This is what Hegel says in his Elements of the Philosophy of Right (translated by H.B.Nisbet, here is another version). Person refers to an abstract subject that has already become a self-conscious will that has being in and for itself. The external sphere refers to the existence (Dasein) out there that he is to possess, recognize as his own. Freedom is this force of the will, just like gravity is the force of a mass. And idea refers to that freedom realized, by the will now possessing its existence (Dasein), which of course becomes its “private property”.

A private property is not something that can be a property before being private. The inner privacy of the self-conscious will extends itself to possess external objects of nature to make them property of its own. When a person pulls an object off of nature making it an object of culture, at the same time he makes it an “private” object of his own. This property can only become “property in general” after its private existence being negated through exchange or seizure.

As a result, private property is originally generated not through production, but through clamation: a tearing off of an object out of a shapeless nature, which retroactively becomes a “discovery”. Prior to this discovery, the object does not really exist, it is a shape, a phenomenon that is external to the person’s will. However, it might have been put there by a god to make it discovered by the person (or the “player”, as in the case of a game developer). In that case, this fact would not be obvious for the player, who will nevertheless experience this as his discovery and possession of an external object. The disbelief that is suspended by this player is of course the existence of a game developer who put the object for his discovery in the first place. The will of the game developer must be disavowed so as the player to possess the game objects himself, because an object cannot be a property of two wills at once. One must suspend his belief in god so as to live a life as his own.

A game is an existence with rules constructed by a developer before it being experienced by a player. The existence of a game presents itself to its player as an external nature to be possessed by the player’s will as objects of use (including use of them as weapons, consumables, money, status symbols, entertainment etc). The rules (1) define the possible uses of these objects, as well as (2) provide a firm ground of necessities in the presented existence, enabling the free exertion of the player’s possessive rights over this particular Dasein. When rules are not clear, or they are not enforced correctly, or they do not regulate a crucial part of the existence, this creates confusion and harms the freedom provided to the player.

When a game presents an existence with clear rules, the players can freely exert their possessive rights, generating new private property. This newly created property (1) belongs to individual players’ privacy and (2) is peculiar to this particular game’s existence as use-value. However, just like that it can be converted to another value inside the game’s existence, it can also be converted to a value outside it, i.e. real money, or private property in real existence (via an exchange between players of this same game). When A sells his character to B for X dollars, (1) A and B is related by the game’s existence as a common ground of exchange, whereas (2) B’s “external sphere of freedom”, extending from the game to real life, relates B’s property in game to his property in real life, containing both at once. In this exchange, A may or may not consider his character as valuable, A’s “external sphere” as a whole (relating virtual and real) does not concern us here.

Game existence and rules provide a place and a guarantee for the use-value of a player’s in-game private property, which becomes his freedom as a player of this game. However, we must distinguish his being “player for this game” from his being a “player in general”. The freedom concerning the first one is distinct and possibly in contradiction with the second one. Insistence on a particular Dasein and one’s existence in it can be the complete opposite of demanding a “better” Dasein: the attitude of abondoning the actual existence to opt for a better one. This is the arbitrariness of the negative freedom, which can further become a positive freedom to create a new existence. This is how a player wills to create a Dasein, and possibly becomes a game developer. Only as a “player in general” can one become a game developer. A “player of this game” has to step out of this immersion, abondon his rights and freedom in this particular game, negate it to reach the negative freedom of arbitrariness as “player in general”. A “player in general” is someone who knows the particularity of a game, but does not immerse in it. In his arbitrary behavior, he may give the impression of a “lamer” to the immersed “players of this game”. However, what these immersed players cannot see is the “player in general”s involvement in multiple game Daseins at once, mixing them up to create new ones. This negative attitude against particular games and genres secure the ground for positive creation.

***

We have to distinguish between the external nature of a game as immediate, and a player’s “external sphere of freedom”. The first is a “potential Dasein” that the immediate-abstract will of the player confronts. The second is an “actual Dasein” that is being possessed by the player as his own sphere of freedom.

Rules are the necessities that become known by the player in the actualization of his Dasein particular to this game. The necessities enforced by the game’s rules must leave space for uncertainty, either through other players’ potential decisions or through random number generation, for otherwise, the actuality completes itself, and there is no further externality for the player to continue possessing, and the game becomes “boring”.

The “flow” in a game depends on the continued actualization of the player’s Dasein. This actualization consists of the player, confronted by the external nature presented in the game, recognizing and “privatizing” objects, incorporating them in his actual immersed existence as “the player in this game”. For the game to progress, this immersed existence must grow, just like a capital, including either more numerous or more valuable objects in time.

The actual immersed Dasein of a player cannot be reduced to his “current state”, his level, inventory, XP etc. In this process, it is a fact that the game registers and forgets such information, but the Dasein also involves those information registered by the player’s own memory of game experience, its history. Moreover, what the player remembers is the essential element for game Dasein, whereas the “current state” recorded in game is only an unessential element that exists subordinate to the first one. This can be compared to deposits in a bank account, which only has being as private property in relation to its owner’s will. When the owner withdraws his will, dispossesses it, it ceases to become his private property. Being disowned, it is no longer private, and becomes a general “property in this game” in so far as the other immersed players still consider it as valuable. In other words, it ceases to be an “actual” private property, and becomes a “potentially” private property. When no one considers it valuable, it also loses this potentiality.

Moreover, the game Dasein only exists with relation to the “current state” as registered by the game itself. An actual Dasein in a player’s will is meaningless without being registered in the game’s universe (like when a save game is lost). In this sense, we have to consider the “current state” as the essential element of Dasein.

We have to conclude that neither the immersed player’s will, nor the “current state” can be the essential element of a game Dasein; these two elements together constitute its essence (just like the I and the object that together constitute the essence of sense-certainty). Thus, this two-sided essence of actual Dasein is constituted as a new object of the player as subject.

The object of the immersed player is the game state as his “sphere of freedom”. But this game state only has meaning in its relation to the player’s will. Therefore, the essence of the actual game Dasein (its actualization as a process) is constituted by both of these two elements together.

Who is the subject that takes the actualization of game Dasein as its object? It is no longer the immediate subject of the immersed “player in this game”. But it is also not yet the “player in general”, because the actualization is still only considered in a particular game. Let’s call him the “spectator in this game”, a friend of the immersed player, watching him play, examining his relation with game objects.

The immersed player responds game events directly, like cursing upon losing or taking joy upon winning. The spectator, on the contrary, responses from a reflected position, watching his friend being immersed, enjoying the game events through his responses, commenting on his play, making fun of him etc. Immersion involves a certain tension, as he is directly responsible for the presented or self-assumed “objectives” in the game. Spectating is a more convenient position that affords more thinking, understanding and reasoning to show the immersed player what he can’t see. The spectator also affords to act creatively, through jokes and comments, contributing to the actualization of Dasein that he is observing, mainly at the side of the immersed player’s will.

What we have now is two subjects with objects of their own: The immersed player takes the “game state” as his object, together constituting the actualization of his private Dasein in this particular game. The spectator in turn takes this actualization as his object.

The position of the spectator is crucial to reach to the “player in general”, because only as a spectator can a player unify its object as a “game in general”.

An actualization of Dasein in one game is comparable with one in another game. It is also comparable with one immersed player or another. A game and an immersed player together constitute such an essence, but replacing either of these two elements (with other games or players) does not change the essence they have constituted. Therefore, a spectator can observe several actualizations of Daseins that involve different players and games, without change in his nature of being a spectator. As a result of this process, he develops the concept of “game in general”, and becomes a “player in general” (through being a “spectator in general” at first).

This “player in general” will further attain a negative freedom of arbitrariness that an immersed “player of this game” does not have. Then, he will become a “developer” through negating this arbitrariness into a positive will to create. A “developer of a game” is a particular position that wills to create a particular game (a big big game, or an addictive casual game etc.), but his will to create is universal. Finally, we arrive at a “developer in general” or “hactivist” that wills this universal will (to create a particular actualization of Dasein). “Developers of a game” organize in particular forms of companies or communities, whereas the “developers in general” organize as a universal Network of Developers (or Hacktivists). As can be seen in the game developers in US, a game developer can have both positions at once, that are realized as a game company and an association (e.g. IGDA). In the case of IGDA, it’s current actualization is still “enriched with” developers of particular genres of games (and of particular origins), but it is essential for IGDA to embody a will to universality (hence “International”), and as opposed to its present actuality, IGDA can be considered universal as a process of actualization. This universal will (essential to IGDA) is actualizing through events like GGJ.

***

A similar construction is possible apropos of the critique of ideology. The subject immersed in a particular ideology relies on his “game state” as announced by an authority, while he continually actualizes his particular Dasein. A spectator of this ideology, on the contrary, takes as his object this particular actualization of Dasein with its two essential sides (the immersed subject of ideology and the big other), which is the process of functioning of this particular ideology. Then by observing several such actualizations (involving different ideologies and different immersed subjects) and comparing them to each other, develops the concept of an “ideology in general”, thereby becoming a “spectator in general” or a “subject in general”, i.e. an individual. This position allows for a negative freedom attitude of arbitrariness, which must then be superseded by forming a positive freedom, as a will to create a particular actualization of Dasein. But this will is universal in essence, leading to the same Network of Developers of Daseins. Developers of game Daseins can emerge among digital workers, coders and designers, whereas developers of real Daseins can emerge among designers and planners of real places and systems, such as architects, city planners etc.

(More must be said about the distinctions between professions, like graphic designers falling into advertisement sector for false creativity, or coders assuming some other kind of “task oriented” immersion as an escape from real creativity. The escape routes of architects, planners etc. should also be elucidated. The role of unskilled workers? Various kinds of engineers? Social scientists or researchers? The organization of academia as a network (to develop what)?)

Particular communities of Gamers and the universal Network of Developers

As a Player becomes a Gamer through immersion in a game, she gains knowledge and experience in this game, provides a market for commodification, founds a genre, and forms a community around that genre. Gamer of a genre belongs to a particular culture, which may trigger its own xenophobia. What is suspended in the transition of a Player to a Gamer is the disbelief, a dissatisfaction that sustains a critical distance and provides an ability to analyze the game elements, unbothered with their meanings. In this sense, the disbelief makes possible creative power and will. Players that “sustain their disbelief” can become Developers with a Will to create, which found its own social form as a network of independent (or mainstream) game developers that regenerate through events such as competitions and game jams (or parties). Networking is the very unofficial basis of this social form (1). Contrary to the Gamer communities that are particular to a genre and consumer market, the Network of Developers is potentially a universal socio-economic form that transcends the capitalist subordination of production to consumption by practising collective creation as an end in itself, as exampled by the “open source” developers, who (as opposed to “free software”) do not need a higher purpose or a manifesto to work together and create an “enormous wealth”. Playing a game is also an end in itself, but only to a Gamer in a community, hence a particular end, whereas the Will to create is a universal end that can be the ethics underlying the Network of Developers.

Moreover, an original disbelief is a precondition of becoming a Player; it has to exist before one can play a digital game. It does not emanate from the inconsistency of a game, or the game’s misfit to reality, but it originally pertains to the inconsistency of the fiction that is real life. Based on this idea of an original disbelief, we can imagine a Network of Hacktivists that Wills to create not only new games but also new realities with the help of digital technology, as foreshadowed in the #OWS movement (2).

The case of Turkey

Turkey is a country where people have strong family bonds, but the political problems are abound and it is becoming harder and harder to get a job and hold on to economic life. The solution is that one’s family devotedly supports one’s education, and in return, one agrees to immerse in the agon(3) to university exams, and also agrees not to disturb this immersion by engaging in other affairs. However, most people are excluded from winning this race, and also political fairness of this game is frequently disputed, generating plenty of disbelief in the part of these young people.

Most of this disbelief is suspended through one’s job and economic engagement. Some of the rest is suspended through other means such as TV, football, militarisation, soap-operas, cinema, love affairs, etc. And an increasing part of it is consummated through digital games played at home or at the Internet cafes mostly by males.

As digital games gained popularity in the last decades, various Gamer communities have formed (and some dissolved) around particular genres: arcade gamers, FPS gamers, RTS gamers, MMO gamers, social gamers… This flux of generations continually enlarged the social base of digital games. This also produced a fraction of Players who could no longer suspend their disbelief to remain a Gamer, and thus wanted to create new games as Developers. Some of these players tried to organize themselves via game companies, but most of these attempts ended in financial impasses.

A “business incubator” called METUTECH-ATOM [Animation Technologies and Game Development Center in Middle Eastern Technical University] was founded in 2008 as a response to this problem. Since 2009, it is making a certain contribution that is much helpful than its original intention of incubating businesses through supplying a room and entrepreneurship seminars: it is organizing the Global Game Jam in Ankara in coordination with IGDA Education SIG. This event perfectly fitted the original problem that it was a response to, namely, to organize the disbelief of Players into the Network of Developers’ Will to create.

Nearly 60 developers participated to make 15-20 games in each of the three GGJs. Each event was organized by a different person with slight changes in the presentation: the first one was “just for fun”, the second one was framed unfortunately as the “turkish national team” for GGJ, and the third one just as a “game development marathon”. These shifts are due to a real gap between the intended aim -of educating participants for jobs in the game industry or incubation of their businesses for the “national” industry-, and the inherent ethics of the game jam, which just employs collective creation as an end in itself. It is the pure Will of developers that reject to immerse in a particular game genre, that reject to become a community under a word. Unable to subordinate this Will, the Capital confronts it like a natural phenomenon, like a river or wind that comes and goes by itself. As a result, what happens is an inverse of “corporate control”: an institution being infected by a parasite, an alien Will that is totally apathetic to the official vision and mission of the institution…

This parasite Will maybe infects only my imagination. But now I realize that it was also reflected in the games we developed in GGJ at ATOM: Both in 2009 and 2010, I participated with a team called Parazit. In 2009, we made “Itchy!” (4), a game about a bug wandering on the back of a giant monster, escaping its hand that comes to itch places where he walks. In 2010, we made “ViralFire” (5), about a fireball capturing a human body, first through lungs, then through veins to the heart, and finally the brain. This scenario of an infection by alien creature that repeatedly show up in our games did not refer intentionally to anything. Maybe their secret meaning really was this infection by our Will to create of an institution against its intentions (maybe even against ours?).

So this is how the Network of Developers grow and reproduce (at least in our imagination), as an unbothered and unconditional Will to create that hides itself under the official pretexts, until the time will be ready to break the institutional shell… Maybe we shall then finally say once and for all: Well burrowed, old mole!

(1) A whole literature on networking is available for newbie game developers. See, for example: http://tinysubversions.com/2005/10/effective-networking-in-the-games-industry-introduction/

(2) The “NYC General Assembly”s guide of hand signs is exemplary for their “social hacker” attitude: http://www.nycga.net/resources/general-assembly-guide/ They also organized a “hack-athon”, an event similar to a game jam: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/10/14/techies-unite-for-occupy-wall-street-hackathon/

(3) Agon is Roger Caillois’ term for competition games.

(4) http://itchygame.wordpress.com

(5) http://viralfire.wordpress.com

A political game about recent events in Tunisia:

Jasmine Revolution! “Bread, freedom and dignity!”

Note: We recommend Opera, Chrome or IE for better javascript performance.

We hope that you have fun playing our game just like we had when we were creating it. We’ll also be glad if you rate and review ViralFire on iTunes.

ViralFire @ iTunes

ViralFire official website

On Friday night, we were five people randomly assembled to talk. On Saturday morning, we became the game development team Parazit, as if we have been working for years. On Sunday morning, we were making the last retouching on our first project ViralFire. On Sunday evening, having lived through that intensive hours, we had become people just sitting in a conference room staring at the colorful images revolving on the curtain… All of these happened in only one of the 16 parallel universes in Global Game Jam 2010 Ankara, which was the second occurrence in Turkey and in the world.

Fireball protagonist of ViralFire, while capturing our heart..

Throughout the event, the groups were so immersed in the worlds of their own creation that the desks where those galaxies were produced became separated deep like a cliff. The greatest exception that broke this rule (or made it more visible) was of course the audio-music group that were trying to found the atmospheres in all the games. However, so they were entrapped in a dimension between universes, and they could not set foot on any of the game worlds, thus being left out, being the dispossessed of GGJ.

When it was time for the game jam, all participants were assembled in the conference room to hear the theme. The main theme was “deception”, and the keywords were “fire”, “wire” and “lyre”… The rhyming made them sound less serious, but they were not bad at all. Then they released us to the corridor to form groups… Thinking of the confusion and chaos last year, I was wondering how it would happen this time. Then, I wrote on a paper that I was “looking for graphics, sound and story for iPhone game”. While I was looking around holding my paper, I saw another paper written “pixel art” coming my way. As two papers ran into each other, me and Çağatay ran into each other as well. Later, an aggregation emerged around us and we decided to became a group like this to make a platformer game on iPhone. We collected our names to register our group: Orkun, Kübra, Bertan, Barış… Then a young friend near us, Cem, told he applied for the event but was not accepted and that he’d like to join as a spectator. When we settled in a classroom and set up a desk, he was with us. Though we could not show him the interest he deserved, during the 48 hours, he sat there working on his computer and also contributed by making suggestions about the game.

Ideas and collective work

We connected two desks and assembled around them. We spoke about game ideas. Deceiving. Deceiving the player, or the player deceiving someone in the game. Cheating. Cheating as in wife-husband. Bedroom. The adventure extending into the wardrobe. Collecting musical notes, making a serenade. Some platforms being fake. The evil wizard preparing deceptive traps for us. Special boxes on platforms that fall with gravity. Wizard being played by a second player. Chasing a nice-looking angel. Evil scientist instead of evil wizard. The cute graphics in a platformer being a deception, the player destroying the machine at the end, thus revealing the actual ugliness of the places he came along, then walking all the way back to the beginning. Collecting letters to find the password. The first flower that blooms in the ugliness. Or on contrary, as the machine blows, facing in the things we destroyed as the machine made them seem ugly to us, that they were cute in reality. Being an alien on earth that fakes being a human to eat humans. Being a human that fakes being an alien to eat aliens. Advancing by hiding from security officers. And finally: a virus floating through blood vessels, avoiding white blood cells, but at the same time, a fireball! So it is a fireball that fell into some human being. To tell the truth, having gone through that many ideas, anything would do… All in all, what matters to us was not the game fitting into a given set of rules, or following some norms, but the fact that we were creating it sincerely, in accordance with our desire. Therefore, leaving the final decision on the game’s story to our designers Çağatay and Kübra, we began to develop the game engine with Bertan. Orkun, by undertaking several requirements such as the web site, documentation, level design, tutorial, audio-music organization, enabled us to focus more on the code and design. Uğurcan, who came from the audio-music desk and gave special care for our game, and provided us several ambient sound effects (though we could not use most of them) and composed the music for the gameplay, also became one of our team.

Horseback white blood cell chasing a fireball!

At the end of two days, the game was actually completed. We had our sneaky and excited fireball that yells as he runs, his hands on his back, his hair burning in flames… Three white blood cell characters trying to extinguish our fireball where they see it, one with a helmet, one with a sword and one horseback with his spear… Three levels that lead to lungs, heart and the brain, and of course a logo, a menu, a tutorial and an ending screen [1]. I don’t know about my friends, but this was something I wanted to do since elementary school. During the 15 years since I moved my first circle in AmigaBASIC, my wish to develop games lived on, though from time to time it fell in the background or turned into something else. I believe, after the previous GGJ in which we made the game “Itchy!” with Uğur [2], this time, we could combine and fuse more dense and more various labor in ViralFire.

Positive features of ViralFire:

Fast and dynamic feel. The refined animations of the fireball we move with a finger, the ability to fall back when an enemy chases us, and the active gameplay music contributed to this main feature that made the gameplay enjoyable.

The mechanics of disguise. The ability to disguise as an enemy by following it with your finger for a while, was a good idea. This made a nice and original way of advancing in the game.

Visual attractiveness. Though visuality became such a requirement for games, it was something we enjoyed working on. Each mimic of the characters were thought of.

No written explanation, only by showing. Viralfire achieved the features “universal language” and “lo-text” that were defined by GGJ rules. We thought a gameplay video would suffice to explain how it was played.

Missing features:

No progress indicator in a level. A player can die in different places in a level to restart it, but she cannot see where she could manage to come and how much there is left to go.

No change in gameplay among levels. When player passes a level, only number of enemies change. The gameplay is the same. For instance, disguising could have been an ability that was acquired on the way and required to pass the second level.

Disguise mechanics not understood. We could explain better how this ability was used and what it was for.

The finger covering part of the screen while moving. As we give speed by our finger, it covers some of the screen in front of our character. If the fireball was accelerated in the inverse direction of the swipe (being similar to pulling a bow or spring), it would not cover vision. This mechanics can be used in another game.

…and on GGJ

What makes these young people close themselves into a building and sit at their computers? To show their superiority to other participants? To prove their country’s power to the world? Or is it “just for fun”, as emphasized last year?

As now we are finished with examining our game ViralFire, I’d like to talk about general features of the event. I think expressions like “marathon”, “team”, “national team” do not reflect the actual spirit of GGJ, they are like media-sports buzzwords that cover its real core. Firstly, we should ask: What makes these young people close themselves into a building and sit at their computers? To show their superiority to other participants? To prove their country’s power to the world? Or is it “just for fun”, as emphasized last year? The only way to find out is to ask the participants themselves, but I think the answer is none of these.

The desire to develop games cannot be separated from playing games. Those who watch cinema do not immediately want to become directors. However, as one plays games, one first wants to edit and change them, then wants to create new ones if possible. Perhaps this is the way how a certain part of the youth to misses its childhood, or it is about the fact that we are not content with a few beautiful games we could find. It could as well be related to the miracle of founding a living world out of bits and bytes.

Dissolving walls

In any case, there are several walls hit by the people that carry the desire to make games: Unidirectional education, and being directed to “decent” unidirectional professions like oneself, therefore technical or artistic insufficiency, the difficulty of collective work without knowing how it is done, actually doing something being extremely harder than telling about and planning it, moreover there being nobody expecting you to do it… For years, these walls extended from between we players and the games we played. Through the windows on these walls, we watched the glitters of industrial conglomerates like Blizzard and EA. Though only a few people dare (and it is another question that if it is worth doing), many players have dreams looking at the websites of game studios. GGJ was a place that broke these walls for a weekend. When we could work together, we let go of the dim lights on these windows that held us still, and saw ourselves being enlightened by our own light. As we felt in our hands the force we thought was far away, the feeling of unreachability faded away as well as the need for a “national pride”. We should know that the games and their developers in Independent Games Festival of GDC has no unsurmountable differences to what we did in GGJ Ankara, except for maybe more labour, larger teams, more glitter and higher PageRank. I don’t want to say that we have the power to compete, in contrary, that there are no unsurpassable walls between us and the deveopers of the world, that we share the same emotions, we stand on the same ground, and a little step is adequate if we are to touch their souls [3].

I wish that people that want to develop games come to GGJ each year, and having done it, get on with their lives. Whether in game industry or any other field of study to which they will carry this experience and knowledge… In this way, we will witness the dissolution of this wish that affected a whole young generation and maybe how it will transform this generation of people.

—
* : GGJ 2010 participant, member of Parazit
[1] About ViralFire
[2] “Postmortem: Itchy”
[3] “GDC notes (2) Back shelves” (Turkish)

This is what Axelrod asked the experts in order to find the conditions in which people would cooperate with each other. Thus, it will be more than appropriate to ask: why would people be in conflict in the first place? His positing of the dilemma entails that the conflict is a competition under given rules of a game, but his examples such as US-USSR belies his position, tending to solve a greater conflict, one that is over the right to determine the rules themselves.

Axelrod’s question seems to present a free choice. What it hides is the fact that an answerer to this question will have been already ‘cooperated’. This would be ‘cooperating’ not as a game move, but in the sense that he/she accepted to play this game with the present rules that will never change, thus recognizing himself/herself as the prisoner in the dilemma, cooperating not with another prisoner but with the dilemma itself.

Now, we can distinguish the choice to cooperate or defect inside the dilemma, as a pale reflection of the real question of whether or not to cooperate and play the game with its present rules. In this case, we have to ask another question: Suppose someone asked you the question above, in what conditions would you defect the game itself, leave it when the game has no such move?

Reference: Robert Axelrod, “The Evolution of Cooperation”

I think tagging is not a suitable way to manually-artificially classify content, because it is similar to a semilattice organization. Also, no folksonomy will naturally yield a hierarchical tree structure. The following article explains this distinction in the context of architecture:
“A City is Not A Tree”
by Christopher Alexander

artificial organization: tree => hierarchy
natural organization: semilattice => tagging

If you are interested, I recommend you this book.

Rooftop adventure

This is a small adventure-like “game” I made in Klik’n'Play in 2 hours, then lost it when KnP crashed and remade it in the third hour. Submitted to Klik of the Month #23.

Mor ve Ötesi – Başıbozuk
If you like the theme, I strongly recommend this game:

Pathways