Mechanically, however, you can only really judge games according to others that fit within that relative genre. The mechanical objectives need to be similar for the comparison to be apt, however, so saying that Flower isn't like Ace Combat 6 (mentioned earlier in this thread) is silly. They aim to be completely different games, even if they share the context of flying around.
Yes, it aims to be boring.
Also, you are being funny by mentioning Carmack and telling people they aren't as good as him. [Yes, because the difference in talent is so obvious, it wouldn't cross anybody's mind, because on one hand, you have a genius, in the other you have a child. But apparently, I do have to do it for you guys. ]There are plenty of awesome programmers around here, but I thought you have to be more than just a simple programmer to make games. [When did I say programmers are the end all be all? Its just that outside of aesthetics maybe, Carmack towers above all of you in skill in absolutely everything. ]
But that doesn't mean that there aren't people with skills. Nice logical fallacy there.
You use that a lot, you don't know what it means. The simple point I am making is that even if you join 10 of you guys (or indeed, a hundred), you still can't match the experience or the programming skill of Carmack. So: genius is rare, working on cutting edge game design takes a lot of resources and talent, and the vast majority of indie developers are basically children trying to get into a fight amongst giants.
John Carmack is a fantastic programmer that has pushed the field of computer science farther (to my knowledge) than any other game-related programmer. He does not, however, bother with actually making games. Carmack is primarily an engine developer. He focuses on creating the framework for designers to work with. Saying he's a good game programmer is a bit of a misnomer. While what he programs is used in games, he doesn't actually program any of the game-related stuff, such as the mechanical systems.
Then his engine developing ability pushes game development further than any "indie" developer has. Which is far, far more than any "indie" developer can say.
Indies don't need to be autistic (apparently Carmack is autistic? IDK. Not meaning this as a pejorative) secluded math genius rocketry enthusiasts to be good game developers. In much the same way, a scientist doesn't have to attempt to correct issues with the Theory of Relativity to be a good scientist. There's more than one field in play here.
Yes, (I am going to ignore your complete off topic remarks here) but there is a difference between the "good" and the "genius," whereas you guys are more like stuck with "shitty" to "playable" and sometimes "mediocre." Although once in a while, there is a breakthrough, and Insomnia will stop considering it "indie" (aka handicapped) at that point.
Is coding skill ever "plainly obvious"? How do you measure that? To judge one's coding prowess by screenshots, video footage, or even firsthand gameplay experience is to overlook the nuances that can separate a competent programmer from a truly great one. Even two apparently identical systems might have radically different implementations under the hood, and without actually reading through the code, how would you know?
Its not just his coding skills, its his ability to mathematically engineer the effects needed to run the engine in a highly efficient speed that has never been solved befoer. Aka, the cutting edge computer science ability.
But whats the point here? I make a comparison, and you guys completely forget about the previous topic. I mean, I have been arguing that a team of talented people and resources are absolutely essential to creating a cutting edge game, and yet you are arguing that Carmack doesn't create absolutely everything. What the fuck?
Yep, that's what I was getting. If some people enjoy games according to one set of criteria, and others enjoy them according to a different set, then those two "battlefields" are equal in my eyes. And I have not seen anything from the icycalm supporters as of yet which explains why your taste in videogames is so far superior to mine - you just call our games "trash" as if it's self-explanatory. I'm interested to hear what you have to say on this topic, though.
So, since Broom is busy and probably will not respond to the age question, I guess I will answer this one for you all. There is only one "battlefield" for videogames that I care about, immersion and pleasure. I don't care about "meaning" or a "point" in the same way that you don't care that a phone can probably be used as a weight training device. But fine, lets say that you remove these games from
this battle and instead have it about "making a point" or "art thoughts, and if you are against that, then you are against thinking itself." But this is ridiculous, this battlefield is already filled with warriors: Nietzsche, Heraclitus, Spinzoa, Freud. All of whom are
so far advanced that it is
ridiculous to even think this sort of thing would be advised. And even if I did not have these intellectual giants,
my own thoughts are so far superior to these game developers that it would be laughable anyway.
As for the "authorial intent" or "unique," its just fashion or the lack of ability to experiment and create good game design. Something I don't care anything about.
Player
