next »

[Paul Eres]

i found the original write-up derek yu did on the front page of this game, it's worth re-reading i think:

http://tigsource.com/articles/2008/08/19/muslim-massacre

i like this comment by the game's author particularly:

For me, the idea behind the gameplay was to take otherwise hurtful and politically incorrect stereotypes and transform them into interesting gameplay elements.

The combination of suicide bombers, militants, crowds of angry muslims and mortar crews firing into their own men are all based on stories in the media about the conflicts in the Middle East.

so i think saying that he was making this game just to offend people isn't entirely true (and doesn't even line up with his original post here): it seems like he made the game just because he thought it'd be an interesting game. and it was, in terms of gameplay alone it was a pretty nice arena shooter. it can be seen as a translation of a (largely false) media world where terrorists are out to get you and only the US stands between the world and destruction by the muslims into gameplay elements. if the game is offensive, and borrows heavily from the media worldview, and is a distillation of the kinds of stuff you see on fox news etc., what does that say about the media?

[Lurk]

Paul: I believe in the maxim "in art, either everything is acceptable, or nothing is". But I still don't believe you SHOULD do everything. A child rape game, as proposed by Sigvatr, would bring nothing valuable to the table. Saying "more rape games would be a change from all the murder games" is a sad, sad comment on the gaming community. I would challenge Sig to do a controversial game without using sex, explicit violence or a provocative title, instead.
And, Muslim Massacre was'nt that good a game, regardless of the polemic. I found the controls odd, and contrary to what you have affirmed in another thread, I don't feel I should be the one to make an effort to enjoy a game. A game is part of the entertainment I consume; my time is precious, and if it is boring, I won't waste any time on it trying to find redeeming value.

[Paul Eres]

again, i think the world is too complex to categorically be sure that something will have no beneficial effects before it's even made. and i think games without at least some level of provocation or controversy are boring. if a game isn't interesting enough to talk about, it probably isn't interesting enough to play

i think it's a mistake to say a game is boring -- it doesn't contain boredom, it's not like it infuses boredom into you chemically, the boredom exists in you (evidence: other people might not find the game boring) -- i think it's fine if you don't personally want to expend extra effort to enjoy a game, but what isn't fine is attributing that you didn't like the game to the game itself rather than to your own incompatibility with it

[Movius]

Who has actually played the game?

[Lurk]

Paul: Let me rephrase then. If I find a game to be boring, according to my own standards of entertainment, I will not devote any time to find what others might discover to be redeeming values. But not labeling a game as 'boring', because others might find it entertainig is a mistake in my opinion. Because most of human learning is based upon failure, and trying to improve upon failure. If I say "this game is boring", and your answer is "i think it's a mistake to say a game is boring -- it doesn't contain boredom, it's not like it infuses boredom into you chemically, the boredom exists in you (evidence: other people might not find the game boring) -- i think it's fine if you don't personally want to expend extra effort to enjoy a game, but what isn't fine is attributing that you didn't like the game to the game itself rather than to your own incompatibility with it", well chances are, you won't even try to understand why I found your game to be a bore, and continue in the direction you were going, whether it leads to improvement or not.
Being able to understand coarse comments and empathize with your public is a large part of what being an artist is all about. Because your goal is ultimately to communicate with someone(since you're releasing your work to the public), if the public reacts negatively to it, saying it's their fault for not understanding what you meant is only poorly disguising your failure at communication.

[Paul Eres]

Who has actually played the game?

me, it is awesome. as i said though, i never managed to make it to allah

Paul: Let me rephrase then. If I find a game to be boring, according to my own standards of entertainment, I will not devote any time to find what others might discover to be redeeming values. But not labeling a game as 'boring', because others might find it entertainig is a mistake in my opinion. Because most of human learning is based upon failure, and trying to improve upon failure. If I say "this game is boring", and your answer is "i think it's a mistake to say a game is boring -- it doesn't contain boredom, it's not like it infuses boredom into you chemically, the boredom exists in you (evidence: other people might not find the game boring) -- i think it's fine if you don't personally want to expend extra effort to enjoy a game, but what isn't fine is attributing that you didn't like the game to the game itself rather than to your own incompatibility with it", well chances are, you won't even try to understand why I found your game to be a bore, and continue in the direction you were going, whether it leads to improvement or not.
Being able to understand coarse comments and empathize with your public is a large part of what being an artist is all about. Because your goal is ultimately to communicate with someone(since you're releasing your work to the public), if the public reacts negatively to it, saying it's their fault for not understanding what you meant is only poorly disguising your failure at communication.

i don't think it's a good idea for a game designer to adjust a game to someone who didn't genuinely try to enjoy a game. the earlier someone dismisses your game, the less you have to take into account any criticisms they give. the criticism you should pay attention to is from the people who did enjoy the game but didn't enjoy every bit of it, not the people who didn't enjoy anything in the game and didn't play it for more than a few minutes. if people paid attention to the latter people rather than the former, games would be a disaster

[Chris Z]

There's a middle ground here... but when the argument centers around such a polarizing game and developer, it will never be reached.  I'm all for taking people outside of their comfort zone (although it aint my style personally) but all artistic merit is lost when you're some teenager that just wants to push people's buttons and nothing else.  Trolling in executable form.

[Movius]

Who has actually played the game?

me, it is awesome. as i said though, i never managed to make it to allah

Same here. I thought it was great fun. Hilarious too.

Those fucking trucks though...

[Lurk]

i don't think it's a good idea for a game designer to adjust a game to someone who didn't genuinely try to enjoy a game.

I never said the designer had to adjust a game to fit someone else's comments; what I said was, whenever you release something to the public, you should pay attention to the public's comments and try to evolve from the criticism you receive. If someone does'nt care from the game and did'nt play for more than a few minutes, maybe he had a valid reason- maybe your game had control problems, maybe the sfx you thought were so cool gave him a headache, etc. Sorry, but your argument that a boring game does'nt exist and it's always a problem with the person who did'nt give it a chance does'nt cut it: the game might be enjoyed by some folks, that does'nt make it better. There is no universal method to determine if a game is boring or not, you can only rely on what the majority of reaction to it is. If you release a game, and 75% of people who tried it say it's not fun, I'm sorry but your game failed to capture the interest of 75% of your public(assuming your game is sold, your public consists of people who bought the game), making it a boring game.

[Paul Eres]

i'm not saying they didn't have a valid reason, just that any game is geared toward people who can appreciate it and geared away from people who can't. i mean, i don't really like fps games, i find most of them stupid. so it'd be silly for someone making a fps game to take into account what i think they should do. similarly, if someone doesn't like arena-shooters with directional firing (like smash tv and robotron etc.) then someone making a game for people who do like such games shouldn't listen to why people are put off by those games.

i don't think it's a good idea to rely on majority reaction to judge boredom: if we did, some of the greatest classics in the world would be considered boring. war and peace would be boring if we took averages; averaging it out doesn't quite work. the goal isn't usually to please the most people possible, it's to please a particular group as well as possible.

[Lurk]

it's to please a particular group as well as possible

Fair enough. But that has nothing to do with making an effort to like a game. The group of people you're trying to please is your public. Let's say they're huge shooter fans, and you make a shooter, which receives poor reactions from your public, they say it's boring, not enough action. Surely your answer would'nt be "you did not try hard enough to like it, so your opinion is irrelevant", and surely you'll consider making a patch speeding things up a bit. Especially if these people are buying your game.

[Paul Eres]

i do not believe that one is trying to please the public. i'm not trying to please the public with my games, even my commercial games. i'm trying to please a particular set of people who like the same types of games i do. nobody can make games for everyone.

besides, most people who actually played the game liked it and felt it had solid gameplay. i agree that if *nobody* likes it you're doing something wrong, but if a lot of people like it and a lot of people don't you can still be doing something right

[Lurk]

i do not believe that one is trying to please the public. i'm not trying to please the public with my games, even my commercial games.i'm trying to please a particular set of people who like the same types of games i do.

 pub·lic
-2.  A group of people sharing a common interest: the reading public.

You're trying to please your public with your games. If you release one and receive a slew of negative comments from people who usually enjoy your games(ie: your public), you're not going to say "your opinion is'nt valid, you did not try hard enough to like my game". You're going to go back to the game and try to understand where you went wrong.

i agree that if *nobody* likes it you're doing something wrong, but if a lot of people like it and a lot of people don't you can still be doing something right

My point is not that a boring game can't have somethings right: you can have great graphics, awesome controls, but bad pace and confusing objectives, making it a boring game. And when it comes to communication, if 51% of the people you're trying to communicate with don't get your message, it's a failure, and you better try and correct it. 

[Paul Eres]

i think that one can make a game that one set of people like and another set dislike -- for instance a lot of people who enjoyed fedora spade wouldn't enjoy immortal defense or alphasix, since they all differ in style and genre.

and i'm not saying their opinions aren't valid, just that there exists incompatibilities, and that the source of some people not liking a game is usually those incompatibilities provided other people like the game. obviously if nobody likes a game things need to be changed, that's quite obvious. but we're not talking about that here.

i disagree that if 51% or some other number don't like a game, it's a failure. there are a ton of niche games that only select audiences like. interactive fiction, roguelikes, and so on. there probably isn't a game on earth that 51% of people who try it out would like. particularly with indie games, which tend to be far more niche. i think 51% is an impossible number to reach. even if only 1 out of 100 or 1 out of 1000 people who try out your game like it, it can still be a success.

[Lurk]

there are a ton of niche games that only select audiences like.

What I'm saying is, if the game's intended audience(your public, or part of your public, whatever, the target audience becomes the game's public) says "the game is boring", at 51%, the game has to be a failure somewhere. And only a fool would'nt go back to it to try to understand and correct what is wrong with it. If I'm a huge space shooter fan, and you're space shooting does'nt appeal to me because it's slow and lack enemy variety, dismissing what I say by saying I have incompatibility with the game, this based upon the fact that some other enjoyed it, is plain silly. Maybe the people who said they enjoyed it are poor judges of what makes a good space shooter, and are only dragging you down with their constant approval(yes men).

i think 51% is an impossible number to reach. even if only 1 out of 100 or 1 out of 1000 people who try out your game like it, it can still be a success.

Not in the real world, where you tend to exchange labor for money, to buy food and shelter.

also, not to change the subject, but I could'nt let that one slip by unanswered

i think games without at least some level of provocation or controversy are boring. if a game isn't interesting enough to talk about, it probably isn't interesting enough to play

So, Zelda, Metroid, SuperMario, Megaman, Castlevania, Karnov, Ecco the Dolphin, Shinobi , Gradius, Ninja Gaiden, Contra, Ghosts and Goblins,  these are all boring games/series, probably not interesting enough to play, according to you?