every day the same dream

http://infoblarg.rg3.net

Very similar to Pathways, by Terry Cavanagh.

I've been meaning to give Pathways a shot, I'll check it out.

I thought this was cool, it reminded me of working for the bureaucratic hospital in my village the past two summers. God I hate desk jobs.

Also reminds me of the Knytt Stories level Capitalism, although that game seems to loop continuously: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwDBL5b0NKM

I loved the music, and really enjoyed the central Groundhog Day-esque mechanic of finding ways to shake up the everyday routine.

*SPOILERS*

Not quite sure what to think of the ending. Seems willfully vague. At first, I thought it was going for the inspirational message that he's now living in his own world since everyone else wasn't taking the time to live life and explore like the player character has, until I saw the last scene.

There's probably not one set reading of the ending, but it's interesting to think about. Is the suicidal man at the end the player or another faceless co-worker? Does the player character achieve peace just in time to see what could have happened to him, or are his last regrets not strong enough to prevent his own death? Were the main vignettes all dreams, were they the player character's hopes, or were they real-life attempts to reach out? The fact the game continues after the jump, the circular nature of the game, and the meta-commentary of the elevator woman points mainly to dreams or hopes, although that doesn't leave out the possibility that they are memories.

*SPOILERS*

This game speaks to me in a way that Home couldn't. They are superficially similar games, but the impact is night and day for me. I suspect it's because this type of reality is more real to me than an old person in a nursing home. (My grandparents died while I was young and my parents aren't to that stage yet.)

The "five steps" were great because they weren't obvious but not overly hard to find. The first time I "jumped" I actually gasped at the computer screen at what I was able to do.

Great find, Greg. This is the reason why I keep visiting the site! :)

Brian 'Psychochild' Green
http://www.psychochild.org/

I've just played pathways for the first time and I'm very surprised by the similarities :)

That music was awesome, and kind of made the experience for me. Makes me want to bust out some old Moby.

I think you kinda missed the point about Passage. Maybe a reading of PTT's very own Passage page will help you reconsider.

This game was excellent. Anyone who says games can't be art is just plain wrong.

This goes in the same basket as the graveyard, for me.

Take any movie with a message - if instead of just watching you had to press a key to make the protagonist walk across the screen...pressing a key doesn't make gameplay and doesn't make it a game. Your still just watching, but now you have to hold down a key for the movie to play out.

It's as if any time something genuinely moves people, their critical level switches off. As if anything that moves them has to be right. Everyone always thinks their feelings are right, and by extension they think anything that triggers their feelings is right and without error.

On the other hand/capitalist lobe of my brain, I'm looking to emulate sought after content that uses almost 'hello world' level coding, for profit. Why am I shooting myself in the foot by tearing at the veneer?

~~~
Philosopher Gamer Blog
& a funny take on/the shocking truth about space invaders

This is a great game. Most games which are simulations of real life annoy by not modeling enough of real life: 'why can't I jump?', people ask while playing Doom. This game uses that aspect to enhance it's central point. It's as if your character is so trapped within his own lifestyle he genuinely can't think of different ways to act. His early attempts at rebellion are worse than pointless. 'Damn it, I'm not going to turn off the TV today!' he shouts. His wife just stares at him impassively.

Has any one played a half-life 2 mod called decay? http://www.moddb.com/mods/decay1 This game was very similar to EDTSD, and at the ending you were given the same choice as a day ending in EDTSD.

This game is not just a movie in which you have to press a key to watch. You have to recognize objects and interact with then. It is a simple game, but it is a game. Some people may even find it challenging, if they are not used to play games.

The worst thing about this game is that it is nihilist. The only "peaceful place" is the graveyard? Depressing.

http://infoblarg.rg3.net

Freaking awesome game!

I would have liked a more insightful ending though, but is an excellent experience. The music is also perfect.

janosbiro, I'll argue that by asserting you don't have a cut off point - your permissive of anything being a game, there's no point at which you would say "Oh no, that's not a game". You have no standards on the matter - or am I wrong?

I've got this idea called 'Everyday the same game' and this little guy gets out of bed and there are three computers, the second two have challenging interaction that takes him, to some degree, outside his comfort zone - either in a gamist way or even in moral choices.

But the first computer has this game where he mostly pressed the right key, sometimes space. It's interaction that's entirely within his comfort zone, but because little emotions show on the screen he gets excited and at the end of that game, resets back to his bed, every time...like the guy in the reviewed game, he never leaves his fixed pattern.
~~~
Philosopher Gamer Blog
& a funny take on/the shocking truth about space invaders

It's a reasonable artistic statement to have put out in a few days, but it's even less of a game than Passage. Games are not just interaction, they are also play. The whole point of every day the same dream is that there can be no play.

Some spoilers follow.

I said the artistic statement was reasonable, by which I mean it's a legitimate point of view, but it's also kind of grating. If Passage has a trite view of romantic love (personally I don't think it's all that trite), every day the same dream has a trite little set of ways to escape the tedium of a dull life. Yet the "player" must discover each and every one of them in order to move forward, and the "game" will allow the avatar to run around in its underwear and get fired each and every day with no consequences whatever, patiently waiting for the button pusher to get the message and rebel in the proscribed way. I was less inclined to interpret this as part of the message than as an ironic commentary on it.

The first time I went through every day the same dream I got bored and quit less than half way through. Having gone all the way through, I'm inclined to think my first response was better. I really don't care what Paolo might have been thinking when he came up with it, nor do I care enough to come up with my own interpretation. It's not a game, and if it's art, it's not very interesting art.

Due to an anonymous post on my blog, I'll note this about what I said on standards above - if you will accept anything anyone wants to call a game, then you have no standard on the matter. This is obvious - it's as obvous as someone without a hat on their head is not wearing a hat. And to paraphrase the anonymous poster from my blog, I said it with as much hostility as I would tell someone that they have a bit of spinach caught in their teeth. And I genuinely meant it when I asked if I was wrong - it's so easy to prove my assertion wrong by stating a physically measurable standard (physically measurable so it's not a matter of 'I'll tell you when you need to know')

There are none, really. Surely we all agree that something like "snakes & ladders" is a game? some of us played it as children, most of those enjoyed it. And yet S&L uses the player as a manipulator that takes a die roll as input and moves the marker according to a set of simple rules as output. There are no choices: not where to go, not when to stop. Your only way of expression would be deliberately causing errors. But that's not what you do, you just follow the directions of your six-sided overlord... because it's FUN. that's not much of a criteria either. Watching a movie is fun, but it's not a game. playing snakes and ladders with your 5 year old son is a game, but it's not fun (not anymore, *sigh*...)

They say that a game is a series of interesting decisions (I like to pretend that's what games are), but it's not (even if you discard Snadders as an "activity"). What decisions did you make in Doom or Quake? which gun to use? when to dodge? the first isn't much of a choice (in most cases it will be obvious) and the second one is a physical skill, and involves more gut feelings then real choices.

An uncertain outcome. That's the only requirement I can see from my knowledge of gaming history.

That's why even a flip of a coin can be a game. Though most people pep it up with gambling - which isn't necessary strictly, but does add alot of pep! Indeed, try playing snakes and ladders for cash - or play it with your child with candy on the line (though he may cry if he loses)

I didn't get to the end of this 'game' because I detected no uncertainty and got sick of it. Perhaps there was some latter (in which case I'd say it takes ages to get to the uncertainty part). But as is, there is no uncertainty and thus it's not a game to me atleast.

Interestingly I made a game and someone said it had no unplayability as well, so I was faced with the same charge I gave shortly after giving it. I blogged about it: http://philosophergamer.blogspot.com/2010/01/playability.html

And can I say everyday the same dream would make a wonderful music video, were it automated! Radiohead quality, I think! Not just because of the nice music, but because that's what it is, essentially.
~~~
Philosopher Gamer Blog
& also my web comic!

Just saw your comment. I do have a definition of game, and I did not made any anonymous comment in your blog.

Not everything can be a game, but a game can express anything, including the sense that modern life is a repetition of the same fixed pattern, where you never have to leave your comfort zone. In the same way, a concrete poetry can use empty space to represent emptiness, a meaningless life can be represented by a meaningless game. A constrained situation can be represented by a constrained game, with no winnable state. A game doesn't have to be fun if it's not about something funny. A game about life can be depressing, because that's how life is being represented: as a depressing thing, where you have no real option, but the illusion of freedom. A game about a recurrent dream can be repetitive. If it wasn't, then how to express it? If I see the modern man condition in this game that has a fixed pattern, it is only because it has a fixed pattern, because that's what it is expressing: I realize that this life does not really offers me any choice, because this man has become a cog in the machine. I don't know why we can't make a game about this subject, by making it work that way. Isn't that valid in game design? To point to a condition by making the game mechanic work the same way?

I'm graduated in philosophy too, and I think your point is that the game does not offer true interaction, because it just leads to a dead end. But that's exactly what the game is talking about. So I think that's a valid way of making a game about having no real choice.

http://infoblarg.rg3.net

I have to disagree with Callan S. about games requiring an uncertain outcome.

I'll point you towards exhibit A, The Secret of Monkey Island, and by extension, any adventure game where it's impossible to die. The only outcomes are that you stop playing when a puzzle defeats you (not really an 'end of game') or that you complete them.

I'd argue that Monkey Island I is full of jokes which only work as well as they do because they are interactive - Guybrush being thrown off the jetty, taking to Governor Marley for the first time, the rubber tree on Monkey Island, 'Yeah? Well I can't believe your...'; there are many examples. Many of these jokes would still work in a film, but not as well.

Of course, some adventure games probably would be better as non-interactive films, depending on personal taste (case in point: Little Wheel, which I suspect was only made as a game so the animator's work would reach a wider audience). Surely we can agree tho, that this is not the case with Monkey Island I?