Dear Esther and Assassin's Creed DLC use similar tricks to create tension even when there’s no danger of failure, since the stories revolve around stuff that's already happened.
The Walking Dead is a well told piece of storytelling, regardless of its length, but the short episodic form makes the game's features that much more interesting and engaging.
It’s a very satisfying experience to kill in an online competitive video game. It makes one aware that one’s efforts are significant in, perhaps, the clearest, most visceral metaphor possible. I just made someone else dead.
The Sleeping Dragon feels more like an “Indiana Jones Adventure” than a “Da Vinci Code Adventure”.
I'm immortal, and I'm bored.
When a hero fails in a game, it usually means a game over or that an earlier save state can overwrite that failure from ever happening. This either means that defeat is so absolute that the game cannot continue or that the failure is so inconsequential that it can be avoided entirely. What games don’t often do is force players into a situation where there is no right answer.
All the world building of Syndicate is undermined by a single plot twist.
How might game designers exploit our hidden vulnerability to spatial-inspired psychosis? The good news is that many already do.
I don’t want to suggest that I don’t play to win. I love winning. It’s just that, quite honestly, I love playing more than I love winning.
From a marketing standpoint, basing a game off Game of Thrones seems intuitive. The problem that nobody seems to have considered is that the kingdom of Westeros is a miserable place that nobody should want to be in.