Interesting argument. We were not thinking specifically about avatar-based games, but you are right that it is tempting to operate with an interface-gameplay distinction in such games.

I completely agree that there is a sense of otherness when playing Toribash.

But doesn’t the causality go in the other direction? It is difficult to control the character, therefore you do not identify with it?

Jesper do you think that this misconception about the separation of interface and gameplay comes largely from the player identification with the Avatar in generic games? For a person unable to effectively control that which they identify as themselves within the game seems akin a disability. You pointed out Street Fighter’s convoluted button combinations, but that is only for “special” moves. Movement and standard punches are all executed through simple button combinations. Or equally the removal of feedback mechanisms as a punishment like the concussion grenades in some FPS games that send the screen white and distort noise.

This seems to be something you hinted at throughout the article but never actually said. It’s depressing to think about games as limited to the generic fair but it seemed to me to be where this myth comes from.

Toribash maybe intensely loved by its players, but it doesn’t seem to have become an industry standard – I would suggest because of the lack of identification with the character.

Toribash just happens to be a more divisive game, but it is strongly loved by the players who do accept its interface.

We agree of course that the interface should be right for the game. I think that is the major takeaway of the article: the interface of game is an integral part of the gameplay and design, rather than being something external that is tacked on at the end.

“Today I die” is a good game for discussion: I feel that it is legitimate to make such a game where the player is thrown into the deep end, but on the other hand I think the game could be made more accessible by adding more hints and feedback to the player – and that this could be done without compromising the “confusion” part…

I recently ranted that ‘Today I Die’ had a fairly bad interface, and someone claimed that the artist meant to confuse players as part of it’s ‘art’. I’d only agree to that if the artist himself had said it, and then I’d still advise him to fix the problems.

Any designer who gets lazy about this most difficult facet of game design will most likely make awful games.

However, I think the popularity of Jenga, WarioWare, and other games with difficult-to-use interfaces shows that reaching a broad audiences does not require an easy-to-use interface.

I do agree that you need a short learning curve (short time from picking up the game to performing first successful action) in order to reach a broad audience, but a game can have a short learning curve and a difficult interface at the same time.

Toribash has a long learning curve and a difficult-to-use interface. Jenga has a short learning curve and a difficult-to-use interface.

Saying a game is “good” is subjective, because there are so many ways to measure a games “goodness.” But to the companies that develop games, I would say that what makes “good” games to them is games that sell many copies. An easy-to-use interface is therefore ideal, because the faster a customer can “master” the game’s controls, the more they are likely to enjoy the game.

Since Toribash is a free, independently developed game, I feel it’s a poor comparison since its creators (presumably) are not concerned with profits. I also would not call it a fighting game, at least in the traditional sense, since such a label usually invokes the idea of fast paced, arcade styled fighting games. Toribash, from what I’ve read on it, requires more strategy and a feel for the game’s physics. So by all means, Toribash’s control scheme is well suited for it and it could be considered by many to be a great game. But would it be profitable? Would it be able to reach a wide gaming audience? We can’t really say until they try selling it.

Brennan: I wasn’t thinking about the comparison to Bateson, but certainly it is a case where you may for a moment think there is a nice hierarchy and then you realize that there isn’t.