next »

[The Monster King]

i agree with the angry guys but only because i haven't read the whole article and only their quotes

tale of tale's does sound like a bunch of pretentious wankers

i'll read it too later i guess it looks fun

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i don't agree with a lot of what ToT wrote there, but i found Anarkex's "rebuttal" to be extremely weak and unfair, picking apart things for stupid reasons. any article could be attacked the way he did there, by a) pointing out differences in words between how they use words and how you use words, and b) comparing what they say to commonly believed things and then claiming that what they say is obviously wrong because it isn't commonly believed.

it's like, that really isn't how you argue against something intelligently, anarkex. there are far more sensible reasons to object to the ToT article than petty disputes about whether you should use the word "discover" or "accomplish" to denote a goal that has been reached. remember that english isn't michael's first language, and using discover rather than accomplish to denote a goal that has been reached is probably a language barrier thing.

so yeah, i don't see much difference between that wall of text anarkex wrote and "I thought this was stupid and I laughed at it" type posts, he didn't really give them the benefit or the doubt or make a decent effort in seeing things from their perspective, he just mocked them while pretending to argue against them

i think in general we should have more respect for fellow indie game developers, regardless of their opinions, and quit acting like fundamentalists when we see things we don't agree with

[Phasma Felis]

What bugs me most about this is that they've got some decent points buried in there about the potential of video games, the increasingly narrow focus of mainstream developers, and what indies should do about it all. Nothing that hasn't been said before, but still worth talking about.

And then they bury it in such patently absurd pay-attention-to-me silliness that it actively destroys anything useful they had to say. I literally laughed out loud at their giant GAMES ARE NOT ART title card. How look-at-me-I'm-saying-something-controversial can you get? And then VIDEOGAMES ARE NOT GAMES while simultaneously video games are just bad games, EXPERTS AGREE, experts wouldn't lie to you would they? Not experts! And then "The modernist program of the previous century has eradicated all human aspiration for greatness", which made me laugh out loud again. I know art and literary criticism has its own vocabulary, I know it doesn't always make sense to outsiders, but that is gibberish.

Sigh.

[AshfordPride]

it's like, that really isn't how you argue against something intelligently, anarkex. there are far more sensible reasons to object to the ToT article than petty disputes about whether you should use the word "discover" or "accomplish" to denote a goal that has been reached. remember that english isn't michael's first language, and using discover rather than accomplish to denote a goal that has been reached is probably a language barrier thing.

You'll have to excuse him, he was channeling his inner Icycalm.  

i think in general we should have more respect for fellow indie game developers, regardless of their opinions

Why does it always come back to this?  It makes it completely impossible for us to get anything done around here.  Why should we have to respect an unfounded opinion that completely contradicts the way we feel.  That's downright offensive.

so yeah, i don't see much difference between that wall of text anarkex wrote and "I thought this was stupid and I laughed at it" type posts,

WALL OF TEXT

TL;DR

HEY ANARKEX IF YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING IMPORTANT YOU PROBABLY SHOULDVE JUST POSTED A FUNNY PICTURE BECAUSE THATS WHAT WE WANT OH WAIT ITS NOT BUT NOW IT IS AND NOW ITS NOT AND YOU CAN NEVER WIN JUST GIVE UP WE RUN THIS FORUM HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[increpare]

Anarkex, you understand that taking dogmatic assertions that you feel are unreasonable and opposing them with dogmatic assertions of your own is, while not necessarily an invalid argumentative tactic, not particularly healthy for discussion forums.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

actually i'd expect people would get a lot more done through mutual respect than through mutual hatred -- even members of the US senate of opposite parties, although they are different parties and have very different viewpoints, still show great respect for another. you don't really see a republican senator calling a democratic senator (or vice versa) things as bad as you guys have been calling ToT (but that's probably in part because they don't hide behind fake internet names on forums).

of course, ToT have been guilty of this as well as the people here, they've called people names and treated others with disrespect sometimes too, saying things like (paraphrased) 'nerds aren't creative, programming destroys creativity, the reason games are so bad is because they're made by nerds' and so on (which has truth to it but was still expressed aggressively). but they seem to be getting better at that in recent years.

so what i'm basically saying is, making fun of people isn't conductive of convincing them that they're wrong. usually making fun of people is a way to convince yourself that you are right.

[AshfordPride]

Dogmas dogmating dogmas

Anarkex is a despicable angry baby that wants video games to remain in their awkward, pimply-faced teenage phase.  You'll have to excuse him, he's rather slow in the mind.

He should've taken a more level headed approach to this.  Anarkex, why are you so staunchly apposed to a few handful of video games being unplayable shit that are heralded by their creators as the only worthwhile video games to have ever been created?  Can't you cut these people a tiny iota of slack?  Sure, they may be the most despicable dregs of the indie game community, but that doesn't mean you have to sink to their level by disagreeing with them!

Oh my Heavens, Anarkex!  Truly, it's a sad day when you must take such an unwavering, naziotistical, Hitlertesticle approach to our beloved electronic vidcons.

[Anarkex]

It's ABSURD, Paul. That's why I'm laughing and joking about it. I bothered to pick apart stuff like that dumb zen platitude about goals because that's seriously all they have to support their claims. Just big flashy words masquerading as a deep knowledge of the unexplainable. I know this because when I first started looking at the indie games community I used to THINK dumb shit like this. I'm making a joke about it because I've been there, and this way of thinking doesn't have anything supporting it at all.

But no, it wasn't about whether he meant DISCOVER or ESTABLISH or ACCOMPLISH or whatever. The WHOLE THING was absurd, down to the very concept. I don't LOSE a goal when I achieve it! Goals are only IDEAS, they're "things we plan to do". So holy shit, when I do something, I lose the plan to do it. THAT'S DEEP.
AND WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH GAMES AND ART, EVEN?

i think in general we should have more respect for fellow indie game developers, regardless of their opinions, and quit acting like fundamentalists when we see things we don't agree with

Paul, what these particular indie game developers are saying runs against basically everything I believe and value in video games. I go through great pains to support my opinions and to eradicate contradictions in them, even if it means I have to accept that my first impression was wrong. So I DON'T have to respect opinions that are cobbled together out of nothing and outright insult all the conclusions I've made. I mean, seriously.

'nerds aren't creative, programming destroys creativity, the reason games are so bad is because they're made by nerds'

Shit like this is flat-out idiotic and insulting. Video games are the only field in which knowing MORE and caring MORE about them brands you a NERD who is dooming the "medium" to forever be nothing but MALE POWER FANTASIES (lol). We should all be retard casuals so games never get more interesting than Game Maker platformers.

so what i'm basically saying is, making fun of people isn't conductive of convincing them that they're wrong.

I'm not trying to convince them they're wrong. I'm trying to show OTHER PEOPLE that they are wrong. Really it's amazing that I have to do this, because as I've said, they're only making baseless claims and insulting everyone with their glorious battle-cries that violate semantics and reality in one fell swoop.

Also, what Ashford said.

[Gnarf]

Usually, making fun of people is fun. ToT or whoever may remain convinced that games are not games are not art are notgames are art. Still fun.

Perhaps these are species that are naturally aggressive as well as smart enough to realize that playful competition benefits their survival. To achieve that purpose, competition obviously needs to be fair. So they make up rules. And games are born.

One hundred percent absurd pseudoscientific bullshit. "playful competition benefits their survival", though we're reluctant to explain how or why. NOT engaging in playful competition doesn't seem to put less aggressive and less intelligent creatures at a disadvantage.

What? Random moment in random Attenborough thing and it's like blablah playful competition, seems just funny and funky, but this actually prepares them for blablah taking down prey.

The "smart enough" thing is silly nonsense.

[Dustin Smith]

I don't care for ToT's games or their M.O., but they totally should keep making games. The last thing we need in this medium is ignorant dogmatism and (figuratively speaking) incest. 

[Christian Knudsen]

Yep, people/studios making new and different stuff should always be welcomed. What can -- to me -- seem a bit annoying with Tale of Tales is that they seem to believe that just because their stuff is different it's automatically better...

[cactus]

I think it's good that people like Tale of Tales exist, but this is the most ridiculous thing I've read.

We are not rebels. What we make is perfectly logical to us. We are not reacting against games. We just don't find them entertaining enough, not beautiful enough, not interesting enough, not immersive enough. We realize that this is a matter of taste. But we believe that many people share our taste. So we make games for them.

How can they start with this, then explain that they make games as a reaction against everything they dislike about games? How can they then use pictures of war with stupid captions like "You cannot stop us. No longer will you program computers to tell us what to do." and claim that they're not trying to be rebellious?

I think that they have a noble idea, trying to expand games into something more interesting and less weighed down by arbitrary rules, but they don't have any actual work to back that up. None of their games or projects are interesting enough to stand on their own without some pretentious explanation that takes the pointlessness of it all and turns that into something "deep". And they are all games with rules, no less.

This presentation is the most pretentious, self-indulgent and hostile one I've ever seen. I have nothing against Tale of Tales for trying to do something different, but giving yourself acclaim over systematic failure to do something new with games is just bullshit. If they want people to make "not games" or explore what can be done with interactive experiences then why not be a bit humble and try to create interest in that movement by saying something more constructive than "you and your games suck, look at us and our beautiful creations and you'll see how it's done!".

I was really interested in the whole idea of "not games" since I saw Erik Svedäng's presentation at No More Sweden, but this has left me with a bad taste in my mouth that I won't be able to wash away for quite a while.

[jwaap]

I agree. I was just wondering if what they say is just to provoke and get attention, or if they really mean it...

I think it's time to rise the price of the gutter again.

[ExciteMike]

When reading something like this, mentally insert phrases like "this is just my opinion" and "but of course there are obvious exceptions".

Makes it much harder to get needlessly upset at something that was clearly personal opinion and has obvious exceptions.

[Dustin Smith]

ToT's games are all machinima that require you to hold down the forward key for them to work; I think Dessgeega said that they're games that don't require a player, or something to that extent. Their rhetoric -- which is inflammatory and vitriolic towards anything that isn't theirs -- is pretty daft. Nonetheless, there's got to people somewhere out there that enjoy it, and that's enough for me.

If one person gets inspired by them to make another game in the vein of LSD, Windowsill/Feed the Head, etc their whole series of 'games' is worth it. I don't intend on paying them money or supporting them, though. If they just shut up and made games there wouldn't be any problem.

[Jo-o]

We are not rebels.


 

that's as far as I could read.
hilarious material they got there!

[cactus]

What's the most annoying thing for me is that I thought the idea of "not games" was interesting, and I had hopes it would lead to something great, but if this is how they promote the idea then

Why can't someone take a radical stand and do it with style so that something new and cool actually happens instead of taking this stupid approach? Sure, be an asshole, that's probably necessary, but a self-glorifying presentation that says that it's them against us just doesn't seem to have any purpose other than to upset people.

So it doesn't help to insert "this is just my opinion" anywhere since they're representing something that might actually be important, and somehow seem to feel that the need to boost their own egos is greater than that of bringing (good) attention to their ideals.

ToT's games are all machinima that require you to hold down the forward key for them to work; I think Dessgeega said that they're games that don't require a player, or something to that extent. Their rhetoric -- which is inflammatory and vitrolic towards anything that isn't theirs -- is pretty daft. Nonetheless, there's got to people somewhere out there that enjoy it, and that's enough for me.

If one person gets inspired by them to make another game in the vein of LSD, Windowsill/Feed the Head, etc their whole series of 'games' is worth it. I don't intend on paying them money or supporting them, though. If they just shup up and made games there wouldn't be any problem.

If they took a better approach to the subject, they would inspire more people to create things like that. They don't mention a single game that isn't theirs that they like and the only thing that presentation does is telling people that they rule and then say that other people should be like them. I doubt they'll inspire anything other than idiots who will make shallow shells of games that are "meaningful" because of some stupid excuse they've thought up to justify all the flaws in their creations.

[Jonas Kyratzes]

I found that entire presentation to be both silly and destructive; it's like they're desperately trying to take the art out of games. It did motivate me to write a detailed reponse, though, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

[Alistair Aitcheson]

We are not reacting against games.

And then they go on to explain how all of their games have taken out traditional elements of video games, and then to explain why videogames are unsatisfying and something needs to be done about them. Oh wait. "Video games are not games." Now I get it...

The fact is, there's nothing wrong with being dissatisfied about a product or a medium and wanting to redesign it with all the unecessary elements pulled out. Take out the axioms that we feel damage the experience, in hope that we will create something better. But that's not exactly news. We all do it! Every single creative does it!

They seem to be expressing an idea that the whole medium is a disappointment, and that makes me wonder what exactly they expected from it. After all, a medium is just a way of categorising a product, not a product in itself. How can you feel let down because a medium did not make its promises? A medium is an inanimate object, and it's not even tangible!

Again, this is not a new idea, this is not profound, every creative person does this. So you feel there is more that could be done with a medium, but how does that mean that the medium is at fault? Are people stupid for enjoying that medium?

Ultimately, their ideas are not nearly as profound as they think they are. The only thing that I feel offended by in this lecture is that it implies that people are stupid for enjoying videogames. And also that the people who make videogames are stupid for making them in the first place.

I agree with them about wanting to create something different in reaction to perceived shortcomings. But that's not a profound idea, and I am not a fool because I enjoy games or make games with game overs.

[Anarkex]

Yep, people/studios making new and different stuff should always be welcomed. What can -- to me -- seem a bit annoying with Tale of Tales is that they seem to believe that just because their stuff is different it's automatically better...

Sort of. I'm not trying to STOP ToT from making the games they want to. Indeed, I think it's hilarious. But when they're parading said trashy games around as the only true art that exists in modern culture, I need to step in. As idiotic as it sounds, someone might believe them.

Why can't someone take a radical stand and do it with style so that something new and cool actually happens instead of taking this stupid approach?

Cactus, I'd like to know what you find so intriguing about the idea of "notgames". Don't think of this as confrontational or anything. The way I see it ToT is just praising game design with emphasis on aesthetics (and not just any aesthetics, obviously [I'm sure they hate Bioshock] it's emphasis on pretentious, artsy aesthetics they like) and disregard for mechanical complexity, because as I said, they are still making games whether they want to call it that or not. If I'm mistaken and it really runs deeper than that, I want to get to the bottom of it, and your input can help me do that.


Oh yeah, and alistairaitcheson, you're very right. The only thing you're screwing up is calling games a "medium", which they are not. This isn't just arguing semantics, I think this is crucial in many of the misconceptions about video games today. Video games are simulations, not media. They can contain media, but they are not media. They don't "communicate" anything except by way of the media they contain. Video games essentially just simulate a possibility space and let the player do whatever he wants in it according to the rule set.