Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411196 Posts in 69314 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: feakk

March 18, 2024, 08:57:36 PM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsPlayerGamesTale of Tale's "Over Games" Presentation
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13
Print
Author Topic: Tale of Tale's "Over Games" Presentation  (Read 45566 times)
AdamAtomic
*BARF*
Level 9
*


hostess w/ the mostest


View Profile WWW
« Reply #40 on: August 27, 2010, 08:14:00 AM »

What's the most annoying thing for me is that I thought the idea of "not games" was interesting, and I had hopes it would lead to something great, but if this is how they promote the idea then Facepalm

I am so deeply, fundamentally in agreement with you that it's not even funny, ESPECIALLY because their stance specifically requires an absurdly narrow definition of what "games" are that has NOTHING to do with the actual history of games and play and THE EARTH and civilization, and a lot to do with like the last 10 or 20 years of video games.  It's astonishingly narrow minded (if well-intentioned).

Anyways, rock on bro.
Logged

cup full of magic charisma
Nate Kling
Pixelhead
Level 9
******


Caliber9


View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 on: August 27, 2010, 08:46:31 AM »

I feel like I'm the only one who likes Tale of Tales here haha  Wink .  I'd have to say that I like the article a lot.  When I read their writings I don't get the same sort of self importance feeling that you guys seem to get from it.  To me their writing is made to provoke and get people to think about ideas past what videogames have been. I don't necessarily agree with everything they say but I don't get the same outraged anger as a lot of members are feeling here.  Even the stuff I don't agree with I think is still quite interesting to ponder and consider.  I see the article as some sort of call to arms or motivational speech.  Basically I think their critique on videogames is pretty dead on but I don't think the games they've made so far are the perfect answers to them. 
Logged

cactus
Makeout King
Level 5
******



View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 27, 2010, 08:55:51 AM »

Quote
Why can't someone take a radical stand and do it with style so that something new and cool actually happens instead of taking this stupid approach?

Cactus, I'd like to know what you find so intriguing about the idea of "notgames". Don't think of this as confrontational or anything. The way I see it ToT is just praising game design with emphasis on aesthetics (and not just any aesthetics, obviously [I'm sure they hate Bioshock] it's emphasis on pretentious, artsy aesthetics they like) and disregard for mechanical complexity, because as I said, they are still making games whether they want to call it that or not. If I'm mistaken and it really runs deeper than that, I want to get to the bottom of it, and your input can help me do that.

I thought it sounded very interesting when I heard Erik Svedäng's take on it that he expressed during his talk at this year's No More Sweden:







I especially like the idea of not seeing video games as a subgroup of games, but something that doesn't need goals or rules. I think that if more and more people look at games this way, then something fresh and new will surely come about. But we still need people to show everyone else how to do this, as the concept (while simple) is hard to grasp without having any good examples of these "notgames".

Edit: I sent a message to Michael Sämyn and asked for an explanation of what they were hoping to accomplish with their presentation, and as I sort of expected it's written the way it is for rhetorical reasons (it was supposed to be presented at a museum (for non-game people I'd guess)). I totally approve of self aggrandizing at such events, since if you are modest people will just think that you're insecure and subsequently they will belittle your work.

I'm not angry anymore. If I had it in me I would've liked to be able to make myself sound/seem important as well.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2010, 09:08:03 AM by cactus » Logged
Zaratustra
Level 7
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 27, 2010, 09:01:50 AM »

OK, for those of you in the audience that can't keep track:

1) Games are not art
2) Videogames are not games
3) Indie games are not videogames

With this information, who was in the third train car and who owns the goldfish?
Logged

Nate Kling
Pixelhead
Level 9
******


Caliber9


View Profile WWW
« Reply #44 on: August 27, 2010, 09:02:41 AM »


I especially like the idea of not seeing video games as a subgroup of games, but something that doesn't need goals or rules. I think that if more and more people look at games this way, then something fresh and new will surely come about. But we still need people to show everyone else how to do this, as the concept (while simple) is hard to grasp without having any good examples of these "notgames".

I completely agree.  I think that we're going to have a lot of necessary attempts and failures at "notgames" while people try to figure out how to do them.  So while Tale of Tale's games are not my favorite games, I still respect them as an attempt at something greater even though they didn't quite make it there.
Logged

Hangedman
Level 10
*****


Two milkmen go comedy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 27, 2010, 09:09:17 AM »

Ceci n'est pas un jeu  Tiger
Logged

AUST
ITIAMOSIWE (Play it on NG!) - Vision
There but for the grace of unfathomably complex math go I
AdamAtomic
*BARF*
Level 9
*


hostess w/ the mostest


View Profile WWW
« Reply #46 on: August 27, 2010, 09:14:36 AM »


I especially like the idea of not seeing video games as a subgroup of games, but something that doesn't need goals or rules. I think that if more and more people look at games this way, then something fresh and new will surely come about. But we still need people to show everyone else how to do this, as the concept (while simple) is hard to grasp without having any good examples of these "notgames".

I completely agree.  I think that we're going to have a lot of necessary attempts and failures at "notgames" while people try to figure out how to do them.  So while Tale of Tale's games are not my favorite games, I still respect them as an attempt at something greater even though they didn't quite make it there.

The problem I see with this is that its all based on an arbitrary and VERY recent definition of "game" (and "rules", really).  It would be MUCH more healthy for everyone to have an educated and historical perspective than a kneejerk, semantic rebellion.

"not games" are very much games, which makes this whole thing kind of funny (and sad)
Logged

cup full of magic charisma
Sam
Level 3
***



View Profile WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 27, 2010, 09:20:16 AM »

I hope ya'll forgive me for jumping back a page in the thread, but I wanted to pick up on one thing.

Why would you ever think women and elderly people would be a sign that video games are getting better? They never go near the very best games ever created! No, they're a sign that the bar has been LOWERED. So, yes, pacifiers and candy. But it's not like I ever met a woman who read Nietzsche anyway.
You must have met extremely few women. Or more likely given your apparently well developed disdain for women, you just haven't been asking them about their philosophical views.  They're just women, after all Smiley (Go fuck yourself)
Logged
FredFredrickson
Level 0
*


Artist, designer, & developer


View Profile WWW
« Reply #48 on: August 27, 2010, 09:27:12 AM »

In my opinion, the idea of "notgames" is a good one as far as advancing the medium as an art form is concerned.  But when it comes to getting more people involved (who aren't normally included in the gaming scene), I'm not sure how much it will help.

I view "notgames" more as interactive art than video games, but these types of creations take a significantly larger investment of time and thought to digest... more than a typical piece of art, like a painting, might.  Taking the abstractions of art and combining them with the abstraction of interacting with a computer just makes things more complicated for your average art viewer, and in my opinion, doesn't really do much to make the medium more inclusive to outsiders.

Hope this isn't too extreme a post for my first on TIG, but, well, I just thought I'd throw that out there (and I'm a bit bored at work, hehe  Shrug).
Logged

Nate Kling
Pixelhead
Level 9
******


Caliber9


View Profile WWW
« Reply #49 on: August 27, 2010, 09:34:30 AM »



The problem I see with this is that its all based on an arbitrary and VERY recent definition of "game" (and "rules", really).  It would be MUCH more healthy for everyone to have an educated and historical perspective than a kneejerk, semantic rebellion.

"not games" are very much games, which makes this whole thing kind of funny (and sad)

I'd be interested in doing some reading about that. Do you have any links or books to recommend Adam?

I think that Michael would admit that "not games" are games(I could be wrong). I think it's more of a rejection of the things that seem to come along with the term game today.
Logged

FARTRON
Level 4
****


the last man in space


View Profile WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 27, 2010, 09:37:28 AM »

Edit: I sent a message to Michael Sämyn and asked for an explanation of what they were hoping to accomplish with their presentation, and as I sort of expected it's written the way it is for rhetorical reasons (it was supposed to be presented at a museum (for non-game people I'd guess)). I totally approve of self aggrandizing at such events, since if you are modest people will just think that you're insecure and subsequently they will belittle your work.

I'm not angry anymore. If I had it in me I would've liked to be able to make myself sound/seem important as well.


I guess I'm going to have to pick up the slack here then.

Fuck museums and fuck this presentation. Being confident and presenting yourself well is completely different from being a pretentious drip trotting out tired oxymorons.
Logged

Everything that was once directly lived has receded into a representation. - debord
Absurdist
Level 0
***

Waiting for VBLANK


View Profile WWW
« Reply #51 on: August 27, 2010, 09:37:56 AM »

ToT is a group of angry non-conformists, and there's nothing wrong with that. They're not stopping anyone from making or playing games.

However, I think that defining themselves as aggressively anti-game is counter productive. I wish they would stop ranting and start innovating.

EDIT -

Michaël Samyn recently posted an article about non-linearity that I quite like.

http://notgames.org/blog/against-linearity/
« Last Edit: August 27, 2010, 09:52:09 AM by WarHampster » Logged
Dustin Smith
Level 10
*****


Eskimo James Dean


View Profile WWW
« Reply #52 on: August 27, 2010, 10:54:26 AM »

Quote
Fuck museums and fuck this presentation. Being confident and presenting yourself well is completely different from being a pretentious drip trotting out tired oxymorons.

Agreed. Cactus, the way you (and many other indies) present yourself is perfectly fine. I'd rather have somebody sell their game via being a decent person rather than 'trolling' for hits.
Logged

ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #53 on: August 27, 2010, 11:28:19 AM »

combining three posts in one here:

*

It's ABSURD, Paul. That's why I'm laughing and joking about it. I bothered to pick apart stuff like that dumb zen platitude about goals because that's seriously all they have to support their claims. Just big flashy words masquerading as a deep knowledge of the unexplainable. I know this because when I first started looking at the indie games community I used to THINK dumb shit like this. I'm making a joke about it because I've been there, and this way of thinking doesn't have anything supporting it at all.

But no, it wasn't about whether he meant DISCOVER or ESTABLISH or ACCOMPLISH or whatever. The WHOLE THING was absurd, down to the very concept. I don't LOSE a goal when I achieve it! Goals are only IDEAS, they're "things we plan to do". So holy shit, when I do something, I lose the plan to do it. THAT'S DEEP.

well at least here you're basically admitting that you are making fun of them and not seriously considering what they say. their claim isn't even very novel or new here: they're simply saying that when you achieve a goal, it's no longer a goal. it's a simple obvious thing, as you said.

but they aren't claiming that's some type of deep revelation, they're just saying that's important to understanding what games are, and the difference between games and what they want to do. that you'd make fun of them for saying a simple truism just because they used the wrong word to say it should show you that you're just looking for the first thing you can point at to use as an excuse to reject what they say as absurd.

also, you later mentioned that you are sure they hate bioshock; if you've actually read some of their writings you'd find that they have great admiration for a lot of bioshock, they even wrote a large review of it.

*

there are a couple of other misconceptions in this thread too -- like the idea that their games are all about holding up. that applies to the graveyard, but not to any of their other games, like the path, endless forest, fatale, etc.

it's like, i don't mind people arguing against tale of tales, but that's not what any of you guys (except for cactus and adam atomic) are doing. the rest of the responses are largely defensive emotional reactions to something you're attached to. which is completely normal human behavior of course, when someone criticizes something you love (in this case games) there's an urge to hit back, to attack them. nonetheless sometimes tigsource acts better than this, and that's what used to make it appealing.

anyway, maybe you really do have to attack what games are if you want to change what they are, or maybe you don't, i don't know. but if you do, you're going to have to deal with the emotional reactions of people who love something blindly hitting back, there's probably no escape from that.

*

as for my thoughts on the ideas presented, i don't really think that getting rid of goals is the best way for videogames to progress; it's a way, but i don't think it's the key to the kingdom.

and as adam implied games don't even really have to have goals anyway, there are plenty of things which are called games which aren't rule-and-goal based (playing games like "cowboys and indians" or "pretend" or "catch").

so i don't see the mere existence of goals as the big problem with games, as they do, just the *types* of goals that they commonly have. i'd like to see fewer games about shooting the opposing side or beating a boss and more about growing up, or breaking up marriages, or terraforming a planet, or starting a religion, or making a friend, and stuff like that. there are a lot of very interesting goals games could have besides the ones that they typically use, and i think it'd be a good idea to try to make games with interesting goals rather than getting rid of the idea of rules and goals completely.

i think the reason most games are the way they are is because it's very simple to code shooting or jumping or moving, but relatively harder to code more complex things. but computers are now powerful enough to handle complex simulations rather than simple ones, and it's a pity the power of computers in videogames is usually going towards modeling in detail how a head explodes rather than modeling a game's forest's ecosystem in detail, or modeling a game's town's economy in detail.
Logged

jwaap
Level 9
****


View Profile WWW
« Reply #54 on: August 27, 2010, 11:28:37 AM »

Quote
I wish they would stop ranting and start innovating.

I think that if they don't manage to do what they want to achieve but other people start doing it because of them, they've still achieved their goal?

as we say here: "het doel heiligt de middelen"
hard to translate, but something like: "the goal justifies the way you achieve it"
Logged

cactus
Makeout King
Level 5
******



View Profile WWW
« Reply #55 on: August 27, 2010, 11:29:04 AM »

Agreed. Cactus, the way you (and many other indies) present yourself is perfectly fine. I'd rather have somebody sell their game via being a decent person rather than 'trolling' for hits.
Make a spectacle of yourself and people (who can't see through your facade) will think you're more interesting, that's nothing but common sense actually. Being yourself is only good for those who have an interesting personality and know how to express themselves the right way.

I used to think that just being yourself and not caring what others think had merit, but in reality being yourself can often be a bad idea that won't do you any good aside from some sense of dignity that no one else cares about. Also, trying to be more than you really are can lead to self fulfillment and evolve you as a person.

As much as I don't appreciate ToT's Over Game presentation, I can see why they chose to express themselves in that manner for that kind of audience. It probably was a successful presentation, so why shouldn't they go for that if that's what's important for them?
Logged
Dustin Smith
Level 10
*****


Eskimo James Dean


View Profile WWW
« Reply #56 on: August 27, 2010, 11:38:29 AM »

Well, you actually make good games so I don't have a problem with it. If it gets you more fans I'd support it! When it results in Adam Coate, Bob (though from what I hear from Tim Rogers he isn't a bad dude) et al though is when I have a problem with it.
Logged

Gnarf
Guest
« Reply #57 on: August 27, 2010, 11:47:40 AM »

What's the most annoying thing for me is that I thought the idea of "not games" was interesting, and I had hopes it would lead to something great [...]

What did you hope for then?

Because only impression I got was that they would make anything nonparticular, only it wasn't gonna be like those things. "Notgames" doesn't exactly indicate any direction. Just, you know, different.

It's like when people talk about how they want nonviolent games. And you're all shit, right on, man, that's my second most favorite kind of game, right after nonracing ones.


The "something fresh and new" thing. I think that everyone should just make whatever it is they want, and not worry about how to categorize it until after. I don't think making up some "fresh and new" category and then making things to populate it with is ever going to work very well. Same goes for stretching existing categories.
Logged
Absurdist
Level 0
***

Waiting for VBLANK


View Profile WWW
« Reply #58 on: August 27, 2010, 12:04:16 PM »

Good point. They should use a name like "interactive art" rather than "notgames."
Logged
Nate Kling
Pixelhead
Level 9
******


Caliber9


View Profile WWW
« Reply #59 on: August 27, 2010, 12:13:25 PM »

why does it matter what its called.  I think Paul got it right. People are reacting angrily because the status qou of what they love is being challenged.  It's not that they want to get rid of first person shooter games, I think the dream is that one day when I look at the steam news page I can leaf through front page games and find more than guns pointing at my face or women in bikini's holding swords and expect to do more than just kill enemies in the games.
Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic