next »

[Alec]

games are art.
art shouldn't be inspired by other art.
games shouldn't be inspired by other games.
games shouldn't be inspired by other art.
art shouldn't be inspired by other games.
games should imitate real life.
games shouldn't imitate other games.
good games imitate life.
good games don't imitate other good games which imitate life.
therefore good games shouldn't imitate life.
thus good games aren't inspired by life.
ergo games aren't art.

I think I understand this thread now.

Who cares where tf games come from as long as they're good.

I mean, its interesting to talk about where everyone's inspirations come from. But if its about "DO WHAT I THINK IS RIGHT AND NOTHING ELSE" .... then fuck that.

[Melly]

No need to profanities Alec.

Also, Movius totally said that just to use 'ergo' in something. I can just SMELL it.

[Movius]

If games are ever to move forward as a medium than more people should use the word 'ergo' when writing about them.

Actually, if games are ever to move forward as a medium then anything that uses the phrase "if games are ever to move forward as a medium... " or words to that effect should be banned from publication.

[Robotacon]

I'm making a game in a meta-game environment where you're going to school becoming a game character but I draw more inspiration from the audio books we've got playing in the car at the moment. *cough* Harry Potter *cough*

[Alec]

Movius was being sarcastic about the thread, I was agreeing with him. (I think)

But I feel like a lot of discussion around here lately has been like

"I APPROVE THIS"

"I DISAPPROVE OF THAT"

[Keops]

Movius, what was that all about?

Don't you go all Kojima on us (jk)

This thread is made of win and god, and please, pardon me for not bringing anything more interesting to this discussion, although rinku's original post has gotten me thinking a lot about the games I'm making :| I wonder if I should re-think my approach.

At any rate, GREAT post.

[Melly]

@ Alec:

I think this discussion was doing very well, actually. Just people posting their own opinions about the subject (with ergo-man's exception). If your opinion is that games should just be good and fun, no matter their inspiration, then that's your opinion, which is good too.

[Tr00jg]

I rarely get inspiration from "dreams" but last night's dream was quite interesting.

Some people got in a bus and started promoting Roach Toaster 2 + another game in America (touring) without me noticing it. Even people like John Travolta (lol) climbed on the bus to promote my game.

When I found out about this "marketing" I saw the screenshots and general gameplay of the other game and it was quite intriguing. It is nothing I have seen before. The gameplay isn't concise (because of the nature of dreams), but the core idea behind it is... strange.

ergo it is awesome?

[Michaël Samyn]

Who cares where tf games come from as long as they're good.

Perhaps the audience doesn't.
But I think developers do. And they should.

I personally find making games a very complex and difficult thing to do. Even when you're making a game that fits within a well-established genre, it's tough. But when you're trying to go beyond that, it is only normal that we feel a little bit insecure. In such situations it is nice to hear how other peple do it, where they get their ideas, how they make decisions.

[Chris Whitman]

I think we have every need to use profanity, because this is bullshit.

If what you guys are getting at is that we shouldn't make games hopelessly derivative of other things, that people should express a little creativity and put something of themselves into their work, I think we all agree on that.

The problem is that we have a bunch of half-baked would-be-philosophers espousing a bunch of pseudo-structuralist claptrap and, unfortunately, when the only tool you have is the proverbial hammer, you start deriving socio-moral imperatives on the basis of some perceived teleology of games-as-art.

First off, please stop confusing your social agendas with artwork. I understand you want social acceptance of games as something on par with music or visual art, but that doesn't make you entitled to try to exploit a normalizing social effect to dictate to others what is correct or proper. Art doesn't require mainstream social acceptance, and the concept of tailoring art to garner critical praise is disingenuous. Phrases like "Games will never be art until..." reveal a weak understanding of criticism in general, as if making art was simply about fitting into some broad social category.

Secondly, your tools of analysis and conclusions are naive at best. As an art form, games exist within one or more genealogies stretching back before most of us were born. If you are aware of these, as obviously we all are, you don't have a choice whether or not to produce work within an existing discourse. The ideas of others are as much an influence on you if you try to ignore them as if you try to implement them: either way, you are making a decision predicated on the existence of a particular history which will be interpreted in the context of that history.

I just don't see the validity or necessity of excessively arbitrary proscriptions from self-styled gurus. I think the congruency of your examples to your theory belies the many games which I would consider to be excellent despite not being inspired from real sources, and once again, if basing a game on life is neither necessary or sufficient for quality, why should it be portrayed as such?

[Melly]

I think we have every need to use profanity, because this is bullshit.

Just saying that because I don't particularly enjoy when discussions turn into anger outbursts or sarcasm ping-pong. You have a lot of valid points, and I too agree that we should have a balance between perfecting what already exists, searching new things, or just doing whatever we feel would be fun/provocative/whatever, and I also don't find the "Games as Art" debate productive anymore. It's just that when people get too emotional about it, things have a tendency to go downhill.

[Oracle]

I dont get it...its not like someone touched one of your "sensible spots" or offended you i-like-cake, why so extremely against the discussion?

Just dont participate on the discussion if you dont find any value to it, otherwise, lets just get along?

[Chris Whitman]

I just don't like being told what the point of art is, and I don't like it when people assume a false mantle of authority to talk about it.

[Pita]

Once again, I Like Cake, you've pretty much said it exactly as it is, and I agree with most of your points. But I don't think I would/could ever put it quite as bluntly. :D

(also, no need to stop at the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, the notion of observing and deriving strictly from nature goes as far back as, what? A Long Time)

Thanks for making it clear, though!


So, yes, in the end, no particular source of inspiration should be invalidated. Certainly, I am with you on this one. And I agree with Alec that if one is going "DO WHAT I THINK IS RIGHT AND NOTHING ELSE", then yes, fuck that, naturally. But I'm pretty sure no one here is trying to oppress other peoples thoughts.

Ironically, I also agree that 'I AGREE, I DISAGREE' posts like what I'm typing right now are ultimately unproductive, and to not much end, so I'm going to stop typing this right now. :D


(peace, everyone)

[Oracle]

I just don't like being told what the point of art is, and I don't like it when people assume a false mantle of authority to talk about it.

Dont take it so personally...i dont think anyone was trying to attack you, or jam some kind of knowledge down your throat