This change will come about as soon as people realize that spit and polish is just spit smeared around to an even thickness. What use is shine if it does nothing but blind us? When polish is false, it only serves to place all the flaws into greater contrast. We see ourselves reflected and our image is that of the deceived, dissatisfied gamer.

The mainstream gamer does not need to know the difference between cool and fun, because the mainstream gamer is not an individual. Cool is what a collective intelligence believes is fun. But to quote Calvin and Hobbes: "flatulence could be all the rage but it would still be disgusting". Fun is what we think would please us as individuals. I think I am having fun, therefore I AM. The only way I can know if a game is fun for me is to ask myself a question: "am I having fun? Y/N?". No one or amount of reviews, personages, or group entities can or ever will convince me otherwise once that choice is known and remembered.

The secret and the method towards perpetuating this stupidity is to drive us into such collective ferret shock that we never ask ourselves that all important question. All of this spit and polish, hype and cool, whatever name you choose to give it. Its sole purpose is provide the means towards that end. This will continue until we as Gamers, capital G, look ourselves in the eye and say three words. This ends now.

Fallout is a great example of that. "But no one told me that trying to pickpocket Brotherhood Paladins was a bad idea!"

Oh miniguns, what a mess you make. Also yeah, great article. Forgot to mention.

This "certis" guy ain't half bad. Is he new or sumthin'?

Anyway, I like to think there are a few instances of "forceful" game design that work. Call of Duty 4 is an exercise in "clear objective, watch thing happen", but all of it works so well towards making a genuinely thrilling experience. I had no control over the political prisoner, save for the ability to look around, but that was kind of the point. Likewise, running from a sinking tanker ship, which is completely scripted, is a very harrowing ordeal to start the player off with.

I consider the two somewhat like movies. On some days, I may want a Solaris or The Fountain to puzzle over. Other days, I'm quite content with Bloodsport or Commando taking my hand, kneading my shoulders, and saying "there there, just sit and watch. Here's a hot dog and some nachos."

What, no mention of The Bourne Conspiracy? That's like candidate Prime for Forceful game design!

While we are at it, the moneymen could also figure that out. There's not much of a point if a game designer realizes that and doesn't have the resources to get it done properly.

Sometimes you must do what you are paid to do.

Excellent read!

Well said. This is why I like System Shock 2 over Bioshock, even though SS2 was often unforgiving or outright buggy/unbalanced.

Certis,

I'm still confused how you could have been duped by the SW:FU demo. It was clearly a portent of things to come.

I like to think of it as "Must do" versus "Can do"

Half-Life 2 is an extremely linear game, you simply are not going to get to the end without jumping through the required hoops and even some of the level design puts you on rails.

Yet somehow the game always lets me retain just enough control that it feels like my actions have some kind of effect on the outcome, like I am truly part of the story. While there is plenty in the game that is "Must do" they often leave the details to me, which is where I think it should be.

I think many gamers look to "sandbox" games as a way of creating their own custom experiences, but we had our own stories and unique experiences long before GTAIII made open world games mainstream. Even then, we've seen attempts at open world games that were no better than their more linear cousins.

What I do not want as a gamer is the exact same experience as everyone else. To some extent I enjoy the shared experience of taking down the big boss in "Major Mainstream Shooter IV" but I'd like to have something that differentiates my experience from everyone one, and I don't mean by collecting trinkets that other people didn't bother with.

The sawblades and grav-gun combo in Half-Life 2 are a great example of spontaneous fun, but there are so many examples of artificially restricted gameplay in HL2 as well. Best example: I have a high-tech environmental suit and weapons that let me do all sorts of neat things, but I can't climb a chain-link fence (or blast a hole in it either). Another thing I keep wishing I could do in HL2 (I'm still playing through it the first time) is to pick up ANYTHING with the grav-gun, not just arbitrary inanimate objects. Why can't I pick up a headcrab and throw it at an enemy combine soldier? Why can I blast back cars but not zombies or soldiers with the grav-gun?

I always thought that there was an evolution towards games (and more specifically controls) that feel more organic, immersive. And this is generally the type of game I prefer. But some games show that there's another trend. One that doesn't shy away from a certain level of abstraction, and puts a layer of arcade style gameplay between the player and the virtual world.

I wonder if there's a line to draw between these two design trends. The one which aims to create experiences, and the other which tries to provide good gameplay with more arcade roots.

The Force Unleashed is very symptomatic of that. It just seems to go in a completely different direction than Jedi Knight. I won't try to give too many examples because it can mean different things to different people, but for me, recent MMO's are also moving from "MMO's as a world" to more videogamish roots.

It's mostly food for thought though, because the flawed controls of The Force Unleashed are probably the main reason why you felt somewhat disconnected from the experience.

Great article, but don't sell the mainstream gamers short. After all, the Sims is the ultimate example of using the environment you build and tools you find to construct your own experience.

However, Spore, which was to be the ultimate extension of this idea, seems to have retreated from this freedom in the way you suggest. The ability to build 'a galaxy' is reduced to an infinitely extensible variation of toothpaste flavors and characteristics.

LucasArts did not develop JKII, they only published it.

Hear hear. I think that you've nailed down what very often makes the difference between excellence and mediocrity in game design. I want games that, from moment to moment, let me make choices and employ tactics that have varied and important consequences. The alternative--canned, push-button gameplay that rewards players with impressive visuals and scripted events--is far less satisfying.

I think some developers design levels and gameplay backwards. They start with a fixed idea about what they want players to see and do, build levels around these rigid goals, and then just plug the player into the game so that they're little more than puppets in their big, clunky, inflexible machine. Valve does the opposite - they create an engaging world, give the player tools to make cool things happen in that world, and then build levels that let the player exploit the hell out the system.

Actually, I think it was apropros as an example of gameplay that has a solid foundation for gameplay as opposed to the spit and polish pixel pushers that seek only to impress with eye candy and depress with gameplay.

Braid is a puzzle game and nothing gets done without my ingenuity and creative puzzle solving. At no point does it seize my control and tell me press a few random buttons to proceed or have him do slow motion back flips to make up for a lack of good puzzles to solve.

Like many here, I just feel like there's a true reward to figuring out something for yourself as opposed to the hand-holding, transparent arrow displaying, QTE forcing trend that has cropped up recently. I'm not saying that every game has to be Ninja Gaiden difficulty. I'm just saying that I don't need a QTE to finish off an AT-ST in the Force Unleashed.

Games are our playground. Define a set of rules, stick to them, (I'm looking at YOU, GTA IV) and then let us play. Give me the ability to use the environment to my benefit. Allow me multiple paths to accomplish the objective. The boss only has one weak point that can only be damaged by a specific attack? Fine. Give me some contextual clues and I'll work it out. But for the love of all that's good and holy don't flash a bloody button on the screen and show me a F'ing animation that takes me out of MY PLAYGROUND!