next »

[GregWS]

To synthesize the last two posts (as I generally agree with them):

When creating a game, start with either:
a) a theme, for a game that is art because of it's message
b) an idea, for a game that is art because of it's gameplay/visuals

An example of a) is "Space Fuck!" because of its strong theme of non-violence.
An example of b) is "Rez" because the game simply exists to explore the idea of synesthesia.  I would call it the first synesthesia simulator (being the first, it is of course still quite primitive).

[agj]

So, what do you think of "Space Fuck!"?  What does it do well, what should change?

Played it, and I think that it is way too telegraphed. I wasn't very surprised, and the fact that whatever you do does not affect the outcome takes a lot of substance out of it. For instance, the first time around I didn't destroy any buildings and barely killed any people, yet, afterwards, all the buildings were destroyed. The text lacked subtlety to make the cycle surprising, too; there was not a good enough motive to go and kill everyone in the other planet (so I didn't). For all of these reasons, the message was barely there for me; but as an experiment made in 4 hours, I can't complain about its existence at all. I'd like it if Cactus made games that tackled ethical issues more often!

[GregWS]

So, what do you think of "Space Fuck!"?  What does it do well, what should change?

Played it, and I think that it is way too telegraphed. I wasn't very surprised, and the fact that whatever you do does not affect the outcome takes a lot of substance out of it. For instance, the first time around I didn't destroy any buildings and barely killed any people, yet, afterwards, all the buildings were destroyed. The text lacked subtlety to make the cycle surprising, too; there was not a good enough motive to go and kill everyone in the other planet (so I didn't). For all of these reasons, the message was barely there for me; but as an experiment made in 4 hours, I can't complain about its existence at all. I'd like it if Cactus made games that tackled ethical issues more often!

Well, the fact that the outcome doesn't change was an intentional (and I think very pessimistic) design decision.  If you read down the thread, Cactus explicitly states that he thinks that even if you are good, someone else in the universe will go and be violent anyway.  I completely disagree with that personally, but, well, it isn't my game.

That said, I still can't believe he created this in 4 hours.

[Alevice]

Anyone played Illegal Communication for that matter. In terms of "story", I believe it is one of its best so far. The goddamn boss, I feel like shit doing that to him. Also, God came to the cave is one of his most touching works, IMO.

[Brother Android]

Anyone played Illegal Communication for that matter. In terms of "story", I believe it is one of its best so far. The goddamn boss, I feel like shit doing that to him. Also, God came to the cave is one of his most touching works, IMO.

I agree on both counts; those are two of my favorite games of his.

...it feels like I say that about pretty much all of his games. But yeah... as for "Space Fuck!" (am I crazy, or is it actually supposed to be "Fuck Space!"?) I don't see how you can disagree with the point of it... I mean, one person can't stop all the violence in the universe. One only has control over one's own actions - that is part of the beauty and of the terror of life. There will always be evil, violent, prejudiced, [insert negative quality here] people in the world... to say that may seem like pessimism, but I'd say to deny it is optimism to the point of foolishness.

[GregWS]

There is another Cactus game called Fuck Space; he just switched the words around for this one.

Oh, I'd agree that denying it is optimism too, which I why I have no complaints about the ending he chose.  But realistically, every drop in the bucket does count.  For every person that does play it non-violently, they've ended one vicious cycle, and there are only so many vicious cycles in the universe.  If people start to consciously try not to start new ones, and to end the ones that have been started, then I think we'd start to make some true progress (not simply technological) as a species.  And I think this is neither optimistic nor pessimistic.

[Brother Android]

Oh, I'd agree that denying it is optimism too, which I why I have no complaints about the ending he chose.  But realistically, every drop in the bucket does count.  For every person that does play it non-violently, they've ended one vicious cycle, and there are only so many vicious cycles in the universe.  If people start to consciously try not to start new ones, and to end the ones that have been started, then I think we'd start to make some true progress (not simply technological) as a species.  And I think this is neither optimistic nor pessimistic.

I agree that individuals should strive for that in their own lives, but that's all they can do. Everyone has to in order for "world peace" or whatever to be achieved - thus it sadly never will be.

[GregWS]

Thing is though, that if enough individuals do it, then eventually a tipping point will be reached and the masses will follow.  Humanity, though made up of individuals, rarely ends up acting like them, and although there are sub-cultures, there is always one large culture that the vast majority of people follow.

I'm not sure if it could be literally "everyone" (as there are always sub-cultures), but I do think it could get very close, close enough that those minorities are ignorable.  And since I see a huge difference between violence towards, and peaceful restraint of, an attacker, I think that troublesome minority could be dealt with in a humane manner if the majority was consciously peaceful.

[Brother Android]

I just don't think that there are enough intelligent, compassionate people in the world for that to ever happen. The violent, ignorant people procreate too, and fill their offspring's heads with... well, whatever. I guess I am just not a very optimistic guy.

[GregWS]

Well, I can certainly see where you're coming from.  And I won't deny that it does take some optimism, especially because the peace movement isn't exactly moving forward in large strides at this moment (eg. we don't have Jesus or Gandhi around actually succeeding in uniting people peacefully).  That said, I guess I'm just hoping that at some point in my life peace will become a big deal again, and the movement will start to move forward again, and maybe even far enough to reach that tipping point.

It's sort of ironic that I'm optimistic about all this, because I'm not an optimist in any other part of my life, and I find those supper-happy-naive people to be really, really annoying.

[Craig Stern]

Personally, I love the idea of designing a game around sticky moral dilemmas, though I agree that your actions should have tangible consequences to make the experience of playing it more compelling and meaningful to the player. (I do understand what cactus was getting at with Space Fuck, though.)

[Reiss]

i would argue that GunMute's reload [ENTER] forward [ENTER] (the ENTERS here being the enter key on your keyboard) mechanism controls pacing better than any movie in the western genre, ever.

it gives a sense of deliberation.  the action is not real-time (gunmute is interactive fiction), and so the player can calculate their move forever.  and once they hit enter, Mute performs the action.  the matrix tried to give their action scenes more deliberation by using bullet-time.  this is less forced, and gets old much less quickly.