That's like saying that prose is more important than metaphor in novels because you can't have a novel without prose.

this is probably the best quote in this thread. a lot of people keep saying 'gameplay is what makes games what they are, so art has to be in gameplay and if you focus on something other than gameplay you are wrong'. but that's exactly like saying 'writing makes novels what they are, so the art in novels has to be in the writing, and if you focus on something other than the writing you are wrong'. that ignores that plenty of novels have poor writing but great storytelling, or are extremely imaginative, or have various other virtues besides the quality of the writing. many people who read novels don't read them for the quality of the writing, just as many people who play games don't play them for the quality of the gameplay.

Wouldn't poor writing mean poor storytelling? I've never read a book where I thought "Man, this book has really shitty writing but such great storytelling and metaphor!" Storytelling, setting, and uniqueness all fall under the purvey of "good writing" from my understanding. Comparing games, which are sort of a hodge-podge of mediums smashed together, to a medium that is almost entirely singular (writing), it poor analogy. You're better off comparing them to movies. Like a movie that has horrible cinematography but great dialogue and plot or vice versa.

Poor writing means poor use of language. Poor storytelling refers to the imagery and plot.

"Man, this book has really shitty writing but such great storytelling and metaphor!"

That sounds a lot like David Gemmel... in fact, that's almost exactly how I described his work >_>

Yes, I know it isn't pure player-skill but, once I thought about it more deeply, wouldn't an example of the most perfect possible situation be a creation of art?
I'm sure it's up for debate, but I believe it to be.

It's an interesting discussion, but I personally feel that it's often the imperfections that I like in art. When something is completely perfect, it can feel mechanical to me.

I complettely follow and understand (usually, even, agree with) what you're saying.

I prefer the imperfect, unassisted runs, but that run in particular I've watched about... call it 30 times? And I've never grown tired of it. It leads me to believe that the definition of which type of speedrun is more of an artform is, probably, a question more of taste than of fact.

Not to mention that this is going to make the game look very inconsistent.

Probably, but not necessarily. There are many games whose art assets have been created by more than one person and still have a cohesive art-style 

So does that mean that DnD is art, or..? I NEED TO KNOW BY NEXT WEDNESDAY!

I dunno about you, but my campaigns are. :D

[jest]Only if you're playing 2e planescape[/jest]

anyone who thinks the playing of a game isn't art hasn't ever watched professional starcraft

I've never watched pro-starcraft, but pro TA is definitely an art-form IMO.
As is just about any pro-fighter contest and the entire unassisted speedrun culture.

EDIT: Now I think abou it, I consider the assisted-speedrun scene to be an art form aswell. I'd direct anyone who disagrees to

. Yes, I know it isn't pure player-skill but, once I thought about it more deeply, wouldn't an example of the most perfect possible situation be a creation of art?
I'm sure it's up for debate, but I believe it to be.

Re:Derek;

I think the insertion of "masocore" there was down to my abuse of the term, rather than your own. I frequently muddle "masocore" and "very hard" which, as you say, is not really in the spirit of the term as Dess' coined it. I've also made the mistake of referring to White Butterfly in terms of danmaku and probably all sorts of other unintentional bastardisation of terms with very definiable meanings 

As to ED; I'm an unashamed fanboy, but the difficulty has alienated most people I've tried to introduce it to. I love it, in the same way I love many KS levels that are too difficult (or almost too difficult) for me to tackle, yet created to such a phenomenal production-value that they have (in my opinion) value on a purely intellectual level; that is, such a perfectly-constructed entity that it's beautiful purely as a pseudo-object. Just so internally-consistant as to work off it's own back, even if it doesn't work as a game, for certain people (speaking in terms of being inaccessible, to some).

Sorry, I didn't realise they were already in. Haven't had a chance to play since v0.1.0

Was ignorance rather than an intended criticism 

Some really interesting points and ideas. I'd like to stress, just for the record, that I'm really happy with the gane as it is currently, I just thought the discussion could be interesting 

The only thing I'd add here is that I'm, personally, against the idea of a handicap system. On the other hand, if it's just an option which defaults to off... Honestly, I'm not sure. It's easy to say it would only affect those who wanted it[...]
Just occurred to me, if handicaps were dished out as a damage multiplier system then, provided they were assigned as absolutes rather than through a ranking system, they could open up the possibility of customising the "lethality" of combat in order to fine-tune the game. Two players both taking maximum handicaps for a match with, effectively, far less durable characters, for example.

The frontpage was totally awesome when I discovered it in around 2006 or 2007, nowadays it's become a bit too polluted with uninteresting reports about social meetings and conferences and pictures of people that I don't care about.

That sounds very relevant to my opinion.

Also I feel that my gaming experience (courtesy of, mostly, forum opinions) has diversified exponentially at roughly the same rate that the frontpage has become a bigot-fest... erm.. well, opinions... fringe-topics... *cough/splutter*

[cut'n'paste]I'm afraid I'd consider even "fair" and "balanced" to be hugely subjective.

A "fair" game can have any 'ruleset', as it were, without affecting it's "fairness". To be fair is only to treat all participants equally. (An argument could be made for other definitions, but bear with me for the post, at least  Wink)

A "balanced" game requires, I believe, to give all participants an equal chance to succeed. They are, apparently, identical concepts, but I would consider a fair game to have the possibility for player-selected difficulty due to a functional imbalance of characters (I remember Yoshimo being practically a God in Tekken-games, however he needed more work to master?).

A Fair game, as i understand it, would have all characters, differences or no, equally "powerful/capable". Any one would be able to dominate by making good use of their characteristics, but no one character would represent a clear advantage, whether it was simply overpowered, or whether it became un-defeatable in the hands of an expert player.[/paste]

I think (hope) this is the relevant place to re-paste this post. The implicit question is, should this be an elitist game, prioritising "pro-gamer" combos or engine-manipulation, or should it be a game that treats every applicant equally... should I be able to play this game for the first time (ever) and stand a chance of winning, or would it be more appropriate to reward elitist familiarity?! O.o

[Anyway]

I was referring to the front page of TIGSource, which I still post most frequently on... so both it and I have changed, yes, for various reasons.  The community itself has also changed, because it's bigger and more diverse.  Overall, I get the sense that there is less enmity toward casual games and mainstream games... right?

Do I still dislike a lot of things about mainstream/casual games?  Yes, I do.  But I'm not as vehement about it.  When I wrote that introduction to indie games, I had pretty much lost interest in mainstream games and played only indie/retro games.  I despised casual games and was generally pretty disgusted with GameTunnel and IndieGamer.  Now, I play about equal amounts of mainstream/indie/retro games and even some casual games (on my iPod Touch).  Better games are coming out now, that's all... more innovative mainstream games, more soulful casual games, and more bigger indie games.  From my personal perspective, it makes sense to be more satisfied with things.

And actually, the final thing I wrote in that article was:

In fact, I'm supposed to meet Video Games and Independent Games tonight for dinner and a few drinks. And there's a question that I've been dying to ask the both of them...

"Threesome?"

Which, aside from being a crass joke, was also a hint that I hoped to someday be able to enjoy both indie and mainstream games together.

The frontpage of TIGsource was a defining factor of my understanding of indie games long before the forums were.

The genesis, however, of my interest in "indie-game" was freeware (as I'm sure many others share with me). I hit Icy Tower, and it became one of the defining factors of my social-group. We competed... we argued over whether it was better to play with a gamepad or a keyboard... we bragged about the floors we'd reached..

Prior to that, I personally found Eternal Daughter's Mia, which was my first introduction to the nascent "Masocore" genre. The concept of a game that made me suffer... a game that I wasn't good enough to challenge, yet still felt compelled to return to again, and again, and again... I still haven't got more than halfway through, yet it's one of my favourite games of all time.

Even before that, my first two experiences with freeware were Diabolika 2 and Quibble Races... (christ, this is starting to look a lot like I'm blowing smoke up Derek's ass... not the intention, he was just the first freeware developer I followed).

Diabolika 2 became my brother's favourite game ever, even more so than the Infinity Engine games (that he adored). This is a man who fundamentally resents any time he spends interacting with a computer...

Anyway, these freeware experiences followed up on ROM experiences (I'm a J-RPG-fanatic), but there is a very clear progression, in my mind, between the realisation that I could download the games I wished I could buy in shops, and being able to download games I thought were better than those any shop was stocking. As the sites I was downloading ROMs from were shut down, the freeware sites I was beginning to become aware of were blossoming into life.

I feel I've lost the train-of-conciousness (as I'm sure any reader will agree...)
I'm gonna cut to the end-game just to try reclaiming my train-of-thought... Paul Eres is posting reviews of games on the TIGS frontpage that make me aware of (not just games, but) developers I've never heard of before. Beyond this, there are entrants into the TIGS compo's who fulfil the same criteria.

Eternal Daughter, when I first encountered the game, was a piece of magic that the gaming industry had abandoned.
These days, I feel that the games the guest-reviewers post about fill the same void. I always want to know how the fringes of the industry are conceptualising "game-play", though the fringes of the industry are always moving toward the center.

Anyone who's been creating those original concepts has a part in the evolution of the industry, IMO, but everything conceived drifts, slowly, toward the mainstream. We can't fight it, we just have to understand our own emotional-link to these people.

I'm afraid I'd consider even "fair" and "balanced" to be hugely subjective.

A "fair" game can have any 'ruleset', as it were, without affecting it's "fairness". To be fair is only to treat all participants equally. (An argument could be made for other definitions, but bear with me for the post, at least  )

A "balanced" game requires, I believe, to give all participants an equal chance to succeed. They are, apparently, identical concepts, but I would consider a fair game to have the possibility for player-selected difficulty due to a functional imbalance of characters (I remember Yoshimo being practically a God in Tekken-games, however he needed more work to master?).

A Fair game, as i understand it, would have all characters, differences or no, equally "powerful/capable". Any one would be able to dominate by making good use of their characteristics, but no one character would represent a clear advantage, whether it was simply overpowered, or whether it became un-defeatable in the hands of an expert player.  

EDIT: Eh, I'm sorry. This is one of the worst possible places to place this discussion. FWIW I think it's an important discussion, but it doesn't belong in a character thread (gorgeous pixelling, btw guys).

Potentially misleading, but very important 

By definition, you guys are defining what counts as playing fair by defining what is possible in game. Noone playing in a SF2 tournament ever got far claiming the fact they were combo'd into little pieces was unfair (this might be a totally meaningless/wrong example... I don't play fighting or brawling games on the whole  )

For an example I know intimately, complaining that the neon-decked GM mage who ganked your newly created character and stole your hard-earned gold on UO's Siege Perilous server was "not playing fair" wouldn't hold water.

Basically, if it can be done it's fair play. From your end this could be viewed, in each given case, as a "feature" or a "bug". The only difference is whether you think it oughta be changed (or the community having an overwhelming opinion, maybe...  )

My simplistic take:  Yes, there is fracturing.  Different people want to make different types of games.  Different people care more or less about different things in games (the value of the new, the value of genre, the value of mainstream accessibility).  The problem is not splintering; it's bitterness.

Just make the game you want to make.   If you strongly value innovation, try your hardest to make something new.  You don't have to point out how "wrong" and "stupid" other types of games/thinking are for your own work to have meaning.  Do not fabricate contrast by denigrating others.  Stand out by creating something awesome!

The strength of our independence is exactly the ability for each of us to foster our own point of view.  We should celebrate this instead of freaking out because we don't agree on something.  I see too many statements that boil down to "I have a different point of view, so therefore yours must be wrong", instead of "I have a different point of view, let me share it to broaden the discussion".

This post, combative as it could be argued to be (I'm too lazy to read back and find out the context...), reeks of optimism to me; I love it.

With a tiny bit of editing/extending I reckon it could (arguably) be the Indie-Developer's Manifesto.


Postscript: Yes, I have the post-count of a gnat and just made a post that leaves me with a decidedly toffee-coated nose, however I hope I'm not the only one to think this is a really positive conclusion.

i'm trying to do something about that, hopefully it's working at least a little bit?[/size]

Every guest review posted (almost) introduces me to at least a new game and quite often a developer I've never heard of before. Whether I personally like the games you review or not, it's interesting to see some of the stuff out there 

And the great irony that the frontpage comments are littered with complaints that the quirky freeware titles are getting reviews 

Not adding anything, but just to say this makes me (aswell!) sick. And no, not just because someone's ripping off Nifflas 

Ripping off a "mainstream" game (hello! FF7 NES edition) is kinda pathetic, but deliberately ripping off an indie developer (who's only asked money for two of his games... one of which is yet to be released) is deeply pathetic and thoroughly poor-spirited.

C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER

On a more serious note; do we really need three replies to one post? Seriously?! 

Yeah, cool, I'm looking forward to Barkley! Just need some animations now. Who's up for it? 

I think he's got massive potential too 

I hope you're aware that your sprites are phenomenally impressive, but I'm also looking forward to seeing work from other, quieter, pixel-artists around here.
You're amazing, but having one person creating 50% of the sprite-work is a bit... well, demanding, perhaps? 

And yet it rakes in profit. S'why such 'Free' MMOs are growing like mushrooms after rain. When the paying user base stops growing or starts stagnating, they just launch another MMO. Money is their prime directive.

Yep, that's the sad part of the whole thing. It always sucks to see the stuff you don't like winning.

Indeedy... 'tis the formula of the end of the world. The worst part, though, is that it's the most succesful (PROTIP: the prior statement is a personal opinion) player-rapeage of the past 15yrs :S I'd bet my (pitiful) paycheck that they (probably; I assume) make profits comparable to the monthly pay-to-play "superstars" of the MMO world (insert any MMO that defines the vomitous genre above).

I'm ashamed to admit that I spent 18months playing a very popular MMO, but since my exit from that "scene" I've bought enough indie games to compare to my DOS-game collection. Admittedly, it's not like I'm proud of each purchase I've made, but the best games I've encountered throughout the past half-decade have all been indie (and mostly been free..)