Another take on why notgames:
http://frictionalgames.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-gameplay-and-narrative-kill-meaning.html

I have invited Thomas Grip to join the forum.

In very rough terms, the difference may be the same as that between a genre novelist and a writer of literature. The former submits their story to the conventions of the genre while the latter works above any sort of genre classification and invents a format to serve their content.

This is too rough for a proper comparison because the technical format of a games is far more restrictive than the narrative format of genre fiction. In other words: the genre novelist has a lot more freedom to talk about the things they want to talk about. Another difference is that there are many genres of fiction while "game" is a single genre. In terms of format, it doesn't matter much if something is a puzzle or an RPG or a shooter. The format is the same. But if you're a writer, you can choose the genre that best suits the story you want to tell.

But, more pertinently to my assessment, game designers more or less hide behind the conventions of the game format to escape from their responsibilities as an author. Cliffy B is famous -at least in my book- for saying that the reason why he make people shoot things in his games is because that's the easiest way of allowing them to touch the virtual world. Games are always about some kind of warfare, not necessarily because their creators are aggressive machos, but because violent conflict is about the only thing you can express in the format of games. So rather than being an author and telling a real story, conveying some real meaning, game designers simply accept the limitations of the format.

This is horrible because on the other end, when people are playing these games, they do interpret the things they see as a story, as an experience, as a virtual world, as characters. And not just as the expression of the abstract system underneath. So the player always gets a story about being a hero who always wins and learns how aggressive behaviour is the best way to resolve any conflict, etc. If the designer had taken up their responsibility as an author, they would have portrayed a more nuanced picture. But this cannot be done within the games format (according to me).

[notgames require an author]

I don't think there is (or should be) a single formula. I think we could do worse than concentrate on our content, on the story we're trying to tell and the atmosphere we're trying to create. All interaction design and structure should flow out of that.

This is not necessarily a linear process. You can be inspired by certain mechanic, for instance, to change the setting. But as long as our focus point is the content, and not the form, I think we're ok. The thing I'm starting to realize is that, unlike regular games, notgames require an author. An author to take the place of the format. It's like turning off the automatic pilot.

Of course, I'm thinking mostly in my own category here (narrative experiences). There's probably many other ways of making digital entertainment that is not games. But I guess each creator needs to focus on their own talents and desire.

Indeed, that's why I have had hopes for videogames to evolve for such a long time. Almost all the ingredients are there. All they need to do is allow us to play with them. By removing the game structure.
(of course, this is only true on a technical level, because if you remove the game structure you will need an author; and videogames are sorely lacking authors!)

I also find getting lost in the forest the best part of The Path.

I actually like the idea of interactive pieces that give more when you invest more time/concentration/creativity in them.

But of course this doesn't excuse us as designers to try and help people understand how they can get joy out of our work. The tricky part is to find the balance. Because part of the joy is often discovering things for yourself.

Travel is a great idea!

But not everything needs to be "heavy". We can still have trivial interactions mixed in with the meaningful ones. As long as they are pleasant in and of themselves and don't require a reward. So rather than making a game+poetry, we make a toy+poetry. Sounds a lot better to me anyway, because the toy will not distract the player from the poetry as much as a game can.

A game has its own logic and you can get lost playing with the abstract system completely disconnected from the representation, while toy-play almost always operates on the level of make-belief, which is exactly where we want our player to be. Toys may not have the same purpose as "notgames" but they seem more compatible than games.

This is a bit of a brainstorm. Please excuse the chaos.

This is probably not a good idea, but I imagine it may be one that we may run into once in a while, coming from game design. It's probably best to simply design something new from scratch. But even then it may be hard to avoid falling back on old habits.

When thinking about creating an entertaining interactive environment, implementing game elements is an easy way to keep people's minds occupied, to keep them amused. If you've created a game in which people need to find things, you can reward them with a virtual gold coin every time they find something or simply increase a number in the corner of the screen.

But, as an exercise, I want to reject this cheap solution. So players would simply explore and find things. But I don't want the experience to feel like a toy. Like a free-form interactive plaything. I want players to be more engaged. I don't want to engage them be rewarding them with things that form a meta-layer over the experience (points). But I also don't want everything they find to be a kind of key to get to something else (as in adventure games).

I want the payoff to be emotional or narrative. Like in a book: you force yourself to stay awake and keep reading because you want to find out what happened. Or in a film: you pay attention to the mumbling of an actor so you can catch a witty remark, or you watch their faces closely to figure out what they are thinking.

So I guess what this amounts to is a rejection of triviality. If there are things to find in the game, make these things interesting and pertinent to the story, the mood, etc. This may mean that there's not nearly as many things to discover as in a real game (which is filled with trivial things that only contribute to the system, not the story). This may mean that your notgame becomes a lot shorter than a regular videogame.

I don't have a problem with that. Short playtimes make it harder to sell to gamers. But perhaps they make it easier to sell to non-gamers. There must be a reason why a pop song is always 3 minutes long and a film is always 90 minutes. Maybe we should even try to condense our content on purpose: try to make the experience shorter (instead of the usual dragging out that videogame designers tend to do). But more pertinent, more impactful. Dare to change people's whole life in an instant, rather than changing only a few hours of their lives by taking their minds of of it.

Interesting.
So did you license their engine for Trauma?

are currently about to branch out into full standalone development.

Very happy to hear that!!  
No more FPS slavery!

Welcome, Dan!

Are all your projects on your website?
Or are there other places where we can find your work?

Feel free to add your own!

Great! Welcome. Thanks.

Do you think your students could be of some use in this project?

This is exactly the kind of stuff that I envisioned having in Reference! So we moved it here.

Elektroplankton really stands out as one of the few non-conservative things that Nintendo has ever done. I wish they did more of this kind of stuff (inviting artists to publish on their console). And I wish Sony and Microsoft (and now Apple and Google perhaps) did too.

I like how it shows that a rules-based system doesn't immediately lead to goal-oriented and award-chasing behaviour. Simply interacting with a system can be a fun activity. Without winning or losing.
And still Elektroplankton is a bit more than a mere toy. As you mentioned, there's a hint of narrative in the game, a sense of authorship that puts it above that, and into the realm of media.

I don't think getting bored with something after a while is a problem at all. What matters is the impact that something has on your life, not how much hours it takes away from your life.

Welcome, Josh!

Hello, Sun!
Great avatar!