next »

[Derek]

By the way, sorry for continuing this.

But I don't disagree with very much of your last post. Mostly clarifications.

[moi]

I think DavidCaruso is heading for a triumphant victory, despite an honorable attempt by Derek, Caruso's post was at least 20 cms longer on my monitor. And he looks like he can keep going like that for miles. Gimmy and other contenders have been distanced several pages ago.

[moi]

Also, there is no flaw in arcade games.
Arcade games are the perfect industry.
It used real time optimization of the release process, 30 years before MMOs.
The infinite continue is not a flaw, it's the perfect option.
Nothing forces you to use it if you consider yourself a pro player, and you can just drop coins if you only want to enjoy the ride. Everybody wins.

[DavidCaruso]

I think DavidCaruso is heading for a triumphant victory, despite an honorable attempt by Derek, Caruso's post was at least 20 cms longer on my monitor. And he looks like he can keep going like that for miles. Gimmy and other contenders have been distanced several pages ago.

That's not the only thing I have that's 20cm longer than theirs!

[DavidCaruso]

I might make a proper post in a bit (EDIT: actually I probably won't), I just felt that would lose its impact when placed at the end of a long textquotewall.

[gimymblert]

btw My main grip with caruso is the delusional opposition he made between his stuff and other stuff (which originally stems from critics and art market not artist, market rely on trends). Except it does not exist. For exemple without modernist we wouldn't have the deep color and shape theory, knowing the seven contrast and that there is only 3 colors is better than putting random colors and memorizing which pair work together through trial and error, now we can reason and create new effect such as equiluminance and how they effect perception of an art. Funnily most neo classicist are using all those discovery that allow them to understand the work of great old artist, yet they reject the revolution who made them better.

A good analogy is to see design as a game, It's cool to perfect the same level again and again, but it's cooler to tackle a challenge you have not succeed yet "hence artgame". We are thinking up strategy about how to solve that ultimate challenge, how glorious will be the aha moment? Artgame are like the modernist, they are trying to find the basics that are effective (the effectiveness of progression alone in passage, the effect of behavior alone in the marriage).

Why not take the challenge? Why not seek the hardest goal?

Talent is delusional when all you do is the same thing. I mean it's like totally owning the level 1 and sucking at level 2.

[DavidCaruso]

god damn and I was done with this thread too

btw My main grip with caruso is the delusional opposition he made between his stuff and other stuff (which originally stems from critics and art market not artist, market rely on trends).

Why do you think I've been going on about criticism and taste this entire thread?

For exemple without modernist we wouldn't have the deep color and shape theory, knowing the seven contrast and that there is only 3 colors is better than putting random colors and memorizing which pair work together through trial and error, now we can reason and create new effect such as equiluminance and how they effect perception of an art.

Color and shape theory were around in written form as far back as the Renaissance, and even if you're going to argue it wasn't "deep" enough most of the depth was added by people like Newton, Goethe, Schopenhauer, and Runge (including the color wheel, primary/complementary colors, saturation, contrast, harmony, unity, etc.), not "modernist" painters. The best artists have always understood basic principles on some level anyway, which is exactly why they were able to create great paintings instead of bad ones (and also because many of them were taught by great artists, whose work had become the model.)

Funnily most neo classicist are using all those discovery that allow them to understand the work of great old artist, yet they reject the revolution who made them better.

lol yeah, the neoclassicists needed the "modernists" to understand the work of great old artists, yet all of the other artists who came after the Renaissance and before Impressionism (that's like a 200 year gap)...were able to do perfectly fine without them?

Artgame are like the modernist, they are trying to find the basics that are effective (the effectiveness of progression alone in passage, the effect of behavior alone in the marriage).

A game that's about the effectiveness of progression alone? Man, that's like a poem that's about the effectiveness of iambic pentameter alone, or a movie that's about the effectiveness of playing shots in sequence at 30 frames per second alone: pretty banal and useless. The basics have already long been found and realized, the point is to expand on them to create better works not to go back to them. There's a thousand times more valuable game design knowledge to be found in any great game taken at random than in all the current "artgames" combined (just like how the people I mentioned above who made the biggest contributions to color and shape theory in painting studied the old masters, and some even tried to imitate them.)

And they aren't even trying to "find basics that are effective" anyway lol, they're trying to make "artistic statements" or express "meaning" or be "personal" or whatever else.

Why not take the challenge? Why not seek the hardest goal?

Talent is delusional when all you do is the same thing. I mean it's like totally owning the level 1 and sucking at level 2.

One setence ago, you were saying how "artgames" are just trying to find and illustrate "basics," and now you're saying they're trying to take games to a whole new level and they're trying to "seek the hardest goal." Which one is it? Being basic is a far easier goal than integrating and expanding on all of the basic concepts within a full-fledged coherent work in order to create even something greater.

And we haven't even reached the peak of "level 1" yet, how the hell are we supposed to just skip over it to the next one (whatever that even means)? And no, talent isn't "delusional" if you're "doing the same thing." (Actually maybe I could accept it is for just a bit, because then I could say that individual "modernist" painters are about a thousand times more delusional than individual "realist" ones.)

[gimymblert]

1. Tricks is not science
While they had some deep science it was not complete, modernist complete it further. True that scientist made some discoveries, but I was making a shortcut, modernist did find how to translate those discoveries in artistic tools that goes way beyond the simple physicality (see Johann ittens seminal book). Also a lot of artist back then were mere imitator, the more you know about the art the more you see discrepancy, the good artist were good because they had good intuition, some of them (leonardo da vichy) was intelligent enough to write about what they do, but they still miss some aspect, it was not until modern day that the mystery of mona lisa (which is a simple and straight portrait) was uncover, simply because we didn't know the effect leonardo stumble upon (and since he write about what he does, we know he had no clue, either), This effect have been abuse in some abstract work who explore its practicability and then now is a standard hi level techniques (image frequency dissonance) whose origin is "lost" to most people.

2. Finding the unknown basic is far more difficult than iterating on known basics.
Especially when you deal with art. Cinema didn't found straight way how to work with editing, we had melies then we had griffith, Eisenstein and ultimately orson welles to mature the art. Yep cinema could still rely on literature, theater and photography, it could have stay at melies stage (the invention of cut and proto editing) since it's was enough to separate cinema from other art. Basically we are still in melies stage. Once cinema found his langage he could birth a big legacy that encompass music clip, documentary, tv, ads, etc...
We still have poor interaction language.

I also feel like You are calling my credibility. So i will play my artist card

Here is just a morning doodle I did once:
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/9465/n7217074791816717740206.jpg

Obviously I'm a child of that classicist style and I had study and practice most of their tricks, I'm not a great artist, but I have first hand knowledge doing their stuff and not just reading it somewhere. But as a grew up and skills I start to see how much a delusion it was, especially the use of "the solemn trick". Actually I drop drawing a few years ago because of the solemn tricks, it was so much ingrain in my practice that I could barely get rid of it despite entirely changing the art style. It's totally a dead end and it flatten the emotion of your artwork greatly, the superficial mannerism of this style is a bad thing that cripple creativity. I wish I never learn it and need restarting doing the basics, but now I need to unlearn that crap entirely which is a pain. Modernist had brought the knowledge who allow us to free us from that, it does it into an inclusive way that encompass all the dimension of image and creativity (and unify ALL art around the world, western art is not the sole art). Of course It means you must value creativity above all, which I did and might be the sole difference between us.

[mirosurabu]

Topics video games deal with:
stealth, platforming, exploration, combat, survival, construction, economy, grand strategy, racing and sports

Whenever they try to deal with any other sort of topic [on average] they end up looking retarded, whether they are AAA game or an art game. The difference is that one is more focused than another.

[s0]

Topics video games deal with:
stealth, platforming, exploration, combat, survival, construction, economy, grand strategy, racing and sports

there are some good horror games.

[mirosurabu]

I thought of them too, but they are combat and survival for the most part.

[moi]

Tales of tales, phil Fish, johnoton Blow,
I hate these people just from the threads they inspire on TIGS
I don't even know their games.

[gimymblert]

Hooror game seems like the only genre that directly deal with "emotion" in video games, except now those are all action games or puzzle stopper

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Tales of tales, phil Fish, johnoton Blow,
I hate these people just from the threads they inspire on TIGS
I don't even know their games.

what about rohrer

[moi]

[Dragonmaw]

Just because I don't wanna do a point-by-point while at work:

The one credit rule is not so much the main focus of the design as an addendum. Arcade games are indeed designed to eat the player's quarters; it's how arcade game creators (and operators) make money. People that are bad enough at the game that they will feed quarters will almost always be the majority, as arcade games are designed this way. They are designed specifically to be frustratingly, ball-bustingly hard to the average person.

The 1CC rule, most common in shmups, is more of an addendum put in place to please those gamers that are, indeed, good enough to play the entire game without forcing a continue. It's not so much that these sorts of games are designed with the hardcore masochist in mind (some - like ketsui - are, but others like DoDonPachi or Metal Slug are not) but that they are designed with the casual player both in mind and not. They are intended to be the antithesis to your average, middling skill player that can get to stage 2 or 3 before having to continue. They are also designed to keep the player hooked, either with interesting mechanics or stunning visuals or both. As the hardcore gamer that memorizes this shit falls into this "antithesis" zone, the game feels like it was designed for them.

It's the "this bowl was made for me, because I fit in it" logical fallacy. You fit in the bowl (hardcore 1CC arcade gaming) not because it was made just for you, but because you adapted yourself to it.

Just a bit of arcade philosophy, I suppose. Been thinking a lot about this stuff lately, since the indie arcade thing I proposed was first mentioned around this time last year.

[DavidCaruso]

Arcade games are indeed designed to eat the player's quarters; it's how arcade game creators (and operators) make money.

Of course. But they're not solely meant to rip the players off (just like they're not solely meant to make the players happy either) -- their success comes from a balance, between pleasing the players and pleasing the arcade operators. Arcade operators want to make the maximum amount of money possible, so what they would ideally want, if the players would accept it, would be unfair games that are impossible to beat. But that's not how it works in reality: players want to beat the game, and they won't and don't tolerate games that they think are cheating them; they just stop playing, because unlike with $60 console games they don't feel as much obligation to play further if they don't like the game. The only commitment needed is a single quarter, The combination of these pressures results in games that are both hard and fair. This also links up with aesthetics -- if the player is going to be seeing the same stages time and time again, then they'd damn better look and sound great, which is why arcade games are where you can find some of the best 2D pixel art and game OSTs ever.

This is especially true in today's market, where the people who play new arcade games are almost always the "hardcore" gamers who have at least some degree of expertise in the games' genres and aim for a 1CC, which is why some of the best games ever made in those genres are still being released. In the 90s you could occasionally spit out a shitty credit feeder like Narc or X-Men (US localized edition only, which removed all powerups/health recovery items and changed the behavior of the special move, essentially making the game imbalanced enough so that you practically had to continue) and still make money, but that wouldn't work today. Though actually most of those were Western too; I can't find anything about Narc sales figures in Japan but I'd be seriously surprised if it did as well as in the US.

People that are bad enough at the game that they will feed quarters will almost always be the majority, as arcade games are designed this way. They are designed specifically to be frustratingly, ball-bustingly hard to the average person.

As I mentioned before, from what I've heard not many people do this in the East, where the best of all these games come from. What do you think of this?

And like I also said before, a player who perfects Metal Slug over the course of 100 quarters or more will be giving the arcade operators far more money than a dude who just feeds to the end with 20 credits a few times.

The 1CC rule, most common in shmups, is more of an addendum put in place to please those gamers that are, indeed, good enough to play the entire game without forcing a continue.

Not just common in shooters, this is something that can be applied to most Japanese arcade games. Or, hell, most action games that last less than an hour, even on consoles (though there are some exceptions to that general time limit, like Gradius V lol.) Obviously you wouldn't want to apply it to a ten hour game like God Hand though. (Well actually, some people do and have, but I'm not nearly that insane/awesome and I don't know if I even want to be =P) 1CCing was there from the start after all, it was only later on that continues came in.

It's the "this bowl was made for me, because I fit in it" logical fallacy. You fit in the bowl (hardcore 1CC arcade gaming) not because it was made just for you, but because you adapted yourself to it.

I already mentioned the tons of evidence before that the games are actually designed to be primarily beaten on one credit. That doesn't mean that people have to play them that way if they don't want to, some people enjoy them the most when they first beat it with like 20 credits and then get the total down over time, but generally I find they're most fun that way when you're facing the unknown and you gradually improve over time (I feel like if I did it otherwise I'd only be having fun at the end when I finally beat the game, instead of throughout the entire process), and I also don't think that people who credit fed to the end in 30 minutes and just saw all the pretty graphics are qualified to talk about how the game plays or write a review of it.

[moi]

arcade games are the best optimization of ressources.
Back in the time, arcade parlors where surveyed in real time by operators and board manufacturers and the less rentable games were sent back or modified.
As caruso said , if the games had just been there to eat coins (some arcade games were indeed like that) they wouldn't make much money.
They are the perfect balance between entertainement and rentable business.
that's why most arcvade games of the golden era had such gorgeous graphics and stuff. They did offer rewards for all types of players.

Also, back in the time people didn't need ten levels long tutorials to pick up a game, unlike today's masses, maybe a side effect of chernobyl radiations? Who knows?

[Dragonmaw]

I concur that most arcade developers now definitely focus their games on the hardcore audience in mind, although it's not really a good thing from a business perspective. The few arcade operators I know say that such games are annoyingly non-lucrative, and must be borne upon the backs of other, profitable, credit-feeder sorts of games.

But the point was more that arcade games have in the past been designed primarily to: a.) appeal to the casual gamer (glance at it, looks pretty, easy to pick up and play without too mcuh difficulty) and b.) eat their credits by ramping up the difficulty quickly or introducing elements that are obtuse or otherwise unusual.

A good thing to note is that, in your example and on a one-to-one basis, the person that spends 200 credits at once is better for the operator than someone who plays the game to completion with 20 credits. The problem is that those people who feed 200 credits over time are in the far minority and eat up a disproportionate amount of time on the box. It drives away more casual customers, which are the major base of consumers for the arcade market.

I did a lot of market research when looking up plans for my indie arcade, and the thing that I heard from experienced operators were that classic hardcore games, while fun, are not viable because they do not rake in consistent amounts of money. Games with short turnovers and guaranteed credit feeds - like DDR, Pop'N, racing games, etc - are far more lucrative as more players use them.

I really love arcade games, and I really love hardcore games. But all the research I did pointed to hardcore arcade gamers contributing to the downfall of the pure arcade.

[gimymblert]

That's great discussion about arcade here