Hey Matt -

I really appreciate you taking the time to write this, and you deserve a response. I finally got some time to sit down and write. Allow me to share my thoughts.

First, I have to say that I agree with your point about marketing - packaging can certainly help sell a game. Sometimes it is a sneak attack by marketing (only show cutscene screenshots rather than gameplay screenshots), but sometimes the box, manual, or included swag just look great & get you emotionally pumped. I remember buying the VGA remake to Quest for Glory I while I was on vacation in another city! I couldn't run the software, and I just poured over the manual and got myself pumped up to install it once I got back home. I suppose you are a gamer no matter where you are and regardless of if you have some sort of hardware available or not!

But let us look at your focus here - social contexts.

I can't tell you the number of times when my fun on the elementary school playground was based on make believe. This was done with friends, too! This oftentimes is stereotyped as something that creates conflict among those playing, "my gun/car/whatever is better than yours!" ..."Nuh uhh!" In my case, we all worked together with whatever it was we were pretending. It was oftentimes based on a TV show, movie, or whatever. We would break from the pretend situation to talk a bit about our favorite episode of some show. That conversation would then inevitably evolve into the next iteration of whatever we were pretending. It was pure fun for the imaginative minds of eight-year-olds!

I think that videogames can facilitate this desire to pretend, and it does it for all ages - not just young kids. Whether you are with someone else or not, the possibility of being someone like a soldier via a videogame can give you an adrenaline rush similiar (as close as non-soldiers can imagine) of being in that real life situation (minus the danger and plus the air conditioning). I don't mean to say playing the videogame is anything like the true feeling you get as a soldier in combat, but I think you get my point.

Sharing this experience with others helps with the immersion. I honestly don't really like head-to-head games. I prefer co-op. Co-op is not as common as it used to be, but having to help out a buddy (and succeeding) can really add to an enjoyment of a game! There are several games where I might struggle a bit or even die/lose, but having a friend alongside playing that same game might help you get over a hump. So you died in this round? Your friend finishes the round and you come back in the second round - and now you are further than you ever have been in a game. An "in your face" version of this trait is the savior feature in a game like Rock Band. Maybe you can't nail that solo, but your friend on vocals can sing right through it in multiplayer mode and "save" you by bringing you back into the game where you normally would have just lost everything you had done.

Turning to give your friend a high five after excellent work in a videogame is quite a bit of fun, I must say.

Creating co-op games is another topic. I believe I have written about this specific example of co-op invention once before on Armchair Arcade. A friend of mine would "ensign" me (as we called it) on X-Wing. I would fly the spacecraft, and he would change weapons, donate power to shields, order allies to attack, etc. It was a blast!

Playing X-Wing is fun no matter what, in my opinion. That said, having a buddy next to you at which you can yell, "more power to shields!" and having him echo back "She canna take it anymore, Captain!!" while you are in the middle of an intense space battle just amps up the fun that much more. (Disclaimer: My friend and I are both Star Wars and Star Trek fans, so we can combine the two at will quite easily.)

Let's look at your numbered list, Matt.

1: Character creation is a VERY important part of several games. The number one genre that comes to my mind is the RPG genre. Your party members (and even NPCs) can make or break a game. If you end up hating a created character, your gaming experience can be ruined. If you love all of your characters, you don't want to see anything happen to them - especially death. That is a very story-based aspect to a game. You can continue playing the game, finish it, etc, and the loss of that character (despite the character's inevitable death as it was designed by the developers) will still cause you a small degree of sorrow - just as if you were reading a book, watching a movie, etc. I would argue that perhaps videogames are the genre where you feel that death the most because of your virtual interactivity with that character. A couple of the recent Matt Chats with Chris Avellone have me wondering about the characters in Planescape Torment. I may have to spin that up some day.

2: My primary point about a good villain touches specifically on RPGs and is highly tied into number one above. I think one stereotype of character development in an RPG is that the developers focus on the maturity and character development of the party members while providing a heavily stereotyped and paper thin villain character. Make a good villain! The player knows he is supposed to defeat the enemy, but go further - develop a good villain and *make* him want to defeat that enemy. Or better still - make him *not* want to defeat the enemy! I fully accept tragedy as an acceptable genre!

3: Multiplayer - No arguments here. I obviously am going to agree. Key point - multiplayer needs to continue to evolve.

4: As far as avatars, I think many of the characters created and used in LucasArts and Sierra adventure games help create my group of favorites. While you play a role in these games, the playable character still has a lot of personality to him/her. Experiencing their reactions (and...even deaths) to things can be entertaining. Sometimes you feel for them, but most of the time you find yourself laughing.

So despite all that I have written, I have to say that there are many times when you just want to play solitaire. Haha.

Thanks for this one, Matt!