next »

[Michaël Samyn]

The reason why the post about the gender-bias in the IGF judges list was deleted, was because, contrary to what it seems to look like, we actually get sick to the stomache by conflict. From where we stand, our points of view are completely logical, simple and straightforward. We also feel that, outside of the games industry, many people would agree with them. But inside of this industry everything we say seems to be controversial and provoke aggression.

I don't mind a bit of discussion now and then. And I admit I like to provoke it by stating things a certain way. But in our experience, gamers and game developers tend to be extremely defensive about their positions and discussions with them are rarely healthy. They often end up in calling people names. Or stagnate in some tedious linguistic debate that scrutinizes details and completely overlooks the spirit of things.

Auriea was simply stating a fact: that there are too little female judges on the IGF jury. We really don't understand how anybody could disagree with that. And as Rinku said, it worries us because our work tends to attract at least an equal amount of both genders. Saying that the difference between genders doesn't matter may be politically correct but it is naive. There is a very clear difference between women and men playing games. And judging by the many "Girl Gamer" communities out there, women have no problem recognizing this fact. As a designer, I embrace this as an opportunity for making different types of games, or at least for knowing that there may be an audience for them.

But I'm really afraid to say anything at this point. I am very critical of our own work. And very critical of that of others. In general I think the games industry is way too content with itself and is ignoring most of the enormous potential of the interactive medium. I'm probably going to get in trouble for saying this but perhaps it makes things clear: I personally think making games is a waste of time. This technology has so much to offer, there's so much work and research to do. Dealing with minutiae of game design seems... decadent to me. We don't need small steps. We need giant leaps. Broad strokes. We can worry about details in the next century.

That's how I feel. I understand that it may sound absurd to game developers. But maybe it explains our attitude a bit. Maybe we are simply impatient. And we feel alone, facing a gargantuan task that we know we can not complete in our life times. Not on our own.

But I think I'd better shut up now.

[Tr00jg]

The fact that you view "games" as a waste of time and you want the interactive medium to take "leaps and bounds" is fine by me. It just seems that because of this, you feel the need that you don't have to worry about "trivialities" like doing things right (introducing yourself and posting it at the correct place). Its as if you are "above" us.

You want the interactive medium to take "leaps and bounds", but with your attitude it is not helping at all. You are hampering yourself.

Moving forward is a good thing... But recklessly moving forward is not. Like the saying goes, just stop and smell the flowers (like a deer).

[Golds]

Auriea was simply stating a fact: that there are too little female judges on the IGF jury. We really don't understand how anybody could disagree with that.

The post in question also stereotypes and insults the panel of judges in the IGF, which seems like the reason people were upset with it.

It's a fine point to make that there is a gender inequality in the IGF,  but I think the lack of women in the panel is a reflection of the lack of women in technlogoy fields as a whole.  The problem is greater in scope than just the games industry.

[fish]

i like this guy.
we need more flippant artist type to tell everybody to fuck off.

i like you, Michel.
be my friend.

[Michaël Samyn]

I like you to, Phil. 

[Derek]

...we actually get sick to the stomache by conflict.

Welcome to TIGSource.  Prepare your barf bag.

[Melly]

To be honest, TIGS is probably the best forum community I've been a part of in recent years. 95% of people here are friendly and humorous, and those that aren't are quickly dealt with. Also, it's not a giant community, and I'm fine with that. Makes knowing people easier. Conflict usually arises over controversial topics, and it still usually stays as a mostly civil discussion, even if heated at times.

[fish]

FUCK OFF.

ALL OF YOUSES!

[skaldicpoet9]

To be honest, TIGS is probably the best forum community I've been a part of in recent years. 95% of people here are friendly and humorous, and those that aren't are quickly dealt with. Also, it's not a giant community, and I'm fine with that. Makes knowing people easier. Conflict usually arises over controversial topics, and it still usually stays as a mostly civil discussion, even if heated at times.

I got to agree with you there Melly....

TIGS is definitely the best forum I have seen on the ol' intranet

Everyone here is pretty damn, sociable (and as most of us know forums are not always so) and genuinely participate in logical discussion about the games we love and not just pointless banter like "this game's graphics pawned!"

Oh and btw welcome to the TIGS forums Micheal, it's good to have you here

I saw Endless Forest on GGE and have always been meaning to check it out....I think now would be a good time lol, anyways, good luck at IGF...

[Stij]

From where we stand, our points of view are completely logical, simple and straightforward. We also feel that, outside of the games industry, many people would agree with them. But inside of this industry everything we say seems to be controversial and provoke aggression.

From your point of view, yeah. But if you're posting this in a forum dedicated to making and reviewing games, you'd better expect some criticism. It's only natural.

I admire your innovation, but frankly you guys come off as a bit pretentious.

[Tr00jg]

I admire your innovation, but frankly you guys come off as a bit pretentious.

Ah, there is the word!

Anyway, Endless Forest looks neat. If it weren't for my stupid DSL cap, I would've played it already.

And onto TIG. Yes, TIG rocks. This is the best international forum community Ive been to.

LETS GET AWESOME.

[Melly]

Everybody here is awesome.

Except that guy... what's his name? Something Fish?





 

[Chris Whitman]

Saying that the difference between genders doesn't matter may be politically correct but it is naive.

I would like to disagree in a vaguely tangental way. Socialization varies tremendously among different groups of people. In my opinion, the idea that "Men like games about killing and women like games about caring and sharing," is a fictitious construct. Not that I'm accusing you of touting that specific a point, but talk about targeting or failing to target a specific gender tends to boil down only to nothing more specific than "targeting attributes personally perceived to belong to a number of people who identify with a given gender." At best, we have hard data to back up some claims, but if a study indicates that 90% of women would like to see more games based on cooperation, what does it mean to 'cater to women' by providing them?

In a nation of three hundred million people alone, you'd be excluding the opinions of a full thirty million people. That's a lot of people. As a math student with an interest in social issues, I can tell you that these statistics are not normally meaningful in the sense in which they are applied. People talk about 'most men' and 'most women' without considering the vast number of people who do not conform highly to traditional gender roles: we're not talking about one or two men or women slipping through the cracks, we are literally talking about millions and millions of people. Gender is not a democracy.

To go off on a further tangent, I think our tendency to think this way is symptomatic of the degree to which mass-marketing techniques have been subsumed into culture at large. The idea that art should cater to the majority of men or the majority of women is based on maximizing profits. In a non-profit work, in something which is intended to be expressive, it is blatantly nonsensical to mimic the disingenuousness of commercial products, but we commodify everything: we are a sick society. Marketing tells us that we should go for the big fish and the big numbers. Why design for a minority, for people without money or for people who are less likely to purchase anyway? This is why most games are designed for privileged  white males, but I don't think we need to do that. In fact, I don't think we need to make art with any specific group in mind.

Which brings me to my main point, I don't think it's meaningful or functional to talk about aiming art at women. I think that 'targeting women' is commercial shorthand for 'selling to women who conform to traditional gender roles,' and I think the term is mostly thrown around by people who are horrified mostly that so many consumers are being excluded from giving them money to buy new yachts. I think that, in fact, it is naive specifically to attempt to cater to an audience based on gender, or to discuss 'the differences between men and women' without acknowledgement of the millions of human beings who are excluded from the conversation with every blanket statement.

In general I think the games industry is way too content with itself and is ignoring most of the enormous potential of the interactive medium. I'm probably going to get in trouble for saying this but perhaps it makes things clear: I personally think making games is a waste of time. This technology has so much to offer, there's so much work and research to do. Dealing with minutiae of game design seems... decadent to me. We don't need small steps. We need giant leaps. Broad strokes. We can worry about details in the next century.

I strongly agree! I don't necessarily feel that people need to stop producing games, but it does bother me a bit how much work everyone is putting into very trivial things. I think most creative types have a lot of potential to create truly touching work, but many have told themselves that it is unimportant or impossible. I think there will always be a place for fun, but people should push themselves further to create things which are genuinely interesting or important to them, regardless of whether they are entertaining.

Anyway, regarding the community here, it's not so much that it's a necessity to make friends to promote your work as it is common courtesy to be nice to people. We don't like advertisers or rude people. It's not really an unusual idea and you don't need to be best buds with anyone. Just refrain from telling people they're stupid and ugly (unless they totally deserve it by being stupid and/or ugly) and don't spam advertisements and you'll be fine.

[Michaël Samyn]

Which brings me to my main point, I don't think it's meaningful or functional to talk about aiming art at women.

I agree. And I agree with your point about minorities being worthwhile audiences as well. I guess Tale of Tales is no different than most game development studios in this respect: we make the games we would like to play. And since our team consists of both genders (in the case of The Path even of a majority of women), we're going to end up with products that appeal to both. We didn't target a specific group (other than the usual "people who like what we like" I guess). It just happens, probably as a result of who we are. But we are still proud of the fact that our games appeal to a diverse group of people. If it wasn't the case, I think I would worry about it.

[Eden]

I don't get it, M and A have an attitude?
They just have opinions. And they express them. Nothing wrong with that.

[Alec]

Everyone has opinions. What moves things forward is when people stand by them and discuss them openly.

There are any positive ways to improve the world, but they involve working with other people.

For example, sending an open letter to the IGF complaining about the lack of female judges, finding women who are involved in indie games and offering their judging services would be some positive ways to move things forward. If its an issue you care about, why not work towards improving it?
 
I don't see why it has to involve "conflict" at all.

It disturbs me that you guys seem to think the reason people were annoyed by the post was because you were suggesting the IGF have more female judges. I don't think that idea offends anyone. Its the tone and attitude with which it was written.

Anyways, the reason I'm posting this is just because I think you might not understand why some people might get a bad impression of you guys. But I also get the impression you don't really care, so my apologies if this is a waste of time for you.

[Headmade]

I'm sorry for going offtopic but I now have the chance to complain and I have to seize it :D. The installer of EF is garbage. Neither can you choose an install directory nor does it perform an check where there is enough space on the install drive 

[Ivan]

What kind of bugs me about your attitude, Michel, is that you seem to regard "traditional" games as thoughtless products lacking any kind of intellectual or artistic merit; that games should be taken to the next step by realizing that they are a part of a broader medium of interactive art. While I wholeheartedly agree with you on the latter part (who wouldn't?) , I have to say that so far, "traditional" games were the only examples of interactive media that I've encountered that truly create any kind of meaningful interaction and thus validate their use of this medium.

I am involved with a lot of people from design and technology programs, mainly at NYU's Interactive Telecommunications Program, both teachers and students. And what I see is desperate attempts to use technology as a means of artistic expression, solely for the sake of merging these two very different worlds and satisfying some postmodernist concept that seems like a joke more often than not.

Games were born out of our desire to take our very boring and often imposing technology and have fun with it. It was natural. And out of this natural progression came out many thoughtful, beautiful, fun, completely amazing things. This evolution is still taking its course and the people on this forum are at its helm. And for you to imply that all of that history and effort should be disregarded is not only ignorant but disrespectful to the people here who dedicate all their time to making thoughtful and innovative games.

[Michaël Samyn]

I think I experienced history differently than you did, toastie. I did not have an NES or a Dreamcast when I was a child. The closest I got to games was arcade machines. Later I got a computer and I played games. I remember really enjoying Wolfenstein and Doom. And while the "virtual reality" in these games inspired me vaguely, I never felt any inclination to make such things myself. The things that did it for me were the socalled "interactive CD Roms" of the time. Those are my roots: Peter Gabriels, The Residents, Laurie Anderson, and of course Alex Mayhew's Ceremony of Innocence and (for Auriea) Myst. Auriea and I made websites that were much closer to those than they were to games. Even when we switched to using games technology in 2002, we did it with those "ancestors" in mind, I think. When we started, we researched games quite intensively. We played a lot of them. To try and understand the medium. But, compared to the CD Roms that we enjoyed, we couldn't help but notice the tremendous opportunities that games left unexplored.

What we liked in games were the environments to explore, the characters to interact with, the feeling of moving an avatar through a virtual space, the sounds that that makes. So we were drawn to games that did these things very well. The game aspect of those games is something we felt was standing in the way of our enjoyment. Hence our hostility towards games-as-games. Every puzzle, every battle, to us just seemed like a way to ruin our fun.

One more thing that might explain our attitude a bit. We always find ourselves in the grey zone between things. And we have an inclination to play the devil's advocate. In the company of game-people, we will usually be more critical of games-as-games and try to contrast them with the depth and variety of art. But in the company of art-people we tend to do the opposite and dis a whole century of fine art while singing the praises of Silent Hill or Guild Wars.

There's plenty of people who adore traditional games. That terrain is covered extremely well. So I feel there's no need for us to do that to. I can understand that it is uncomfortable to hear somebody say that they don't like what you like, especially when they are making something that seems to be similar. But in the end, I think it is more constructive if we bring elements from other areas to the table, even if we have to do it at the expense of our own social success.

[Michaël Samyn]

For example, sending an open letter to the IGF complaining about the lack of female judges, finding women who are involved in indie games and offering their judging services would be some positive ways to move things forward. If its an issue you care about, why not work towards improving it?

That is your opinion.

We think that people should be responsible for their own actions. And not rely on others to correct their mistakes. That is our opinion.