next »

[Pfotegeist]

Jimbert I'd like for you to give examples of games that were so ahead of their time that they weren't critically acclaimed then, but that are now. I can't think of any example from the top of my head.
Novelty might be the most reputable thing to make as an artist, but it won't be something with redeeming quality if it lacks integrity. A completely 100% innovative idea is hard to make successful because it lacks any form of recognition, recognition is what gives something notoriety. Everything is based on something else.

You can't make a product approachable without meeting expectations. To meet expectations that means you need to be able to reproduce something, and novelty means adding in new ideas. Your integrity results from customer confidence in product quality.

"Everything is based on something else." This enforces the idea that when something is completely new it's useless.

I'm on your side, restating it differently.  Direct quotes sound like an argument or answer, it's an expectation that the internet is enforcing repeatedly.  So how do I start arguing and then reinforce your statement without sounding like I'm contradicting myself? (if only half the viewers actually thought this, that's still a huge amount of 'customers' being lost because I didn't meet expectations, and proved I didn't have the integrity to start a flame war.)

Just killing some time.

[s0]

btw i am not sure tower of druaga is the best example of a game that was "too weird". it was (and still is to an extent) popular in japan, it just never got very famous overseas for some reason.

ok this is REALLY my last post on this now.

[ProgramGamer]

1 level per 100 posts. max is 10.

Thanks!

[airman4]

Jimbert I'd like for you to give examples of games that were so ahead of their time that they weren't critically acclaimed then, but that are now. I can't think of any example from the top of my head.
Novelty might be the most reputable thing to make as an artist, but it won't be something with redeeming quality if it lacks integrity. A completely 100% innovative idea is hard to make successful because it lacks any form of recognition, recognition is what gives something notoriety. Everything is based on something else.

Valkyrie profile ?

God hand ??

and yeah , being too original is dangerous , valkyrie profile series flopped if we compare to a game like ff7 but personnaly VP is one my favorite game ever made (and couldn't even finish ff7 )

[JWK5]

A lot of Tri-Ace (Valkyrie Profile) games fare poorly globally it seems (faring best in Japan), with one of the Monster Hunter games and a version of Star Ocean 3 being their top selling (neither of which breaching 2m copies sold) where Final Fantasy 7 is Square's top selling Final Fantasy game (at over 9m copies sold). I am a fan of Valkyrie Profile 1 & 2, and Radiata Stories (also Tri-Ace) is up there with Final Fantasy 6 and Dragon Quest 8 for my favorite RPGs of all time, but I am not entirely sure if Tri-Ace's game sales might be more a result of something the company is doing marketing-wise than an actual lack of demand, or perhaps something their publishers are not doing (SquareSoft, Sega, etc.).

As far as God Hand goes, the game is fun but has serious flaws. It got poor reviews initially but almost all the reviewers seemed to state that the game was fun just unpolished and had camera issues and such getting in the way. It sold the best in Japan for the week it was released, but globally I think all the poor reviews was the kiss of death for it. It is one of those cases where they had great ideas but not enough integrity in the work to back it up and it likely cost them severely. It was one of Clover's last games if I remember right.

EDIT: ----------

Clover's next big project was Ōkami, a "brand-focused project" fitting with Capcom's goal for Clover to develop new IPs.[9] Although it was a critical success, it failed to live up to Capcom's sales expectations; Clover's next project God Hand did even worse.[10] Compounding this problem, Clover's developers still felt stifled under the weight of Capcom's corporate management, who were reluctant or actively opposed to risky new ideas.[6][11]

[gimymblert]

ahahaha oh welll god hand is certainly the game where mikami have made the less compromise, he said himself he made the game forgetting about the usual constrain. You can see with the evil within he is just ticking the box.

That's all you want ticking box in a list, that's your definition of integrity and good

Also majora's mask was panned at its launch and now it is breaking sales and they was a rallying cry to release it again. That despite gamer recognize the remake got some part wrong by betraying aspect of the game (hand holding).


But that's the story of everything 3D was universally panned until toystory. Thing grew by building on idea over time, but you must push the new things first. I mean art game where considered shit until amnesia which single handely revive the survival horror genre, etc ... It's not about integrity at all, it's about ecology. If you only want a twisted sense of integrity you prevent great work to be made period.

[gimymblert]

define half ass, define the best of your ability, I don't know anyone who try to push things and didn't sought to do that, and novelty equals quality if its your own coherence aka definition of good, just because you don't like what someone did mean it lack coherence (you didn't get it and the other is too strange for you) or it just don't fit your worldview (rap vs classical music)µ. Sometimes going too uncharted Land mean you have absolutely no clue and you are fumbling, that anyone mocks you because you were clumsy while creating the map they use to direct themselves masterfully is outright distasteful. Also not everybody is a genius, just because you are not don't mean you don't have to stray from the safe zone, if anything you will allow a genius to break new ground.

The familiar and safe is not integrity

[s0]

Also majora's mask was panned at its launch and now it is breaking sales and they was a rallying cry to release it again. That despite gamer recognize the remake got some part wrong by betraying aspect of the game (hand holding).

me and all of my friends loved it at the time. i seriously did not know it wasnt well received until i had the internet

"critical acclaim" and the opinion of internet nerds isnt everything

also the remake is good and the supposed "hand holding" is minimal

also the only bad thing about god hand is its faux-"satirical" use of shitty stereotypes. everything else about it is flawless.

[JWK5]

The familiar and safe is not integrity

Nor is releasing an unfinished game, releasing a game with poorly functioning parts (for example, a flawed camera system), etc. It's not strictly symptomatic of innovative or novel games, definitely formulaic games suffer from it as well, but my point is that typically when you have a game that pushes X new features or tries something new it seems to have bare minimum functionality everywhere else, as if the creators focused solely on the new feature and quickly rushed everything else because they ran out of time or budget (or maybe just effort and enthusiasm).

So my point is, as I've stated prior, it is important for a game to be made with integrity (unity, cohesiveness, solidarity, etc.) not just novelty (newness, originality, etc.). In other words, the game is functional as a whole, not coming across as a broken mess with a few new ideas. Yes, you can make broken mess with a few new ideas, but you're really just shooting yourself in the foot and sabotaging your ability to push those ideas.

It's not about integrity at all, it's about ecology. If you only want a twisted sense of integrity you prevent great work to be made period.

If you want to make fully functional games, without broken or underdeveloped parts, you prevent great work to be made?

Sure, serving a plate full of under-cooked food with a really nice salad might potentially give other cooks an idea on how to make new dishes, but do you really want to be the one serving that meal?

[s0]

aaaaaaah why cant i stop myself from getting involved in this discussion

Yes, you can make broken mess with a few new ideas, but you're really just shooting yourself in the foot and sabotaging your ability to push those ideas.

but cant a game be a "broken mess" and also be, u know, GREAT at the same time? youre being far too rigid about this. how many amazing games would not have been made if nobody ever released games that are "broken" in some way? vagrant story, deadly premonition, dwarf fortress, pathologic, STALKER, gothic, the entire paradox catalog, system shock 1 & 2, king's field, shenmue, killer7, the entire elder scrrolls series, nethack, vampire: bloodlines, etc. etc.

in other words: A LOT. i am seriously glad developers and/or publishers had little enough "integrity" to release those.  

[JWK5]

I am not saying a broken mess can't be fun, but they aren't generally fun because of the broken parts they are usually fun despite the broken parts (though there are more than a few games that have some hilarious bugs, like Red Dead Redemption).

I think my comments are being taken too rigidly, I am not saying that every game needs to be perfect I am saying as a creator it is generally a good idea to make the game as functional and cohesive as possible. It is best to have integrity with novelty, the working parts function in harmony rather than being slapped on haphazardly around a concept (for example, a large portion of the Wii catalog).

EDIT: Also, I think you and Timmy are confusing integrity, as in cohesiveness, with integrity, as in morals. I am not talking about the morals of the developers, I am talking about the integrity of the work. For example, the structural integrity of a house's foundation refers to it being put together in a way that it holds together strongly, everything interlocks correctly and carries the weight of the house properly, it is built to endure the elements, etc.

When I say integrity regarding expressive works I am referring to how the work is put together, that ideally no part gives way and breaks the experience. In art, integrity facilitates communication.



EDIT 2: On another note, I notice that people seem to be more forgiving when a broken part contradicts the experience than simply impairs it. Having your horse suddenly rocket across the landscape in Skyrim or having a giant's attack glitch and cast your ragdoll body out into the infinity of space is hilarious, it somehow adds to the experience in a parody sort of way. It's like watching the outtakes at the end of a movie. However, the quest glitches that mess up your progress a bit are nothing but frustrating. I'd heard humor being described as "benign violation", it seems the line of violation is drawn on how absurd the dysfunction is. The more absurd, the more benign. Some games are worth playing just because they are such an extreme broken mess, just to witness the absurdity of it all.

We need a contest where we intentionally build a game so broken and glitchy that it becomes comedy (or perhaps we start with a base game and see who can screw it up the worst/funniest).

[gimymblert]

It's also about infinite time with infinite resource

yourEDIT1: NO I told about the clumsy pionner, it's hard to have structural integrity when you have absolutly no clue og what those fundation are, that's why you need to explore in the first place, newness for the sake of newness is also important because you never know where or on what you will stumble upon, that's the principle of exploration, to be lost. If you are nor prepare to fail you can't succeed in this domain. That's true for all art, if modernist where not to follow stupid idea like letting figuration go, the deep and precise foundation we have today would never had happen, no gestalt, no motion design, just graphic design ... just a visual mess stuck into bad hierarchical visual data and stuck into a low number of visual style.

YOURedit2: to be frank the best part of skyrim are the random glitch, without it the game would be simply boring, you go with the motion then struck an experience when it goes wrong. In fact I purposefully play in such a way that iot create moment by creating imbalance. Else it's the most self indulgent shit ever.

goat simulator is not my shit, but that's enough people shit too

[gimymblert]

http://www.twitch.tv/squareenixpresents/

[s0]

I think my comments are being taken too rigidly, I am not saying that every game needs to be perfect I am saying as a creator it is generally a good idea to make the game as functional and cohesive as possible. It is best to have integrity with novelty, the working parts function in harmony rather than being slapped on haphazardly around a concept (for example, a large portion of the Wii catalog).

EDIT: Also, I think you and Timmy are confusing integrity, as in cohesiveness, with integrity, as in morals. I am not talking about the morals of the developers, I am talking about the integrity of the work. For example, the structural integrity of a house's foundation refers to it being put together in a way that it holds together strongly, everything interlocks correctly and carries the weight of the house properly, it is built to endure the elements, etc.

but sometimes the "lack of integrity" can also be part of the package.

like, could dwarf fortress have less obtuse and overcomplicated simulation mechanics? probably, but it wouldn't be dwarf fortress anymore, just a dungeon keeper/settlers mashup with dwarves. the whole point of dwarf fortress is that someone went and made this crazy over the top procedural fantasy simulation thing that doesnt follow conventional game design wisdom. this is why none of the attempts to create an "accessible DF" have even come close to capturing the magic of the original (imo).

also the line between "broken" and "outside of the norm" is so blurry as to be practically meaningless. lots of people complain when games don't use standard control schemes for instance. that was one of the main criticisms of killer7 when it came out, but the weird controls are integral part of what makes k7 what it is. (i could write an entire essay on why modern standardized control schemes are making games more boring but im too lazy).

even if you disagree with my particular examples i hope you understand what im getting at

[gimymblert]

[Torchkas]

Maybe we're using too complicated words.

The thing about games that are innovative for the sake of its ego is that, even though their innovations can make way for advancements in the future, the game will still be flawed. You'll eventually be obstructing your initial vision if you overdevelop an idea you have. There's merely this odd middle ground when you're making something structurally founded where you'll be remixing something else and adding your own ideas in.
Completely getting rid of innovations is never a good idea because that would mean every game is the same. Being aware of at which point you are just overcomplicating things is very important for artistic integrity. If you don't know where to stop innovating your game will be bound to come out flawed even if it's ahead of its time or has extreme mod support that would make them not so.

The line between broken and outside of the norm is only blurry if you're looking at it from a user-input specific viewpoint. The thing is that it's hard to innovate in this area because control has been evolving since forever. In any other area it will be very clear as to what is completely unclear and what is simply not conventional. I don't think control schemes are a good example in this case, but you could probably come up with another one.

[JWK5]

even if you disagree with my particular examples i hope you understand what im getting at

This is my last post on the matter, because I'll just be running in circles beyond this point, but the thing to bear in mind is in those examples do the questionable features work for the experience or against it? Integrity, in terms of structure, is about all the parts coming together and building a strong structure. In DF, for example, the complicated functions work for the experience to create the vision the author intended. In God Hand, the broken camera system does not, it works against the experience and impairs the overall vision. A bad camera system is one of the worst offenders in 3D gaming, it is like driving with an obscured windshield. It seldom does anything to make the experience better, it almost always makes it worse by virtually anyone's standards. Neverwinter Nights 2 was a whole hot mess when it came out and it was barely playable for most of us, nothing about what it was doing wrong enhanced the experience. When I say integrity, I am speaking of all parts working together, and functioning properly (i.e. as implied) not necessarily all parts conforming to the norm. Integrity, cohesiveness, solidarity.

It's not rocket science, we're all pretty good at pinpointing where a game is sabotaging itself, from graphics or music that just doesn't fit the rest of the assets, poor choice of textures (or bad texture quality) in one area, bad camera, unbalanced combat, shoddy AI, etc. My point is no amount of novelty makes up for that, even if you are trailblazing you still should care about the overall experience you are communicating not just the shiny bits.

Anyways, that is all I have to say on the matter, like I said beyond here I'd just be going in circles. Thanks for the food for thought anyways, though, always good to have other perspectives.

[gimymblert]

You are wrong because that's then an impossible ideal, it does not exist

BTW I don't think the camera system is bad in god hand, it's part of the positioning game, it almost became transparent after a while.

We are very good at pin pointing things that matter to us, that's all, nothing more. For someone who like romance action movie are the worse and vice versa, there is no secret sauce.

[gimymblert]

http://dbocom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15047

calm


dangerous



calm


dangerous


 

[s0]

BTW I don't think the camera system is bad in god hand, it's part of the positioning game, it almost became transparent after a while.

never had a problem with the fixed camera in god hand. its obviously a deliberate design decision and its consistent with the rest of the game's mechanics. but hey, this is actually a good example. lots of people also claim that resident evil 4 which runs on the same engine and uses the same camera system as god hand has bad controls or "camera issues". i think the controls and camera are great for what the game sets out to do, theyre just not what you would expect in a standard shooter (because the game isnt a standard shooter, duh).