We also have a strong dislike for semantic discussions. Please just take what you find interesting and inspiring in the post and ignore whatever you think we meant.

So, I decided to concentrate just on one thing that I consider somewhat illogical although I understand the meaning and intention.

First you write:
"A quiz is a game (and not an exam) because it is done for fun, because it is not serious (like an exam)."
and later:
"On some level, Braid is serious. Like an exam. Does that disqualify it from being a game?"

Now, as far as I understand your definition of "seriousness", doing something serious would be something that has a crucial impact on our life and isn't just pretending (like doing anything with a character in a game as fate of in-game character has nothing to do with life of a player [considering it has no emotional impact of some strong sort, of course; but directly it has no impact and using key arrows isn't equal to actually walking streets). If I'm correct, the second use of word "serious" seems to be as awfully mistaken. And as far as I can tell it is used as "deep, thoughtful, meaningful, corresponding with reality or human condition of real human beings" (somewhat along these lines).
I would not even bother to pinpoint it as a illogical use of the word if it wouldn't be use the way you used it.

Hope I am not a painass here but after reading this I had huge problems with actually creating any conclusion upon your post or a critique to your post (because of something I consider a logical contradiction [not as a philosophical term]).

Hope you understand my concern.

Apart from that I really liked a few things in the post. It’s different, it’s yours, it expresses someone with some not usual concerns and tries to attend a problem with different point of view. I was really surprised (in a positive way, though) by the words:
“When I related my confusion to Auriea, she said “You just don’t like games.” That was enlightening! For a moment. I don’t particularly like games. That’s true.”

My first reaction was: “why do you make games, then?!” but then a I realized that there are moments when I do not feel like a huge fan of games myself and I have a big problem with understanding it (especially as a person who tries to make games of deeper meaning, not just of splendidly exploding heads of zombies and brand new chainsaw), so maybe I should not even ask you “why”.
From other side, maybe asking you “why” would help me realize something about myself and it would be beneficial :)

All in all, thanks for interesting post and introducing photo of famous chess player and (now definitely) famous model-writer to my attention (I didn’t know of its existence before reading the post).

But we didn’t play Okami for long. Some activities were fun but we found it overall to be too rigid as a game. Too much about doing things for rewards. And a bit too childish in terms of story (though my children didn’t play it much either). And if I see another game with a floating flee/spirit as sidekick I’m going to scream! ;)

1. You don’t seem like the type of person that would own either a PlayStation 2 or a Wii, and those are the only consoles that Okami is available for.

2. Many people would consider Okami a very easy game to play, but it is possible it would still be too difficult for you.

3. It is mentioned somewhere that Tale-of-Tales uses human characters to tell stories to humans. Okami uses a wolf representing a Goddess to tell stories to humans.

4. The story and characters of Okami are well-written and can evoke emotional response, but I don’t know if the game could be called significantly meaningful. It is certainly more meaningful than most games, but I don’t know if it would be enough for you.

5. Although combat is not a primary focus of the story or the gameplay (interactions with nature tend to take center stage), there are some instances where the player is forced into combat if they wish to continue the story.

Beyond the “fun, easily accessible, not difficult, and meaningful” part, there are some other reasons that Okami may appeal to you.

1. If you were to let go of the controls, the environment would still be alive around you. The creatures would go about their lives, the wind would blow across the sky, the time of day would change, and so on.

2. The game rewards exploration of the environment and interactions with nature more than the combat. It is perfectly feasible that a player could complete the game by exploring and only fighting when absolutely necessary. Additionally, except infrequently during certain story moments, there is no pressure to perform any task or advance the story. For the vast majority of the game, you are free to do whatever you want in the areas you have access to.

Michaël, I think you should play this:

http://www.kongregate.com/games/Mazapan/you-have-to-burn-the-rope

The score screen had actually been part of The Path’s design from a relatively early point. The map and the text are much later additions, e.g., that were added after playtesting. The only real reason why I have doubts about the score screen is that Jenova -thatgamecompany- Chen thought it was a bad idea. And I respect his opinion a lot.

I regret that a small group of players is not getting the pure experience that we could have built if we didn’t need to sell a decent amount of copies. But I feel that this is more than compensated by the larger group of people who are able to enjoy some of our work thanks to the additional elements that make the game a little bit less demanding. Perfection is an illusion anyway.

A good example involves the score screen (http://tale-of-tales.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6649 is a relevant link for this) from The Path. I believe it is mentioned somewhere that your development team added the score screen as a last-minute detail to make the game somewhat more accessible and/or traditional. Although some statements seem to say that the screen is really supposed to be ironic, there is evidence that Tale-of-Tales regrets the inclusion of this feature. If there truly is regret, why was this feature even added in the first place? The feature seems to increase accessibility, but I think parts of it (the grade in particular) diminish the meaningful experience provided. (I do, however, enjoy the “Failure/Success” statement.)

It appears to me that one of the goals of Tale-of-Tales is to sell games to people that normally do not play games. Beyond the previously addressed problems, there is another issue that I do not think has been brought to light. I believe Jonathan Blow once stated that if you make a game for commercial purposes, you will make compromises and changes to it to make it more marketable. These changes often water-down the content to make the game sell better. If you desire profit from a venture, you probably won’t be able to do and add everything you wanted to. (Mainstream games are generally a very good example of this.)

Casual games don’t interest me much because they are too strict. I prefer more playful experiences. Casual games are too formal for me. Haha! :)

But you make a good point. Maybe all those designers who are obsessed with rules and goals, should create casual games. Those are pure rules with zero content. And the people who want to deal with content should feel free to leave behind all the superficial casualness created by formal rules and dive deep into their subject matter instead. Far beyond any goals that their rules could ever reach.

The problem arises when you start wanting meaningful experiences. Casual games seems like the genre for you for aforementioned reasons, but it is probably the worst genre to turn to if you want something meaningful. Meaningful experiences preclude total accessibility as many casual game players do not want to think. They just want to kill time and/or have fun in short bursts. The same applies to many traditional games.

Let’s use tic-tac-toe as an example for traditional games. Can it be fun? Yes. Is it easily accessible? Yes. It is difficult? Not particularly. It is meaningful? More than likely not.

The Path can be an example for computer games. Is it easily accessible? Yes. (Is it totally accessible? No. I am certain many people felt that the couldn’t “get” The Path and simply quit.) Is it difficult? No. Is it meaningful? Yes. Is it fun? For most people it probably is not, although I’m sure some people find it fun.

Meaningful experiences do not destroy accessibility, but they certainly hinder it. Additionally, many people (including me) do not consider meaningful experiences fun because they are basically opposite concepts. Fun usually exists to distract people from the serious parts of life.

A lot of these things are also subjective. I can continue the previous example with The Path here. Is The Path physically difficult because it demands sharp reflexes and skill? No. Is The Path emotionally (and/or mentally) difficult? I would certainly say yes, as this is what (in my opinion) makes the game meaningful. It also likely ostracizes the people who were not looking for such content (as mentioned above).

But also, I would like videogames that do insist on having this “game” thing to really go for it and focus totally on being fun and accessible experiences, instead of the difficult tasks and hard work that they tend to be these days. Most videogames are simply too hard for me. And I would enjoy the fun that they offer if they would be more accessible. More like non-computer games.

Perhaps I am mistaken and/or I am just reiterating what has already been said, but I get the feeling that you are unsatisfied with computer games because you feel that you should like them and/or that you should get some thoughts about humanity out of them when you do not.

There is nothing wrong in wanting this or wanting to create this, but I think you are looking for something that does not exist or does not exist in the quantity that you desire.

It seems like you don’t particularly like computer games (as Auriea mentioned), so I’m not sure why you even play them.

I think the most important thing about our design philosophy is that we embrace everything (including gameplay and cutscenes). We enjoy videogames most when they use as many available registers as possible. This is a rich medium. And this richness allows us to deal with content in a multi-faceted way that has never been possible before.

So it’s not about either autonomy or control. It’s about having as much of everything as we can (which is in practice more limited by budget than by anything else ;) ). We are maximalists!

And we let the content decide what we lean towards. The Endless Forest is about freedom. So its design leans towards control. The Path is about limitations and difficult choices, so control is not as straightforward. The Graveyard alternates both because the protagonist is old and sometimes she needs to rest. :)

I’m looking foward for your work – it goes in an interesting direction. As I said, I liked The Path, and even accompanied its development through your blog. I’ll wait for your next game, and I am sure it’ll show the same good evolution I saw when I played The Path, after having played The Graveyard.

And let me just say it’s a pleasure to read you all, for sure it is!

It give us, the players, the posibility to directly talk to you, and to your children (your games). Maybe I was thinking as close-minded as the ones I criticize, I will try to see things in a different way from now on. Again, thank you, Michaël.

Sorry if I got something wrong and I’m glad we came to understand each other. Also, I hope you don’t keep thinking I’m not suitable for enjoying your work. ^_^

Oh! and Cerv it’s absolutely no problem. With that intensive yellow it’s normal to get confused. xD

I’m perfectly willing to admit that we are still heavily experimenting and are far from reaching our artistic goals. But our choice is firmly against gameplay. So please don’t try to convince us of the expressive virtues of rules and goals. We just don’t believe in that. And Jason Rohrer and Rod Humble et al have only confirmed our disbelief.

We are looking for something else. Something a lot less straightforward and clear. We are not even trying to express anything. It’s about something else, something much deeper and more meaningful.

We are aware that this makes our work rather obscure to some. And that the lack of perfection ruins it for others. But there is still a lot of people out there who do appreciate what we do. And they are our audience.

But we have always found the tension between emergence and control interesting in games. I think focusing solely on interactivity as the defining aspect of the medium is ignoring that other extremely important aspect: that the computer can breathe life into creatures, give them a certain autonomy, etc. To us, simply controlling an avatar is not truly interactive. Because for true inter-activity, both parties, the game and the player need to be able to be active on their own. In our games, we try to emancipate the role of the computer. And we always think of playing them as something that you do together with the computer.

I don’t like when you say we’re not “ready” for your work. I think it’s the other way around: your work is not ready. You’re still experimenting – that’s the entire point, no? The Graveyard, The Path, they still feel like unfinished works. And that’s good. There’s a lot of really nice ideas in them – but most of them still need more development. I see a nice evolution from The Graveyard to The Path – and this is probably the result of all these discussions.

I think I was misunderstood – I like your games. I saw every entry in your blog during the development of The Path – and I was really looking fowrad for it, since the idea seemed so good. But I just don’t see them as so groundbreaking or innovative as you seems to think. They still use the exact same narrative devices from every other mainstream game i’ve ever played: walk from point A to point B and watch a cutscene. Heck, even Metal Gear Solid uses this way of progression. And I want more from any art game: I am ready for everything.

Why, in my opinion, Passage is so good? Because there’s a dialetic between the player’s actions and the symbolism. Just to give a nice “mainstream” example: Rez. It’s a shooter game. But the way you time your shoots can create music and graphical representations. There’s a heavy bond between the player’s actions and what happens on screen: the mimesis is created in real time, through the interaction. What we do in The Graveyard? We walk straght to the bench, then let go off the controls. Why this is better than going from point A to point B and watching a long cutscene in Metal Gear Solid (just to give an absurd example)?

I am looking foward for your games – they have a lot of potential. But just don’t keep saying we are not ready.

Anyway, I did not intended to say in any way that every aspect of the narrative in your games is not interactive. No way I did or wanted to. For example, in The Graveyard, when you drive the old woman you can feel she is old, and it’s hard for her to walk. You feel that through interactivity, while taking control of her. If we were in a film, same message could be given by, I don’t know maybe making the old woman stumble, showing that way her fragility, but it shouldn’t be the same. The point is in the interactive graveyard this is shown in an interactive way, and that particular sensation could not be achieved by other medium, or at least not in the same way.

What I really wanted to say is of course not everything, and maybe not even the important, but at least some of the things remain told in a non-interactive way. For instance, the thoughts of the girls are shown to the player by text. Of course they are triggered only if you get to interact with something in a certain way, like taking an object, but the very content of that thoughts are shown by text. Is as you say, the text is only there to make clear for less adventurous players, then just forgive me and my words.

Anyway, I’d like you let me give antoher example in an attemp to understand you: when a certain girl gets a spray and begins painting a wall, you, as a player, just have to sit and watch. That is the point of what I want to say, there are narrative parts where the player has not any role, and is for that I say I think they are non-interactive. Maybe I’m wrong and I misunderstood what is important and what is not. Maybe I misundertood the whole of your work, but I find saying I’m not ready for it being too harsh.

And of course I just don’t get narrative only from cutscenes, spoken dialog, text or even music while I’m playing your games. That would be a pity. The sensation of being lost, the pain while disobeying the rule of keeping on the path, or the deep sensation of loss when I come to the end with one of the girls, that feels even deeper when I see she is not there anymore for making phone calls, or reading her book.

I disagree that the most important narrative elements are conveyed through text in The Graveyard and The Path. In fact, in both cases, the text merely illustrates what’s going on and in the case of The Path it was even an afterthought, something we put in to help the less adventurous player.

We started our work with Tale of Tales eschewing the use of text completely. And to a large extent also cut scenes. We do tell our stories through interaction. Only not through game interaction. It’s a different kind of interactivity, and -much like with traditional gameplay, apparently- you need to have a talent for it to enjoy it.

If the only narrative you get out of our games comes from text and cut scenes, then I don’t really understand why you would even like them. That’s really not where the good stuff is happening, artistically.

Well, Michael, what I find the most interesting part of artistic or independent videogaming the possibility to TELL you something via interactions with the very game. Passage is a nice example: [spoilers coming, play the game first] the fact that you, playing, cannot pass through some ways because you have taken your girlfriend with you tells you something, that because of the life in couple, in your life there are places where you won’t be able to go, or things you won’t be able to do.

Being sincere and honest, and I don’t want to blame you in any way, so don’t take this for bad, the most important points, narratively speaking, in The Path and The Graveyard are resolved to the player via a non interactive text (in the case of The Path) or non interactive sequences (when you find certain special places, or when you finally find a wolf in the case of the path, and when the song is played, in The Graveyard). I find this way of narrating compelling and rewardful, but, in the end there are not many things that make difference between this text or sequences, and the text or sequences you can find in books or cinema.

I find this way of telling the story compelling, and hell, I really enjoyed The Path, but artisticaly speaking, and I repeat, I don’t want to bother you in any way so don’t take this for bad, I find more interesting the other way, the way of interactivity (I refuse to use the word “gameplay”). I do because I think it’s an artistic space that belongs entirely and exclusively to games, or interactive works. If there is included an incrediblingly beautiful fragment of text in a game I cannot avoid thinking “This could have been in a book”, and if I there is a breathtaking sequence that makes me cry I cannot stop saying to myself “This could have been in a film”.

Although, in the case of Passage, or of other games (even in at certain points of some of the commercial ones) I have been living things that, no matter what, could not have been achieved in any other medium, that belong entirely to this medium, the interactive one.

What I want to say is, as long as I can read and I can watch films, or even hear music, the narrative resources of these media uses can be experienced focusing and experiencing works of this media, and as long as the kind of narrative resources based on interactivity are absolutely exclusive to interactive works, or videogames, I find more interesting when I’m playing something find the second kind of thing.

I must say, though, that using text or sequences it’s not absolutely bad, and, while playing, there are portions of video sequences or musical parts that have been more rewarding than many things I have experienced while making use of their own natural media.

Finally, I’d like to end apologising if I have offended you, so sorry if that’s the case, because I didn’t intended to.

All of this, of course, within the context of people going on and on about how our own work is not games. Maybe, the conclusion of this stream of consciousness should be that the only games that are really interesting are the games of which you can ask yourself whether they are games at all. The games that stretch the definition, play with the borders of things, cross into unknown territory. Games like Braid, Noby Noby Boy, Dear Esther and The Path. All different, but all sharing this explorative quality in their design: what are the limits of a game? And what happens when we cross the border?

I agree that we use interaction in a different way. But I disagree that The Graveyard or The Path would have been the same as movies. Saying that really shows that they are just not for you, that they don’t fit your mindset or cultural background. And that’s ok. Different people like different things. Different people need different things.

We’re trying to make things for an audience that doesn’t get a lot from videogames yet. As a result, people who do will probably be disappointed by our work. We don’t apologise for this because those people already have a wealth of games to play with. We’re working for the underserved.

There’s one BIG mistake in this little essay: you CAN’T fail in gravitation. There’s not really a challenge, just different ways of interaction: you can just pass the time with the girl (then she’ll never leave); you can follow your “ideas” (taking the stars), but then you’ll be alone. You can take one star at a time, burn them (work your “ideas”), or chase them all – and they won’t give you much “points”. But you can’t just fail, it’s impossible to fail in this game. Each way of interaction leads to a different output.

In another note: I’m impressed knowing you have ever played a game designed by Jason Rohrer, since in my opinion they have just what is missing in Tale of Tales’ games: the gameplay is what is symbolic, not a bunch of non-interactive cutscenes. They are art because they are games, they can’t be another thing. “The graveyard” just ignores the existence of the player for most of the time: it’s more a short-movie than an interactive art. In my opinion, it would be BETTER being a short-movie than a game. Same with “The Path”. I think it’s a wrong direction to “art” games – since it ignores the potential of the media. What is symbolic in The Path and The Graveyard are the non-interactive parts of the games; in Gravitation, Passage and Between (all designed by Jason Rohrer), your actions (as a player) are the symbolic part of the game; is what you do, not what you see what is interesting. Then, these games aren’t just “tests” – there’s no right or wrong answer, but an interactive environment in wich your actions can have various meanings. You should really play these games again, read the “author statement” written by Rohrer (it’s not needed to play, but is a nice insight into the way the games were made), and maybe change your view.

In The Path, we really have a test: the game says if we won or lose. And it’s not even in an ironic way – it’s too straightfoward. You didn’t did what the progamers intended (don’t stay on the path), then you lose. I was expecting more from an “art game”. Much more. Still, I think Tale of Tales’ work is important in some way – even if it’s important just because the discussion they’re provoking. But they really aren’t a good example of “art games”.