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

I don't know guys, I disagree on several points.

I do agree that a lot of devs enter their games just to show up on the list, and I'll add many of them do it just to have a solid deadline to work toward, and both those reasons are valid I think. But the IGF administration works tirelessly on their judging system. I think in the end, the judging just comes down to the tastes of the judges; the system feels pretty transparent to me.

That suggests a much simpler problem and solution: taste, i.e. cultivate better tastes, either through new judges or existing ones. And it seems to me that's happening anyway, as the same judges have tastes that are getting more sophisticated over time. Jereon's comment about how there's less discussion about "is it even a game" is good evidence.

I guess my final point is that it seems to me the challenge in the end is the one that always seems to be there: finding and connecting with an audience. Overall, having a narrative category seems to me like it would help with that.

Are you referring to something specific?

I've only heard a couple brief comments about this game, so thanks for bringing it up here. I think you've sold me on checking out the 1st episode

Honestly, after watching the trailer (http://www.ign.com/videos/2012/03/20/the-walking-dead-the-game-debut-trailer), I was pretty disappointed in what was suggested the experience would be like. I was super excited when I saw all this great 2d art with parallax and awesome transitions, and then toward the end the trailer changed to 3d. At that point, my connection with the content dropped significantly. And after hearing a friend tell me it was too gore-y for him, I figured I'd pass.

But this comment sells me on at least giving it a shot:

But it does show that by just using the tools available, creating good interactive experiences is all about design and art, not tech.

Provoking emotion should be easy for games. Let's do something more.

I strive for something more as well, but even provoking emotion is very difficult for me as a designer.

Good points.

Going over this again, I think it's a relief to know that experiences can still be highly interactive. It's just that when going for emotion, they should not require a lot of mental energy.

I know there's been a good deal of talk on this concept here already. But I just wanted to post a brief snippet posted by a commenter on Kill Screen regarding research on cognitive load and emotion:
http://beta.in-mind.org/node/379

Because simple or over learned activities like walking and passive viewing can be performed relatively automatically, they do not rely on people’s limited mental resources. As a consequence, performing these activities hardly competes with emotional processing.

Maybe something we'll see happen over time as videogames mature is players gaining an ability to both perform cognitive actions and process emotions at the same time. Until then, this adds more evidence to the suggestion that designers should use simpler interactions when striving for emotional impact.

Looks like the fine gents at Kill Screen picked it up and the author added a thought or two:
http://killscreendaily.com/headlines/gameplay-might-not-be-important-we-think/

This leads me to a theory...
What if non-gameplay moments create better memories, but gameplay moments hold some other value, like developing skills or something? If you want an experience to be remembered, you'd focus on non-gameplay. If you wanted to develop some skill, you'd focus on gameplay.

hmm...
Now that I think about it, this seems more common sense than I expected. Non-gameplay moments are simply more experiential in nature. So it makes sense that those moments would create better memories, and that's why your most memorable moments in games would be non-gameplay-based. Meanwhile gameplay often involves challenge, and overcoming that builds skills.

Any rebuttals on this theory?

Welcome Tyler 

Interesting writing on that blog, thanks for the link.