One thing’s clear about this year, though — the era wherein the majority of games are being made for and marketed only to gamers is ending.

Leigh Alexander on Sexy Videogameland

I don’t believe that an interaction density of one, or higher, is necessarily the best. If you can manage imagination adeptly, it can be better than simply allowing players to completely explore the set of interactions suggested by the game. I do agree that it is usually done poorly however.

To comment on the actual blog post, I think that what you are saying is very important. It may not be completely true, as the discussion in the comments here have suggested, but the core of the idea is very insightful. I can definitely see how similar the gameplay is between the titles you mentioned, even as their stories and settings are increasingly diverse.

And the whole challenge-reward cycle – seen in pure form in games such as N – is something that has very little power to compel me. Both as a game player looking for games that can motivate me through other means, and as a game maker, I am eager to explore new and different ways to structure motivation and interaction. And I guess that’s why I’m reading this blog. :)

As for the second part, I would say both – don’t hint at possible interactions that you can’t then provide, and work to expand the sort of interactions you can offer.

Of course, there is the whole separate question ofthe significance of you interactions: there’s little point offering thousands of interactions if they have no meaning.

Super Mario Bros. sketched a world that seemed to offer ‘x’ possible interactions, and offered the player roughly ‘x’ ways in which to interact with the space. It’s ‘interactive density’ was therefore close to ‘1′.

However, games like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion seem to offer ‘y’ possible interactions, but only allow the player to interact with the space in ‘z’ ways, where ‘z’ is fewer than ‘y’. It’s ‘interactive density’ is much lower than 1.

Now, although ‘z’ is much greater than ‘x’, still Oblivion ‘feels less togeher’ than Mario, because of its lower interactive density.

I disagree with your analysis of the necessity of challenge. I believe that there are many ways to be motivated to play a game. You yourself point out two. There are many more. And future games will cater to these other motivations more and more.

In fact, this evolution has already begun. I believe it is a mistake to think that most people play computer games for the purpose of overcoming challenges. I think that is only the motivation of a small core group (which includes most developers themselves, hence the misunderstanding).

If this medium is as powerful as many believe it to be, surely it should be capable of more than Mario and Pokemon!

Look at the Wikipedia list of the top 5 video game franchises of all time. Not only are the Sims and Tetris there, but none of those top 5 are like one another in terms of game mechanics.

Triple-A (as far as I understand it) only means “big budget”, and all of those games are from major publishers with major funding thrown at them.

This means that my list is at least somewhat representative of “Triple-A” titles and that they have some pretty varied gameplay.

But I would agree that Tomb Raider, Prince of Persia, Heavenly Sword, God of War and Assassin’s Creed are all quite similar in terms of gameplay, and all of them are telling heroic adventure stories. Likewise for Halo/ Bioshock/ Gears of War, or Warcraft/ Starcraft/ Age of Empires/ Company of Heroes.

But in the end I think you are wrong about challenge and victory — game-ness, if you will — going away as the medium matures. What makes the medium unique is interactivity, and the user needs some kind of motivation in order to be compelled to interact with the systems we’ve designed. Games are their own kind of motivation. Socializing can be another motivating factor, and this is what drives “games” like Second Life and Habbo Hotel. But without something to strive for, a reason to interact with your software, then it’s like a book that never gets read. Maybe it has philosophoical value in itself, but it has failed in its basic goal because communication requires a listener.

But even all the games that you mention do have certain things in common. They are all about being challenged, being rewarded and being victorious in one way or another, one more so than the other. And I personally think that this structure will not be useful for much longer as the medium matures.

That being said, you probably are aware of the fact that half of the games in your list are exceptions to the rule: unique games that do not represent the medium.

All gameplay is the same?

But there’s nothing wrong with the concept of gameplay. There just needs to be new mechanics, that don’t have to do with destruction. (And I’m doing such with my game).

To sum up: It’s not (the concept of) gameplay itself but the current forms of gameplay that are the problem.

I think what you mean to say is that most games give you the same type of feeling and emotions, the same experience. I’d say we should enter the post games-as-they-are era. The post same-experience-as-the-last-game era.