http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF2qqDGesEU

Io - Indie 3d platformer, puzzles with voxel based digital clay

Well, while I really like the general idea it does not just look ugly, but also gameplaywize very boring...

one of the comments somewhere said they had a better demo vid somewhere.. i didnt really look for it. the tech if well applied could be fun, but like slin said, i think they focused too much on the tech and not enough on the actual gameplay. the graphics do kind of suck especially to someone who doesnt know whats going on behind the scenes..

i saw the other video and i have to say something about this. and you can quote me on that.
here we go:

i believe that we live in times where the only limitation to what we can create is our own imagination. as such, we are to create worse products than ever before, simply because we are not bound by rules of creation anymore.
once the boundaries of what is possible are broken down, the evolution of gaming comes to a halt and reverses backwards into the process of having the player create your game again, similar to what people used to have in the early days of text adventures.
designers and players need limitations to make a game work. this is the reason why you only have so many pieces in any given lego set. this is the reason why games work best when we care about the core gameplay mechanics, not about technical spectacle. great games like bioshock or dead space live by the atmosphere and the inability of the player to do what he wants. he is bound by the limitations of the game. now remove those boundaries and give him the ability to do anything he want. he could flood the entire city of rapture or plow through space with a snowplower. remove the thread of police from any given GTA game and instead make the player invincible with the ability to shape the game world the way he sees fit. the end result would be a boring mess of a digital sandbox.
the reason i post this is simple: a game should be something we can play. this tech demo shows us very clearly that the creators want to impress with their engine but tehy dont have the focus of an y game in mind. a game lives and breathes through the design. a good level designer tells the story of the gameworld through the level alone. and a world where you can change the level as you see fit is deemed to not have any personality but your own. and how can you, as a designer, create a compelling narrative if the player can change your level as he sees fit?
minecraft is a prime example. it is a giant set of legos within a virtual world, but it is all about the creation process. there is no real gameplay in there, at least not more than in any given set of legos.
if we as a medium want to evolve to something more, we have tor ealize that a game is meant to be played. that is the reason why all the marios in this world are so successfull. because tehy are GAMES. not tech demos. not playable movies. not legos and not a virtual sandbox. they work in the way they do because their primary goal is to entertain us while we play.
in the end i am sure some here will disagree with me while others may agree. and frankly, i dont care either way. all i know is that a game needs to be played, not watched or toyed with. voxels MAY be the future of gaming technology, but definetely not teh future of gameplay or game design. similar to the fact that good CGI dies not make a good movie...

Word!

Minecraft is not only about building and has indeed some gameplay. Actually it is quite simple but similar to games like Diablo. In Diablo you click, click, click (to destroy enemies) and then they drop loot, you collect it and click, click, click, collect loot, click, click.. later you use the loot for some crafting.
In Minecraft you click, click, click to destroy world blocks. You collect loot (resources) and you do some crafting after it. Besides that you have some enemies to defeat. Terraria works the same way.
A space simulator also works that way, you can kill enemies, collect loot and improve your ship later on. In games like X3 you can even build space stations, factories, new ships and much more.
The difference to minecraft is only, that the building process is reduced to a combination of simple blocks and thus comes with a higher degree of freedom. But the gameplay is existant and not much different than in other games.

Maybe funny for some minutes yet i already got bored half way through the video

I really like it, it's a very relaxed game and it has some potential. I think that the clay-gun should be modified a bit and I don't like the idea that you those boxes there where you actually create clay, but, okay. I like the graphics.

Man, you're right! Take, say, Tetris. You're just clicking buttons, right? Click, click, click. To make a line. The same game!
Or racing games! You just click buttons (some longer than others). Click, click. And then, you win the race, but it's still just hitting buttons.
Or strategy games. Or RPGs. Or any game ever conceived.

This point is often brought up, but I don't think there's much to it. What this does is deconstructing the INTERFACE. But that's not what games are about. Games are about decisions, and those are fundamentally different in Diablo or Minecraft, or Racing games, or whatever.

The general idea was actually the reason why I posted it.
'Technic' is the even more appropriate term. Everything else is sort of a childrens game, nothing that I would enjoy playing for a long time.

@Spike:
You are describing a certain sort of gaming, not games in general. Those who are playing minecraft are actually playing, they are not working.