figure out how to make gameplay more expressive. The problem I have seen is that when we do this, we lose a big chunk of our audience. I used to think that this was because our work was not conventional enough and thus the gap could not be bridged. But now I'm not so sure. I think gamers are above average in terms of intelligence. I think they like things that are unexpected and even weird. They're just addicted to this gameplay thing. They can't function without it. And I'm thinking perhaps there is away to put this in a game that is not disruptive of the actual content.

Do you mean Mario? They function on a very low level. Move and Jump. They are addictive and the newer ones like SM Galaxy is not too hard. They are the equivalent of slapstick (I love slapstick movies), so I don't see it as a negative. But how could you make a platformer that is not silly? I know Nifflas is doing his best with Saira etc...

Mario: well, not too hard, but they are still quite demanding in such ways that they scream "look at me, explore me", and the likes.

Heh. Me, I'm addicted to computers. Hypertexts. Someone wrote about people interacting with hypertexts and how this interaction is different than interaction with a linear text in what parts of the brain are activated. Hypertexts were explored more on the basis of "what decision do I make", scanning, puzzling, in a different way than regular texts. For me, this is addictive, on top of the fact that I find comfort in the whole "me and my computer scenario". Even when playing mass effect and choosing dialogue options, this hypertext quality is added. Especially when I wish to "play well" and thus choose dialogues in the order of what feels dramaturgically sound, or based on my characters temperament. Perhaps Bioware have even thought about this, and perhaps they have scrambled the dialogues around in the dialogue trees so that it doesn't make sense to just go through the options, upper-left to lower-right, but one should indeed look through them quickly and then create ones own maze.

Dys4ia is nice. I liked it. I actually hesitate calling it a notgame. It's more a storybook than anything. The whole lo-fi pixel graphics thing turns me off and I wish the indie crowd would stop it. There are lot's of other styles of art out there.

As for rules and goals - by their very nature, these realities have rules built in. But that's not what you're talking about. I would say that if someone could combine Bejeweled-style game-play with something more substantial, like a narrative (first thing that came to mind, I'm sure there are others) that would be awesome. I don't actually play Bejeweled to win or get a high score, I just like the clinking sounds and sparkly explosions. I find it very appealing and satisfying. I'm not sure how you could fit that into the context of a notgame approach but it sounds cool.

I guess that's the sort of thing I'm thinking about.
A very thick layer of content on top of the banal gameplay and then on top of that new mechanics that actually express this content.



It doesn't. It's an other method.
Maybe it's like putting a game layer underneath a "notgame". My gamble is that players would not be consciously aware of this game layer and they would simply be having more fun than they are used to having with a "notgame".

I just played dys4dia, found it interesting and worthwhile and inspiring - and crude and primitive - but it's a start. I have no problem with pixels, but I didn't like the visual presentation in this game.

I like this idea of giving gamers their gameplay fix at a subconscious level while focusing on meaning and content at the conscious level.

Along those lines, I've thought about doing a story-focused platformer, where there is a continual low-level gameplay experience of jumping and platforming, but the focus is on exploring a story and environment rather than trying to make the platforming challenging. The platforming would be like eating popcorn while watching a movie.

Like what Dear Esther might be if instead of boring FPS controls it used something more like the controls in Assassin's Creed - much more tactile and kinesthetically fun.

Did you try Knytt Stories or Saira?

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

I like it, but I did not have the time to finish it.

I played Knytt and loved it. It was incredibly inspiring and influential for me. It was simple and the focus was entirely on exploring. There were no enemies at all. It's a wonderful little game. Perfect even. I passed on Stories because it was focused on mods that turned Knytt into a "proper" challenging platformer. Saira looks nice but it's just too damn difficult. I tried, I really did but I couldn't get past the first planet I landed on. It was very disappointing.

I had that with Knytt, even. I'm such a loser.

But this is exactly what I'm talking about: in my mind, we can avoid this. We can design an experience that feels like a game to gamers without ever really being a challenge to anyone. Thatgamecompany's Journey does this a bit. And it's interesting to see how it seems to be far less criticized for "not being a game" than Dear Esther. While the two, on a very basic level, are quite similar.

Knytt was the game that came to mind when you told us of you plans, axcho! ^^ Another game I'm thinking of is Small Worlds. And an even older game, one of the first indie games I played probably, is seiklus. This has a bit more challenge to it though iirc, and some gathering of stuff. But atmosphere and exploration is still what matters most -- and it doesn't hurt that old c64 chiptunes play in the background!

I have a friend who was diagnosed with ADD at the age of 30. This person has two computer screens and used to play tetris on one of them, while watching movies on the other, to be able to focus better on the movie. I am a bit worried (mostly for myself) how I get affected by all the interactivity available to me. It's as if getting through longer linear texts is now harder for me, I get cravings to do some marking at least, which is why I either read a document where one can copy the text, or like to have marker pens when reading books, even novels. How is our attention span these days?