Insert Quote
You know, thinking about this, it seems a bit silly having several pages of heated discussion about a fairly excentric guy not wanting to cut his lawn in a place that original did not have rule against that. Why are we focusing so much on his lawn instead of what matters here, which is Rohrer's approach to games?

I think it's because they dedicate almost half(maybe more)of the article on his lifestyle, and mostly from an external viewpoint.

This is why video games need a figure like Rohrer so badly: an auteur. A person of great energy, courage, ego, and, yeah, pretentiousness -- pretentiousness with a purpose

I kind of disagree with that. I think video games have enough of these. I think the video game press needs it to complete the transition from being a media read mainly by what they perceive to be social outcasts (geeks and nerds). They want their artists, bohemians and classy people, just like the movies have their Johnny Depps and Brad Pitt(oooh he grew a beard).

Rohrer is trying to make art in a medium that most people don't even think is capable of art.

Again, I disagree. Most of my influences as an artist come from arcade video games from the 80s-early 90s. I think what they mean is most people who would attend some kind of vapid and pretentious art gala consider video games kids toys.

I agree with you about exploring new directions, but I think at some point, his experiments stop being games. They have no sets of rules, no real logic behind them if you don't read the explanation, they kind of have a hard time standing on their own. It's like modern art, in a sense, where the artist spends more time explaining his piece than making it. I have some artist friends who make things like that, demonstrations with props and are applauded by crying journalists, but have a very hard time just mastering the basics of life drawing or sculpture. But I guess it's like when you charge a price for something, the higher you charge, the more the buyer believes he is buying something of value. The guy is a bigger than life character, the embodiment of what the press wants to see as an independent game maker(in the physical sense), so they just go with it.

ps last two quotes are from the article

There's a slight chance I'd be cool with that if the collectivity didn't have so horrible taste. Mowed lawn doesn't look pretty. It's not aesthetics so much as sameness.

But what about unwashed hair? Or body odor? I know it's mostly a personal issue, but trying to get along with a ever growing world population might entail certain curtesies that you did'nt need a few decades ago. If you're commuting on public transportation, or working with people you at least need to have a certain degree of hygiene. But I guess it does'nt apply if you live a hermit's life, which I don't think is Rohrer's case since he meets with journalists and warn them of the smell.

And I agree 100% with you about the lawn. I hate it with a passion. I love the randomness of a forest ground, and I am trying to plant trees around to recreate it instead of that football field look.

Yama:

Final crunch days, I really hope to get everything together smoothly. All the structure is in, so I just need to replace my placeholders.

I had initially thought of having 8 levels and enemy types, but I added Curwen in the end, and found out I had 9 (10 if you count the Alone in the Dark dog which I cut, but might be a secret character). But now, with that layout, it made me think of megaman, and I want to make a megaman style selection screen, and that would mean 9 more assets...we'll see.
So back into the fray! I feel Deadeye's pain...only 4 days left...that's going to be verrrry tight....

It's even worse in the condo associations, where you have to paint your balcony like the others and such things.
But again, and I'm certainly not the clean-shaven type, but not washing your hair is kind of disrespectful of others, because you impose your smell on them. There was a short story by Philip k. Dick about the passing of a law that would prohibit people from having body odor and bad breath. It was an interesting debate, and I could'nt really say where I would stand on it. On one hand, you have the individual's freedom to live his life as he pleases. On the other hand, you have the collectivity's right to enjoy a certain sensory esthetism. It's all about compromising and making everyone happy through dialogue, I guess.

Welcome to Gattaca! Angry
Fuck these rules, forest are being covered by self-replicating suburbias and you have to apply by the rule dictated by a bunch of anal retentive clones. That's the doom of mankind right there.

It's not as bad as you think. The house I bought is not in a gated community, it's in a remote domain in the mountainous laurentians, they have a bunch of national parks nearby, so they have stricter rules. Plus, most of the weirder ones come from the fact that it's an old english corporation land trust from colonial days.
Even the bank loaning the money has a rule that, if you let the property lose value they can retake it as if you did not make payments.
 

He's first minding his own business, and then defending his right to do so.  Who the hell sues their neighbours over how they tend their lawn?

I think they had a case though. In some places, this kind of thing lowers the surrounding properties value. I know where I live, there is a set of rules like, not allowed to put a clothesline on the front lawn(you can do it in the back), not allowed to let your grass grow unkempt(which is why I want to replace it with cloverleaf because I hate mowing), not allowed to keep heavy machinery on the front lawn, no motorized recreational vehicle in the wooded areas(this one I like ) and such things. It might sound restrictive, but when shopping for a house, I visited a place where there was heavy machinery on the lawn, and dogs that were being yelled at by a crazy looking man, his neighbor had animal skulls nailed to his woodshed texas chainsaw massacre style, and I kind of realized that sometimes, it's better to try to get along with a set of rules than live in complete anarchy

So you keep all the bad points of independent development (working in isolation, lack of quality control, etc.) but replace the good points (no need to co-ordinate with many people for release dates, little overhead, etc.) with collective organisations subject to diseconomies of scale.

No, because as a collective, I assume there would be a vetting process to what goes in the compilation. As a group of mature individuals who are aspiring to make great games would be able to communicate well enough to help each others reach a satisfying quality level.  And I am not so sure that these bad points you describe can be applied to everyone's way of working as independent entities.

The only reason I would join such a group would be if it there was significant benefit to me personally. The only way this could happen would be if I contributed poor quality work that would sell much less otherwise

I don't think that kind of organism would be well-suited for you then

I have some friends who created their own freelance illustration/concept studio, they offer services similar to the way MassiveBlack works. It's only about breaking away from the monolithic hierarchy you find in big studios. They work a lot, and have day jobs to be able to build up their dream while retaining a financial security. At some point, some of them will leave the day job, and replace that time with whatever they want to do.

As an example, let's say I define a human as a white male. I could then say that a lot of people aren't human. It wouldn't be a sign of insecurity if they were offended by that.

No, that would be racism, because saying only white males are human, I would imply that the other races are something lesser. By saying 'I think games made with passion with little regard for profits are indie', I did'nt say 'games made for profits are made by soulless troglodytes who should not be in contact with the all-superior indie devs.'. I see my own experience with commercial games as very depressing, but I can say that I enjoyed working with some of the best pros in the industry which helped me progress a lot, and gave me a comfortable lifestyle in which I can moonlight passionately on more underground type games that I find interesting but would probably be big duds on the open market.

Well, let's agree to disagree then. I believe I can define the world as I perceive it, and that most of my perceptions will be quite murky until I am old and very senile. Then I will enjoy unyielding labels about things, and you better stay clear of my lawn.

edit:ps, to muddy the water a bit, I myself am thinking going more or less this road when I make the jump http://www.the-underdogs.info/scratch.php
I have a soft-spot for those grandiose declarations, even if in the end they fail, it is still very awe-inspiring.

 

I just think it creates unneeded division to say, e.g., that casual developers or shareware developers aren't real indie developers because they don't make games out of passion, etc. It's just a weird and divisive way to categorize things; do you also apply this categorization to indie music and indie film? If an indie band sells an album with their music on it from their website, are they no longer an indie band?

I don't see why that matters, frankly, what meaning a single person attributes to a non-pejorative term. Who defines the band as 'indie'? If they're that insecure, that they need the label to define their character, fine, I don't care. I never implied people who do things for money only do it for money, but in my experience, it has a lot of influence on the decisions they make along the way. For example: if you have a game, it's not polished up to your own personal standards, but your finances need it, you'll release it, and swallow your pride. That's it, it does'nt mean it's a bad game, it's just not what you really wanted to do.

but I do think that by defining indie in this way you are applying it to others.

Have'nt you been trying to apply your own definition of indie on me? Like I said, it's not very important to me, this label is one I use very loosely; what counts most in the end is the heart and soul that is poured into the work. Nothing is ever perfect, but that does'nt mean we dont strive to achieve it everytime. There is only division if people see it that way. It's like trying to describe how something taste. If I said 'your turkey tastes like pork', would you be insulted? How would you know how I figure the taste of pork?

By defining indie games as games which were self-funded, without any external publishing money, that's at least objective, you can know for sure whether or not a game was self-funded.

Yes, but some people start-off with a lot more money or comfortable position than others.

I don't see any benefit in categorizing them like that. It also has the implication that games created just from passion are somehow different or special, which feels like an imaginary made-up category intended to elevate some games over others.

I think it's only a personal benefit, to separate the commercial work I do from what I love. It is mostly imaginary, if I applied it to others. Like if I was to say "Your game is not indie, because you have no PASSION". But I did'nt . And I would'nt. I would not judge your work like that; I would play it, enjoy it, and say 'I liked that' or 'I did'nt like that'. But I would'nt say 'I'm not trying it because it's not INDIE'. It's just a word I use to make sense of my world view.

I don't see any benefit in categorizing them like that.

Maybe because you see it important to be categorized as an indie developer, because you feel it is hard enough to self-fund your projects without having others meddling with that label. Like I said earlier, you're probably right in essence, but I need the idealistic steps to drive me on further on my way.

So defining indie games by someone else's motivation, which you can't measure, which you have to guess at, and which is usually offensive if you guess wrong, is a definition fraught with peril.

Not if it's my own personal definition of the word. I'm not trying to impose it on others, I don't start movements saying, stop selling your games, or making them for money, else you don't qualify for my personal haughty standards. Even if it's simplistic, it's just a word I use to orient my own progress through life.

Everyone is passionate about what they do to some extent. Everyone also hates what they do sometimes, such as when they work on tedious and boring parts of a game.

Sure, I'm even passionate about commissioned work. But again, it is different from a labor of love, which I would craft to the limits of my own actual abilities. I would then define it for me, and I don't really care what a third party would define it. I know my own art style to be very commercial, and influenced by very figurative arcade games; I don't take it as an insult if in your opinion, it's not artistic, it's just your opinion; I might even ponder it and integrate it to the constant flowing of my own reflexion. I think when you find such a tame label insulting, it's something you have to resolve within yourself, not with the outward source.

 

It's not just a perception, it's an attack, objectively. Think about it systematically: your claim is that *if* someone makes money from something, they are necessarily doing it *because* of the money, and would not do it if they were not paid for it. That's clearly wrong to say, and clearly a personal attack. It's a way to feel better about yourself by putting others down.

It would be an attack if making money was a bad thing, no? I might just be looking at it that way, because I enjoy so much more what I'm doing without the threat of losing a job if you don't perform that I see my own paid work as 'lesser'. But I would'nt take it as far a saying I'm putting others down to feel better about myself. I'm trying to find a way to keep my own creative liberty, while being paid for it, but am not certain people would pay for what would come out, if I did what I really want to do. It might be my own insecurities or something. And my claim was:

something you do out of passion, without necessarily looking for a material gain out of it.

Hardly the definitive

*if* someone makes money from something, they are necessarily doing it *because* of the money

you're reading too much into what I said, I'm afraid. Or maybe I miswrote, my main language is french; in french 'ce que tu fais passionnement, sans necessairement viser un profit' is very tame. Necessairement ,I translated as necessarily, means in this case you might be getting money, but that would'nt be your main goal in the endeavour.
 

I'd still consider that an attack, even if you didn't intend it as one. It's phrased as an attack and is in effect an attack, no matter how you word it. And it's not helpful.

That would be your perception then, I can't do anything about that. I said I would define indie games by a passionnate development with no material gain in mind while making the game. But that's just me, in my own idealistic world vision, where houses don't cost as much and no one ever goes hungry, or suffers from privation. And everyone can enjoy full creative freedom. 

I don't know Miyamoto's salary, but I'm very wary of legends, especially in the game industry, because the gaming press needs its royalty, and does'nt shirk from embellishing the truth to get it.

I think passion is important, but I think it's a bad idea to define indie games just by passion, because that leads to a lot of personal attacks because they only way to say that someone isn't an indie developer is an ad hominem, it's to say that they aren't passionate about what they do. A definition that encourages personal attacks isn't very useful to me.

I would'nt use my definition of indie to personally attack someone; I don't see anything wrong with wanting to make money. I think it mostly comes on a personal/spiritual level, of what you do with your life, if you only do things for cash, you'll bend backwards and end up with very few principles to keep a job.
I don't know what is happening inside a person's head, maybe he/she is very stimulated by working on a bejewelled clone- hell, I even had an idea for a match3 with witches and summons. But like I said, I might be misusing the word, because when I think of the indie game scene, I see something like the underground comics movement.
And since passion is a very personal thing, I don't see how I could say you're not passionnate about your work, unless I'm in your head while you're working.

Miyamoto and Will Wright are looking for material gain, in the end.  They might enjoy the ride along the way, but if they did it only for fun, they would'nt take the huge paycheck that comes with it. 

indie: independently funded / self-funded

But what if the game developer is a multi-millionaire? Paris Hilton released an indie music album she funded herself. But you're right, I'm misusing the word; I mean something more akin to the underground comic scene; something you do out of passion, without necessarily looking for a material gain out of it.

Casual I see that way because the casual departments work mainly on what I consider to be non-games: Pet simulators, Weight Loss stuff etc. Most games today would fit your definition of approachable games that can be played by anyone, Imo.

And one of those niche's (and one of the most profitable ones) is people who didn't play games growing up (casual games).

I had a long thought about this thread while walking in the woods. Sometimes I write like I speak(without thinking) and I use the ensuing dialogue to focus my own thoughts.
I was thinking about playing ys3 when I was younger, and my exasperated mother looking at me and my 'weird game where I always do the same thing with that awful music'. My wife said that these games used to be like books, compared to the games today which are more like movies. You use your brain differently when reading, you create and comnpensate for the lack of pictures/definition.
 When I say 'hardcore', I don't mean hard gameplay; in my opinion, Knytt is hardcore, because how you appreciate it really depends on your sense of aesthetics. Most people I work with did'nt bother to try it or could'nt understand why I played it, because of the minimalist graphics. Same with Cave Story, La Mulana, even the 3d Mount and Blade('It's so ugly!').
Casual games, I think it depends on the intent behind the game: someone who truly tries to innovate with a new concept I would see as indie, but those who only make a clone to make a quick buck, unless they're stashing money and creating something worthwhile on the side, I don't see as different from the whole 'casual' game scene we are seeing on the ds and wii.
And I think we succesfully derailed this topic It's a very interesting dialogue though, I think we could further it in a relevant topic.

Movius:

Although, if by 'business model' you mean: "1. Make game about burning carrots that no one but me cares about. 2. Huh?? 3. Profit!" Then you need merely look at the litany of 'passionate artists' that somehow avoid mainstream fame for proof of the futility of your desire.

Haha, I was exactly thinking about this one . Maybe it's because my definition of indie developer is someone who makes weird artsy games for the hardcore audience. I don't consider the casual market indie. I know "Make product, sell it for more than it cost you to make*." is the usual model, but I think something like a loose network would work better "make product, contribute it to a collective, get your equal share of the profit made by selling the compilation". I might be wrong about this though, I kind of failed every economy class I took during my student life (I was too busy drawing in the margin to take notes)

I don't think mainstream game developers are just "cogs" or anything. They're just in a very different profession. Most of them are good at what they do but wouldn't survive a year as an indie developer. And vice versa: most indie developers are egoistic and not team players, and wouldn't survive a year with a large company.

Rinkuhero: It's a lot more complicated than that. You have your 'cogs', who are very happy to do what they're asked to do, get the paycheck, and leave at the end of the day. They are usually ranging from adequate to passable in ability, and really would'nt be able to function without the big company structure looming over their every moves. Many of them come from other backgrounds, where they either failed at, or were'nt making enough money, so they read in the news that the gaming industry was the next big thing; they took a basic course in their 'field' and then got hired. Not to generalize though, sometimes you get one amazingly talented cog who manages to escape the rule.

Then you have your employees who are passionate about games, and have been playing forever and have always dreamed of being a part of the industry. But the dream turns sour as they too often lack the necessary business skills to take the harsh decisions to get the product out in time for the big sale, whether it's christmas, or more recently, black friday. They also generally have no heart to digest the horrible truth about how the product will end up being bastardized in the end to fit walmart's sales policies. But everytime they give it their best, because it's what they do...until they quit in disgust, or are fired over their perceived bad attitude.

Finally, you have the decision makers, the movers and shakers, who the press is very fond of, the stars; they sometimes have so little to do with the actual game creation it's sickening, but still, they get the credit, the big money and they take the bottleneck decisions that eventually screw everyone on the production floor. They're consumers though, and you have to acknowledge grudgingly that they understand the mainstream market, and how to sell.

I believe in the indie scene, I think one day soon it's going to find a profitable business model to allow every passionate game maker out there to live independently from the fruits of his/her labor. And I think it's going to be a team effort; I see that while people are often individually working on their own baby, they cheer the others on, they help whenever they can and overall keep a real sense of community that you seldom find within big companies.

 

Beyond the Beyond(Psx)
Walk a pixel, pfffffiiiitt, random battle. Walk another pixel, pfffffffffiiiiit, random battle..this goes on, until you remove the power cord from your psx and destroy the cd(yes, it will stay with you if you let it be)

even more infuriating is the dev team's potential- combat graphics are nice, and music by Motoi Sakuraba...but...story portraits?



oh and lest I forget...a 3d intro, typical of the psx years when you had gorgeous 2d art in a game, but a eye bursting awful cg cinematic to put you in the mood(see Brigandine)

Rinkuhero: I know , it's probably easier to just pay for it, but see it as a free demo, if you like it, you buy the game. I want to see if I have the spirit to put a site online and care for it. Then I might buy into a real package.