The basic problem of a game's world breaking down is well known and is usually combated by adding more complexity to the system. If a character does not behave like a proper human, we need to improve AI; if the facial animations are not lifelike, we need better graphics, and so forth.

The problems here are manifold. These kind of solutions have an exponential increase in development time; they simply get harder and harder to do. Also, the more complicated any system gets, the harder it gets to predict it. Unpredictability lead to unwanted behavior, which works against what you were after in the first place. Finally, by aiming for realism expectations are raised, and the risk of breaking the illusion increases.

There are further problems still. Pretty much all games are based on around black box design, which means player strive to optimize the output of the system. The better the player is at predicting and using the rules that are in the black-box, the better they are at the game. Thus games encourage the player to unravel the systems that support them, and in effect help breaking the spell of presence. The only way of fixing this is to make sure the system can handle close inspection, which increase the complexity even more.

The end result is that is really hard to make game systems that are not be be viewed mechanically. In order to make a system that is fool proof we would have to make it extremely complex. But then we things become so chaotic that we loose control over our creations.
There is a solution to this problem though: keep things simple and let the player fill in the blanks for themselves. Make the systems seem more complex then what they really are. Our brains come to the rescue as we are very apt at doing this. The mind constantly take incomplete data and make a big coherent picture out of it.

Source: http://unbirthgame.com/GDC2013_PresenceSelfAndStoryTelling_Script.pdf

Welcome, Amanda!

Thanks. I will try.
I just looked like I wasn't moving forward. But now I know that I am, I'll be more patient. 

Could you explain how to play it?

It's very dark. 

I think the obsession with choice is just part of the addiction to power and control that game developers and gamers have. If games were properly authored, any choice would be an opportunity to explore different aspects of a situation. In other words: the choice itself should be irrelevant, as a moral action or whatever. Choice should offer another opportunity for play, not a way to judge the player or make some kind of big statement. Any path chosen should be interesting in its own way.

we can move on to the next step.

Yes, please! I'm tired of all these first steps.

I can agree that it would be wise to introduce the audience to our ideas gently,  with pieces that are not too extreme - although I don't think this is a universal requirement: I want to see more extreme pieces too, there's far too few of those either.

But we should be careful not to conclude from this that our work should be more game-like. Games are an ancient form that is only tied to videogames as a medium by historic coincidence. While humans certainly enjoy games, I don't believe this is why they are attracted to videogames. We need to exploit the unique qualities of videogames.

To ease a larger audience into this work, we can use things they are already familiar with in videogames. But there's many such things that have nothing to do with formal games. Dear Esther is a good example: it uses controls and aesthetics that are familiar to many gamers, but have nothing to do with goals, rules, rewards, etc.

We should make compromises with the elements in videogames that serve our purpose, not with the ones that defeat this purpose. I believe there is a great medium hidden inside of videogames. We only need to peel away the game layer to allow it to bloom. And I believe there are ways of doing this so that existing gamers still enjoy the work,  without even noticing that "it's not a game".

I've read all your stuff already. Write more! 
No wait, publish your game!
Welcome to the forum!

Fair enough. Objectively, I'm sure Bientôt l'été is just badly made. But it is giving  some people -many of whom haven't read Duras- some very wonderful experiences that no other piece could. So i really can't regret making it. It is made for the people who can appreciate it. And maybe the difference is simply taste,  not education.

I agree with you,  Jeroen,  but I believe you underestimate the problem.  I do not see  this issue of lack of culture as limited to games. I see it everywhere. It's a problem that runs deep in our societies and I believe this lack of culture is at the root of many other serious threats to civilisation (the rise of populism,  fundamentalism and the extreme right,  the conquest of capitalism,  even as it is crumbling,  the destruction of the environment,  etc).

That being said,  I don't think all artists should suddenly start appealing to the masses.  A good mix is always preferable.  I wouldn't mind if mass entertainment improved a notch or two. But I also delight in deeply lived through and sincere work,  without which there's not much point to culture anyway.

I have trouble believing in the dynamic of the avantgarde. It seems that what we are doing here happens mostly next to the conventional industry with very little meaningful influence. In other words: they are not following us, they have their own path.

Axcho posted this link in another thread: http://lostgarden.com/Mixing_Games_and_Applications.pdf
While it is fairly useless to designers not interested in generating feelings of victory in players, it did make me realize one thing. That in my games there is no room for the player to fail.

I work hard on designing my work so that people can simply play it without having to learn anything. But players often fail to enjoy the game because they approach it with the wrong attitude. I wonder if our games could detect this and tell people that they failed, and suggest a different method, like regular games would.

Can we define the fact that you only need to walk, or even stand still, eg as a skill? Without ruining the mood?

One thing I have been thinking about, and that might contribute to these kind of comments, is that games lack an "artsy" middle ground.

Is this because games are such an extreme format? Games are very far removed from the kind of attitude that allows people to enjoy just about any other medium. Even reading a romance novel or watching a soap opera is more similar to playing an artistic game than playing a regular game.

As a work of art, Bientôt l'été is hardly excessive. I can think of many far more challenging works in other media. Games are just so extremely different from any of those media that allow for a wider variety of experiences.

I tend to dismiss games completely as a medium. But that's not how gamers see it. Makes one wonder how they can even deal with reading a book or looking at a painting.

Many people find our games morose or bleak. I have never agreed with that. For me they are rich with emotions of all kinds and overall quite uplifting. I'm beginning to think that people respond in this way because our games are unconventional. They expect something, don't find it and get depressed. Some like experiencing this feeling. Others don't.

But it's a bit like xenophobia, isn't it? The unknown instills fear. This is why it's so easy to make a horror game. In horror, everything is supposed to be wrong. Because that's fun. Even bad controls can contribute to the experience of horror.