I found myself too late to preorder, but I will buy it when it comes out.

This reminds me of the discussion about Flow: could we make a Flow chart with "curiosity" instead of "challenge" on the vertical axis? Or fulfilment? Or ambition? What would replace "abilities" on the horizontal axis in these cases?

Nicole Lazzaro's "Easy Fun" would have Novelty on the vertical axis and Understanding on the horizontal axis. The two danger zones to avoid are Confusion above and Boredom below.

Just like "Hard Fun" with Challenge and Skill axes, and Frustration and Boredom zones.

I'm not sure how broadly applicable the "flow channel" graph would be though.

Any of that make sense?

Yes. Good point about isolating a single element that is controlled by the player. I'm thinking about how to apply that generally...

I found a great blog post about why Heavy Rain's focus on "realism" works against it, Interactive Storytelling: What Heavy Rain Didn’t Learn from Edutainment?

That’s all to say – Stowaway succeeds where Heavy Rain  fails because it makes some space for the player’s imagination to complete the experience. Representational realism – whether it is an attempt at puppeteering the character through the controls, or an attempt at photorealism – cannot itself make a game worth playing or a story worth following. What we experience as real in a game has much more to do with the aesthetic exaggerations the developer makes in order to give a scene a certain flavor.

I just came across this article, called 5 Creepy Ways Video Games Are Trying to Get You Addicted. It's an excellent breakdown of everything that Michael hates about typical games.

Worth a read.

[ImmorTall]

I've been waiting for this (not)game to be released...

ImmorTall
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/529320
This is a perfect example of a notgame that uses interactivity to tell a more or less linear story. But the story does not confine the player's actions - it emerges naturally. Even better, it doesn't have pixelated graphics!

Probably the best example I have that demonstrates the "story is not plot" revelation I've tried to convey in the What is Story? thread. Highly recommended.

Air Pressure
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/529708
This is a "visual novel" where player choice is narrowed down to some simple conversation trees. This is notable in that the motivation does not come from gameplay, but from exploring narrative. I think that motivation-from-narrative is probably the most fruitful alternative that notgames can offer, as distinct from the gameplay-focused approach of typical games.

I suspect that you are on to something here.

I've not played Heavy Rain, but I can think of similar situations where I felt good about a player character's action being congruent with my own intention or values. And I do not experience this when I try to play games about killing things, which is most games.

So yes. I'll think about this, thanks.

Because the character would never literary say such a thing to himself - the comment 'I do not like steak' is a thought that you would not find in a well-written book, even. You may have a narrator telling you you do not like steak, but that establishes a relationship with the narrator.

Actually you will see a lot of this sort of character-acting-as-narrator-while-thinking-out-loud in animation. I noticed it particularly in the Miyazaki adaptation of Howl's Moving Castle where it seemed kind of weird, but I think it's a pretty common technique. No reason that it couldn't work with interactive characters...

Interesting point about honesty and being very explicit about the artificial constraints we are using. It's probably a good idea at this experimental stage.

Children do this spontaneously when they play with dolls or cars. They know very well that a wooden block is just a wooden block. But they also know that they will have a lot more fun if they pretend that the wooden block is a car and they slide it over the walls and ceilings. If we can get the player of our videogames to take that step, to willingly and actively play with our software, then we can accomplish amazing experiences with relatively little effort.

I'm not sure what the videogame equivalent of a wooden block is. But it sure gives me something to think about.

This is a great quote, by the way. We should do something with it.

Shall we start a forum thread for "The Collected Sayings of Michaël Samyn"?

Something for the notgames tumblr, perhaps.



Thought you all might appreciate this.

I just watched this animation on Newgrounds: The Pigpen

It had a bridge in it, which got me to thinking... Maybe there could be a notgame based on or inspired by this somehow? Though considering that the animation is about addiction, perhaps artificial reward structures would be appropriate.

I don't know what such a game or notgame would be like though. Any thoughts?

Update:

I should probably clarify what I found interesting about this animation.

I guess the main thing is that it uses symbolism to describe real issues in an interesting and evocative way. The fact that the drug itself is money, for example, creates additional connections, like to capitalism and such.

I really like the idea of worlds that are mythic or symbolic reflections of parts of the real world, and I think this approach would work very well for games and notgames.

I like the idea of having a game that, while not being on rails, always keeps the player interested and makes sure she has stuff to do. Like a good play mate would do, to use Michaels analogy! This of course gives rise to interesting and hard problems, such as knowing when a player is stuck and needs a push in the right direction.

This sort of thing *is* possible though. And it doesn't have to be sophisticated or accurate to be effective either. I'm doing something similar in my own game right now, and even though my approach is very simple, it still enhances the experience far beyond how it would be without the dynamic pacing system.

For example, the AI Director in Left 4 Dead:
http://www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2009/ai_systems_of_l4d_mike_booth.pdf

Or even the very rudimentary player-directed system used in flOw:
http://www.jenovachen.com/flowingames/thesis.htm

Some good info in those links, by the way. Worth reading.

Perhaps a carrot would help? 

External rewards?! That's evil games thinking, that is! Shun! Shun!

Just kidding.

Perhaps a carrot would help...

I don't know how many people see things my way, but all I can see is a world that is falling apart, societies are crumbling, very nasty people are taking control of everything. And the main reason why this is happening is because people are willing to accept simple stories, simple solutions. It's the typical tactic of the extremists: offer a simple solution for a complex problem. Be it fundamentalism or racism or unilateralism.

We need to be able to embrace complexity. We need to learn how to think in multiple layers. There is no such thing as a solution for a problem. We need to learn to think in processes. I think the computer can help us with this. Not just on a functional level, as a tool. But interactive environments can also help us achieve clarity in our minds. Clarity without ignoring complexity. Much like the invention of printing was invaluable for the rise of humanism, so does the interactive medium enable us to deal with a new age.

I'm probably overly optimistic. But even if I am, my point remains that for our current time, the computer offers the most relevant medium, capable of expressing our contemporary problems much better than any other medium. For that reason alone, it needs to become far more than games.

No, I don't think you are overly optimistic. I agree with you entirely, and I've said as much here.

This is precisely the reason why I am trying to make games at all. Nothing short of saving the world. Or at least, helping us save ourselves from ourselves.

I'd imagine that quite a few people playing the game of *game development* would envy the unexpected addictiveness of The Endless Forest and your unnamed game, God at play.

I'm not sure what it all means, but it's interesting.