TIGSource Forums

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2009/11/baiyon_keita_takahashi_interview.php

I read this GameSetWatch transcript of a conversation between Q-Games art and sound director Baiyon and Keita Takahashi, and I was surprised to see that Takahashi was very critical of the GDC's experimental game workshop (not least because many of the titles (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=22946) had been shown 6 months earlier at TGS' Sense of Wonder Night, and he's a member of SOWN's screening committee)


His remark is all the more interesting when you compare it to what they say at the EGW blog (http://www.experimental-gameplay.org/blog/?p=89):


Jon Blow said the same thing (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=22946):


This got me thinking, what is an experimental game really? Baiyon suggested "experimental" might have become a genre where "people imitate the surface elements and make some superficial play experiences". What do you think? Were the games at this years EGW experimental or not? Why do you think Takahashi was bored with the games? What is an experimental game, really?

* (I translated this from the original Japanese transcript (http://www.4gamer.net/games/080/G008081/20091113047/) rather than useing the GameSetWatch translation because I wanted it a bit more verbatim)]

I think Cactus presentation on rapid game development is a bit closer to what I would define as experimental games. Many of his games try gameplays that are not what you would expect. There is a part where he shows a short game where you shoot stuff, and freeze the explosions to use them as platforms. I thought it was pretty interesting and offered a lot to think about when designing your game.

raiten, that was a fantastic post. I really enjoyed reading it. I'm not sure I have answers to the questions you ask, but I'm sure going to think about it.

Yeah, I'm gonna kind second Lurk here. I think it's pretty much when you try some crazy new idea without any clue as to how it's gonna work out, and then you see what the end result is and present it.

If you're aiming to do something that will make laughs, then I think you're going about it wrong. You're not experimenting, you're designing. I think the key difference is whether or not you have an end goal.

This is not directly related to the EGW, but the problem is that the only way you can entice people to get interested in "experimental" stuff is via humor. If you go about it in a serious way, people will cry "pretentious" or some shit.

I don't see how.

"Okay, so dudes, I thought that maybe this would be a cool game idea. Yeah, turns out it might be if X, Y, Z, etc."

"Uh... so I tried this neat idea I had... and it didn't really work out. I think it could be improved by something or other [go on from there]."

That's not really pretentious. That's just saying that you had an idea and it worked/didn't.

Well, I guess it may be pretentious if one thinks experimenting at all is pretentious. In which case one must think scientists are a pretentious bunch.

man, that's a fantastic conversation they had.

I was a part of that EGW with Closure, and something struck me a bit when listening to one of the presentations before me. The Unfinished Swan guy said something about not wanting to make his concept into a puzzle game.

Definitely struck me as an interesting thing to say, considering 90% of the other games shown there (including mine) were puzzle games about [interesting gimmick], and puzzle games like that are starting to make a lot of noise following Portal. Makes you wonder, are puzzles really the best way to show off an interesting concept? I'm not so sure about that anymore, although they are by far the EASIEST way, which is probably why all these neat new concepts are all manifesting themselves as puzzles or puzzle platformers.

Of course now, since all these experimental concepts are all being put into puzzle games, is it really experimental anymore?  The core gimmicks are, but how they are wrapped up no longer seems like anything new. The portal gun would have been awesome just as an element in Half-Life 2. I've sketched out designs for other styles of games using Closure's core mechanic (I probably won't make them cause after Closure i'm moving on to other things).

Of course, just giving someone a completely new concept in all fields to try and figure out usually ends with disastrous results if you don't build them up to it with knowledge they can pull from elsewhere. Hence why these concepts are all manifesting themselves as puzzle platformers. People have the platformer paradigm embedded in their brain. Hence, platformer + twist makes it REALLY simple to focus on the twist.

I guess that's what Takahashi is saying in there. When every experimental game follows the same formula, they don't seem so experimental anymore. Like plot twists in M. Night Shyamalan films.

Not only the easiest, but also the most basic. The attitude seems to be "So I've got this awesome idea and now I'm gonna make a game consisting exclusively of that."

I'd be far more impressed if more people mixed their novel ideas with already established (or non-established) concepts and create games that have, y'know, more than one game mechanic.

Puzles are nice, but yeah 75% of new games are puzzle games nowadays, I don't even play flash games anymore because I'm tired of solving puzzles all day (and feeling I am in a constant state of tutorial)

I think it's also that EGW favors puzzle gameplay in their selections -- I know there was interesting (to me) non-puzzle experimental work submitted but not accepted.

Personally I'd also enjoy seeing more complete experiments -- instead of just showing the first thing that kind of worked with an idea, explore all the possible ways of using that idea.  Like increpare's defez series, for example; that seems like the closest thing to a proper experiment with gameplay mechanics that I've seen.

EGW featured great games this year, but I agree that we are somewhat stuck in a rut of puzzle games that are mainly about fucking with space or time.

Achron, Shadow Physics, Closure, Miegakure, Where is my Heart and Unfinished Swan (over half of the games!) fit that description.  Daniel Benmergui's games are also often about time or space manipulation, even though most of his games use time and space to create a narrative instead of for puzzles.

These games all show very well (many of them better than they play *cough*Shadow Physics*cough*) and make cool 10 minute presentations.  Space and time manipulation puzzles like this are also really taking advantage of the medium, its something that you could do in a movie, book, etc. but it is much more powerful to interact with weird physics than it is to see them or read about them.

Next year, I'd like to see more games that don't fit into that category. ROM Check Fail touched on procedural game mechanics, and I think that is a criminally unexplored space. Although Derek's roguelike talk was unfocused, I want to see more experiments with procedural content as well. I'd like to see more experiments with social interaction, communication and conversation systems ("NPC games" and "Novel multiplayer interactions")

Sense of Wonder Night this year had more variation, but EGW has had more variation in the past as well.

Well, if you think about it, pretty much most games are puzzle games, deep down. You're given a set of tools and circunstances, and you have to figure out how to use those tools to achieve a goal.

Games don't just have to be experimental in terms of gameplay though. I'd consider Flower to be an experiment in creating an atmosphere and that game was essentially a flying through hoops game.

I think part of the problem is that people see something cool and play with it and ideas develop over time like that so what might've been truly experimental a few years ago is still considered experimental because of that mindset. I'm not really sure though I only went to one EGW in my years at GDC.

But I do definitely think there are trends in what people consider experimental just like there are trends in all other aspects of games. More zombies anyone?

Puzzle games tend to involve varied repetition of a situation in which a player is acting with perfect control and perfect information (of course there are many counterexamples, but many of the canonical examples of 'puzzle games' adhere to this description). 

Pleease don't try to flatten our already-fragile (and of immanent brittleness) ontologies of genre, Melly : P

I don't think it's at all clear what the trends are, outside of the realm of experimental gameplay, where people have remarked on the general fashions several times already on this thread.  Do you have any suggestions as to what some extra-gameplay experimental trends might be?

True, but I'd like to see more of that stuff in non-puzzle games. I'd like to see more games that put the "crazy idea" into a broader context of multiple game mechanics and see how they work together instead of making it the "whole point".

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to put down the EGW or what these guys have achieved. I don't think I have anywhere near the technical expertise to write something like Shadow Physics.

Mixing game mechanics with more game mechanics isn't going to get you out of the puzzle genre.  If you want to get out of the puzzle genre then you're likely going to end up having to synthesize it with some elements that aren't directly part of the gameplay (or alternatively to grow and develop it out of the bounds of gameplay).  [I'd don't mean to imply puzzles and mechanics don't give rise to their own narrative context, natch]

Right, but EGW is specifically about experimental gameplay, not the more broad category of experimental games.

Hmm extra-gameplay. I guess there is something of a trend in abstract art, silhouettes that kind of thing. At least from what I have seen. Pixels are just as popular as ever.

I wasn't really thinking extra-gameplay though that was how my post started.

The trend point I was trying to make is that stuff like time travel that was experimental a year or two ago got put into what I guess is the "experimental" genre so now time games are experimental even though it has been done quite considerably in the past.

I didn't just say extra-gameplay trends, I said extra-gameplay experimental trends (more particular I was referring to what 'people' perceive to be extra-gamepaly experimental trends).   Do 'people' consider pixel-art and silhouettes to be experimental styles?

What I meant was more using these ideas in non-puzzle contexts and perhaps alongside other game mechanics. I mean, there's plenty of one-mechanic games I enjoyed a lot (hell, VVVVVV consists of essentially one mechanic and it's awesome), it's just that it's getting a bit tiresome.

Done.  That's the problem IMO.  And it's really a pet peeve of mine too; all these people in the indie scene now are elevating like it's some holy grail instead of realizing that games consist of lots of different media/elements, and that experimenting with those might also create interesting new experiences.

Someone mentioned Flower, which I think is a good point.  The vernacular of that game is very different from the standard video game vernaculars (eg. jungle level, ice level, etc.).  Heck, even something like Professor Layton is made so much better by being set in vernacular that's rarely-if-ever been tackled in games.

And to be frank, innovations in art should be in almost every game now.  All of the main styles are so overused that designers should have the self respect to ask themselves "what's a good style that complements my game?" instead of just sticking to the tried and true classics like pixels or "realistic" 3d environments.  Paper Moon was great like that; I mean, how many games have you played that looked like that?

Hurtful.

Man, did you read the whole interview though?  Takahashi seems really depressed about pretty much everything, and it also seems like he's got this really strange relationship with the West.

Takahashi Keita. Everytime I read him, he doesn't seem to be sure of his own feelings, except that he doesn't want to be a conformist, and that he doesn't like the industry. He's a stereotypical artist, in that he's insecure, irrational, ambivalent. And he makes great games. He speaks some good words now and then, but they're, more often than not, rather aimless.

I also find the EGW somewhat perplexing. They really focus on a tiny fraction of what makes a game experimental. I can think of so many awesome experimental games out there, but so few of them would make the cut. I think that they focus on the verbs, specifically.

I'm not too informed about which games where in the EGW, but from the ones I do know, I coincide with what he says. The problem isn't if they are puzzle games or not, the problem is it's only gimmicks. I don't see how coming up with a gimmick and making a game with it is in any way experimental. I relate experimenting with discovery and trying new things, and I don't see either in gimmicky games. It's actually a quite stablished formula.

As a sidenote, that's a good interview. Everything I've read with Takahashi is. Gives me the impression of someone that understands something almost noone else does, the idea of just being fun.

I think by "gimmick" you mean "new mechanic"?  It's experimental because no one's used that mechanic before, so you don't know a-priori if it will result in interesting game play or puzzles or etc.  I don't get how you could look at shadow physics and really most of the other EGW games and say they're not trying new things.

But experimenting I think means to try new things with games as a whole. But those games don't do that. In what way do they work in new ways with the medium? Do they say or find anything about the medium? No, they are just new games, with new mechanics and the most basic formula towards doing something new. And trying something without being sure how it will work out doesn't makes you experimental. These just don't try to reach any new ground, and those mechanics aren't even reusable on a large scale.

I disagree.  I mean, this pretty much describes Vertex Dispenser, right?  A game mechanic that would be a puzzle on its own, but combined with a few other mechanics to turn it into a strategy game.  (Sorry to everyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about, I'll release the damn thing eventually.)

If you take an arbitrary game mechanic, the easiest thing to do with it is just make it into a puzzle, but I'm personally a lot more interested if you can form it into a full game somehow, preferably for more than one player.

Yeah.  You have a point.  I buy it.

Any game worth a damn has unique or new gameplay mechanics. I would certainly call Shadow Physics clever and novel, but it's not experimental by any means. It's really just another physics-based platformer, though the physics emphasized have to do with light rather than motion like other games.

I would call 4:33 of Uniqueness (http://www.kloonigames.com/blog/games/4mins33secs) experimental, because it defies genre classification and player expectations.

Shadow Physics is probably more fun, but 4:33 of Uniquness makes you step back and think about gaming on a much more primitive level. If you're going to call yourself "experimental", you have to throw concerns about player enjoyment to the wind and do something really out there, as far as I'm concerned.

I think Takahashi feels the same way, hence the disappointment. Experimental stuff should be offensive to players' tastes, and I think a lot of designers who attempt it are afraid to cross that line.

I'm not sure 4:33 Of Uniqueness is that experimental. I mean, it basically just takes John Cage's 4:33 and transplants it to games.

No one had done anything like it in games. Applying the concept to a game illuminates things about gaming that a song does not.

Ah, thanks for explaining; I can see where you're coming from.  I guess I mostly just have a weakerdifferent notion of 'experimental' ...

edit: to expand a bit on my 'different notion', I think trying something without being sure how it will work out is the _only_ thing that makes you experimental; it is the fundamental aspect of experimenting.  Whether you reach new ground, or find something reusable -- those are ways you can hope an experiment will succeed, but if you're really doing an experiment the whole point is you don't know if those will happen or not.  Experiments are not rare, revolutionary things; little experiments happen all over the place, many of which are not that interesting, many of which are interesting but produce negative results.

Well, maybe.

I actually like the one-mechanic games better... too many games seem to be compositions, like "well its like quake, except with jeeps!". There's nothing wrong with that, but it's refreshing to see games that are bold enough to reduce their mechanics down to the bare minimum instead of taking the kitchen sink approach.

With regard to avoiding making puzzle games, I think it comes down to linearity and intentionally limiting choices. Puzzles force you to solve a problem in a very specific and constrained way. Remove the artificial constraints and its no longer a puzzle, it's just a problem.

Portal was a puzzle game because every problem generally had a preconceived linear solution. But if they had given you the Portal gun in a sandbox GTA world and a goal was to use your portal gun to make a million dollars; that's no longer a puzzle, that's a problem.

(A good problem :-) )

The distinction being there's a much larger solution space between the two. You can solve a problem in pretty much any way that's physically possible within the laws of the world/game. You can only solve a puzzle in a very constrained limited way.

Brilliantly put. Its kind of the difference between say World of Goo and Braid. The former gives you the feeling that you have more freedom in how you complete a level, whereas with braid, the solution feels clinically exact.

Also, I've never read an interview of Takahashi where he's happy about anything.

Well shit, Takahashi just doesn't seem to be shutting parts of his brain off, and I don't think anyone can fault him for that.  Like he said in the interview, people usually fret over stuff like poor people in Africa and not selling out in university, but he still frets about it.  Heck, I for one respect him more for not hiding from some of the nasty realities of the world and the games industry.

That said, being like that will quickly make you depressed.  I'm someone that frets about the things he does, but I'm still in university, so go figure.  Still, I'd much rather be like him in 10 years than like someone who just ignores the things that makes them uncomfortable though.

Yeah, I agree 100% with that.  Just played 4:33 and lost, but I'm glad I played because it was totally unique and experimental.

No see, you're criticizing these experimental games for only focusing on the mechanic and not the game as a whole, but at the same time, ironically, you fail to look at the game as a whole.

Believe me, I've thought about this a LOT for Closure. It's special, but I know for a fact that the gameplay gimmick is a one-show pony. I always want to do stuff that will influence other games and have a lasting appeal, and I worried about that a lot for Closure, since there's no way that it's a genre-changer like some games are. Of course, the gameplay is still the best part about it, and the easiest to "show", but I'm doing a ton with the atmosphere, story, presentation, and level design that I just don't talk about that much because hey, people care more about the gameplay than that. It's a lot of little things that add up to a whole, of course when the gameplay is such a huge chunk of that you can't help but think that's all there is.

If I was only focusing on the gameplay, the game would be done by now, but there's a lot more to it than that that I need to get right, and that's why it's not gonna be done for another year.

Of course, you're also missing the fact that being experimental in and of itself is no longer experimental because "everyone's doing it". HOW MUCH needs to be new for something to be considered experimental? There's no easily definable threshold there.
It's exactly the same as "What is indie?" and "What is art?", only now it's "What is experimental?"

It's not that unique. Progress Quest basically already did this, only with far more charm.

Also, I'm not convinced it really that thought provoking. Let me put it this way, if you hadn't read the spoilers, would you think "ah, what a clever commentary on what a game is" or would you think "this game keeps crashing at the load screen"?

But I think that's the point. The game is meant to provoke reactions like "is that even a game?", just like John Cage's piece is trying to get people to ask "is this even music?", which is an important and potentially philosophical question. Not all modern art is a "commentary" on something.

Also re offending people's taste: I think there are too few games with purposefully "unsound" designs that challenge peoples' notion of what a "good" game should be. Most game developers, even those at the outer edge, are still obsessed with perfection and symmetry. Some exceptions are a few of increpare's games, as well as, in a more "commercial" context, Suda 51 and, well, Keita Takahashi.

It's a philosophical question for sure.

But i'd argue that it isn't an important one.

Then again importance is relative.

What really is important anyway?

Not games, that's for sure!

Oh right, cya I'mma go discover immortality, cure cancer, and populate the universe with humanity. bye

No seriously, do you guys ever feel like we're completing squandering our intelligence and creativity when there are serious problems to be tackled in the world

me neither

I honestly can't tell whether that was supposed to be sarcastic.

my grandma does

"Know what else is a profitable industry? Porn!"

Porn really could use some classing up. Some of us should get into it.

@Glaiel-Gamer: I understand all that. Those are great things for the game, but I don't see how they make it experimental.

I really couldn't tell the point when a game becomes experimental. And maybe you are right, and being experimental just isn't possible. But then they should change the name of the workshop the next time.


Everyday I think I'm missusing my skills. I should procrastinate bigger things than a game. Something important, like a heart transplant or a plane's maintenance.

Tom's statement pretty much sums up why I'm keeping making games as a hobby, and choosing architecture as a career (plus, you invariably hate your career and love your hobby, and you can't do architecture as a hobby).

I think a lot of good can be done with games though.  No one should feel more guilty to choose game development than, say, being an author, film director, sculptor, or visual artist.  All of those things don't really "help people" in the clear cut way, but you rarely hear people feeling guilty for choosing those careers.

I'd like to hear what Takahashi things of that; if he thinks artists can't take their work seriously because "it's just art."  Personally I think art can give people a reason to live, and you really can't devalue that.  And because of something we've all agreed not to talk about here, I think games can also do that for people (really really good ones, most of which don't exist yet), and are a worthwhile pursuit so long as you're not approaching them immorally (like purposefully trying to get your players addicted to something that just wastes their time).

I don't think it's bad at all to devote your life (or at least a significant portion of it) to games or any kind of art--just don't kid yourself into thinking that it's a great way to change the world or anything!  But I'm sorry if my remark derailed this thread a little bit--I was just responding to Glail's comment that the question "is this even music (or a game)" isn't important, I think it is kinda silly to say so because (like he said) importance is relative and we decide what is important to us and our goals.

I think in a sense Glail's comment answered the question of the thread: being "experimental" likely means seriously screwing with the player, and having them question the experience as a whole.  I certainly questioned Noby Noby Boy when I played it, and I had pretty much the same feelings about Petri's game that Tom mentioned.  Both those game's (for better or for worse) experimented with the medium as a whole, not just one aspect of it like gameplay or art.

Takahashi talks shit, news at 5.

The conversation has kind of degenerated into a "what is an experimental game" rather than "what kind of games would you like to see at EGW that would make you excited." 

Experimental Gameplay Workshop has a pretty clear definition of what they do and do not consider "experimental".  Apparently many of you do not agree with this definition.  Maybe it should be called the "Gameplay Gimmick Workshop"?  Personally I like to see games that do interesting or underused things, and EGW usually delivers.

Original gameplay mechanic workshop?

I think the fact that it already has gameplay in the title is enough.  I don't know much about "sense of wonder night," but if it's accurate then I think it would probably be really cool.

Things don't need to be new at all to be experimental. Where did this phallacy come from? When you're a kid and you're in school learning what happens when you mix baking soda and vinegar, you're experimenting. Experiments don't have to be awesome, breakthrough, or even introduce anything novel at all. Maybe that might make them more interesting or fun, but if everybody knew how to do that, there'd be a lot more breakthroughs and new ideas surfacing. These sorts of workshops, as I see it, are just one particular step towards encouraging people to do so.

And if, like this guy, you're just complaining about it and not really helping the creative process along, you're doing it wrong.