next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

The distinction people are trying to make in the thread, I think, is between gimmick and innovation. In your example a cup holder that only holds one type of cup is a gimmick, since it's there solely for people to go HOLY SHIT A CUP HOLDER. By contrast, the cup holder which holds all standard sizes is an innovation, as it fully "explores" (allows all cups to be used) the gimmick.

Likewise, compare limb dismemberment in gaming. In Call of Duty: World at War, it is solely a gimmick: a pretty, but ultimately valueless to the gameplay, feature. It looks good but offers nothing of real worth. Then look at Dead Space, which incorporates limb dismemberment as a core gameplay mechanic (you can, and must, dismember enemies in order to survive). The first is a gimmick, the second is innovation.

yeah but that distinction is wrong, is what i'm saying. why does it *cease* being a gimmick when it's fully explored? the definition of gimmick is an innovation in a product, often used to make it stand apart from other products. that isn't any *less* true if the innovation is well-explored than if it's shallow, it's still a gimmick either way. it's just that it's a stupid gimmick if it's shallow and a good gimmick if it isn't.

basically i see no support in any definition of gimmick of the idea that if you use the gimmick well that it somehow doesn't become a gimmick anymore. gimmick is different from the adjective (gimmicky).

[s0]

Dead Milkmen used the term way before 4 chan was ever relevant

That's the exact song I thought about when writing that post.

See also "I Hate The Smiths" by Ween, which includes the line "I don't like your artfag name".  

I dunno about highschool, I didn't grow up in an English-speaking country.

[Seth]

Saying that games which can be described in a single sentence are gimmicky is just plain silly. You can describe any game in a single sentence. In fact, you usually SHOULD to get a clear grounding of what the game's core mechanics are. A game needs a singular, cohesive concept to stay together. You delve too far outside the concept, and your mechanics conflict with each other in a bad case of "game cognitive dissonance." Plenty of games have it, but mainstream games suffer the worst, as indies don't have the time or resources to feature creep into dissonance territory. A few DO have heavy feature creep, like Dwarf Fortress and any concept by Arne, but these are marked by their adherence to a core gameplay objective. They feature creep like mad, but it only skirts dissonance rather than courting it.

I don't think you can adequately sum up many games in a sentence or two.  Take Dungeon Crawl: Stone Soup, for example.  You could say "A game where you delve to the bottom of a dungeon, while growing stronger, in search of a treasure."  But it doesn't really portray what is unique about DCSS--it could be any game.  You could go, "A turn based, tile based, RPG where the goal is to acquire the Orb of Zot at the bottom of the dungeon", and though you'd be specific, you're not really getting across what's unique about DCSS.  That's because there is no main gimmick to DCSS, the game mechanics are not so flashy as "A platformer FPS where you use portals to launch yourself and other objects to solve puzzles."  I guess I should instead say that gimmick based games are to me any game that shouts "look at this crazy game mechanic you've never seen before," like Portal or Braid or VVVVVV or Fez.  Non gimmick centric games are games like Dwarf Fortress, Everyday the Same Dream, or Cave Story, where the main pull isn't a prominent and unique gameplay mechanic but the setting, ambiance, characters, or a combination of less flashy mechanics.  I'm not saying gimmicks are inherently a bad thing, and I don't think just because a gimmick is explored thoroughly doesn't mean it's not a gimmick, just that's it's one of the better gimmicks.

[Blademasterbobo]

In the end, though, none of you are arguing about anything interesting, and are instead talking about how you define a particular word.

See: Semantics

Quit derailing the thread to talk about stupid things !  ! Although I guess icycalm is also a stupid thing.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

DCSS for me could be summarized as:

"a roguelike with auto-explore"

roguelike basically summarizes most of what it is, and its distinguishing feature from other roguelikes is that it has auto-explore (a gimmick)

[Blademasterbobo]

oh my bad you're arguing about the perfect sentence to describe dcss now
that's much more interesting
 

[ella guro]

I've tried several times to wade through icycalm's prose in an effort to debunk the points he's actually making, but I never make it very far. I'm sometimes even close to agreeing with a thing he says (I agree with what Rohrer is quoted saying in the first post, for example), except his writing is utterly saturated with self-satisfaction. Not to mention that every literary/critical connection or reference he makes (which I think he partly does as an "I know more than you" tactic to avoid more people who are not familiar with the things he namechecks calling bullshit on him) is so vague and tenuous that the only methods he has of stringing it all together and making it seem coherent and not like the ravings of a crazy person is pure bile.

He is clearly a straight up narcissist. There's nothing substantial I can gain from his writing other than that. That pure self-hatred disguised as complete and utter self-confidence probably makes him appealing to a lot of people. And I mean, it must be easy for someone like that to have a forum devoted to you where everyone who doesn't espouse some form of your views is immediately banned. I doubt he can even handle anything else.

I would still like to go back and debunk some of his stuff. Maybe I'll be able to in the future.

[bento_smile]

It's probably quite pointless to debunk really, as his main point of satisfaction seems to be using intelligence as a weapon, rather than anything, well, useful/creative. (I don't think it would be possible to debunk him, as he could simply invent something to contradict any reasonable argument.)

Ahaha, I assumed he was some kid from the amount he talks about Nietzsche.

[ella guro]

It's probably quite pointless to debunk really, as his main point of satisfaction seems to be using intelligence as a weapon, rather than anything, well, useful/creative. (I don't think it would be possible to debunk him, as he could simply invent something to contradict any reasonable argument.)

Ahaha, I assumed he was some kid from the amount he talks about Nietzsche.

It would be more of something showing to other people that "see, just because he quotes Nietzsche doesn't mean he has any idea what he's talking about" rather than like, trying to engage him in any way. At the very least I think he touches upon some subjects which are relevant. He has a sense of art games taking themselves too seriously and not being able to really grasp the details and implicit designs that made older games like Doom work. But his tactics make whatever he's saying pretty worthless. So you're right, it's probably not worth it.

Also (as an aside), Tom Hall should get a lot more credit for the design of Wolf 3d/Doom than anyone gives him.

[Dragonmaw]

For a good reason for why his forum (and him) are complete idiots, I present to you this thread:

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?t=3367

And this quote:

To reduce the impact of fluke success, limited lives would be a definite improvement. Or limited time per world. Then you'd be rewarded and scored on your performance in the world as a whole, making a requirement for a consistent chain of successes.

This is the dumbest thing I've read all day, and I participated in the troll IGF thread.

[Taylor]

Icycalm vs. Jason Rohrer.

Whoever wins. We lose.

[moi]

Okay time to spill the beans : I am Icycalm.
I can't go on with that secret identity, you're all fagots by the way

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

[http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?t=2792]

here's a pic of icycalm i found; scary lookin'

but can we get back to his actual ideas and not his style or personality; i know it's overpowering but still

for instance, when he said that videogames are just a break from the real concern of life, which is war, what exactly do you think he means by that? real war, as in world war 2? or symbolic war, as in the war against art game people? or war in some other sense?

isn't it contradictory with nietzsche's view of war: "Against war it may be said that it makes the victor stupid and the vanquished revengeful" ?

[TeeGee]

Don't you really have anything better to do?

[s0]

He looks like Andre Agassi.

Also, isn't he a bit old to constantly use schoolyard-level insults in his writing? Ah well...

[cactus]

Amazing thread

[s0]

[Fallsburg]

Wow, I always knew Cactus was awesome, I just didn't know in how many dimensions he was awesome.

[Dustin Smith]

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Don't you really have anything better to do?

different people relax in different ways: some people relax by playing halo and shooting each other for instance, others relax by walks in the park. i relax by writing. forums are a good outlet for writing (along with livejournal, etc.).

@cactus - so you really do think he's a troll? maybe i'm just using troll in a different way than others. to me, a troll is someone who says something to annoy others, but doesn't actually believe what he is saying. icycalm clearly does believe what he's saying. is there another use of troll that others are using when they call him a troll? i don't believe he's not a troll because he quotes nietzshe, i believe he's not a troll because i've never seen evidence that he doesn't truly believe what he says.

as an aside, icycalm has said a few things about cactus, too. there's a thread where he discusses how he likes how honest cactus is, because cactus doesn't claim his games are good, or even games, and icycalm has said that he wishes all indie bums were as honest as cactus is in what they are doing.

i have the feeling that icycalm's main problem with people who make experimental games is only that they claim that they are worth as much as games like doom or grand theft auto 3. if we instead said that what we make aren't really games, just experiments, maybe he'd have no problem with the type of experimentation we do.