next »

[Movius]

This article should serve as a warning to anyone considering making games for a living. Turn away now or you'll end up like him.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I'd be happy to end up like him! I already eat most of the same type of food he does (lentils, quinoa, etc.) so I have a head start!

[Corpus]

You know, sometimes all being weird means is that you're weird.

[Melly]

Cactus makes weird stuff. Does that mean he's weird? As well as awesome?

[Corpus]

Yeah, but he himself isn't that weird.

Rohrer seems to be the bog standard, hippy-esque don't-be-a-slave-to-the-Man sort of weird.

It's an interesting article, though, and what he's trying to do is good.

[Akhel]

I could imagine people trying to document the "indie experience", referring often to a mythical entity known only as "The Cactus".

 :D :D :D

[Cheater‽]

Cactus makes weird stuff. Does that mean he's weird? As well as awesome?

It's called Aweirdsome.

[joshg]

Almost effortlessly, Jason Rohrer turns video games into art.

That photo caption at the start of the article was too painful for me to continue.

[increpare]

Almost effortlessly, Jason Rohrer turns video games into art.

That photo caption at the start of the article was too painful for me to continue.

Yeah.  Viewing Rohrer as a sort of messiah figure is a bit off the mark (IMO).  That's what sort irked me about it.  The writing (as opposed to the very admirable man in question) is a little too sensationalist to sit comfortably with me.

[Corpus]

The whole article makes me very angry.

But I ranted about it extensively on IRC already so my will is expended now.

[DoctorAnus]

The writing is a little too sensationalist to sit comfortably with me.

I agree (this is ESQUIRE, mind you), but there is a feeling of dedication which, in combination with the rather extensive writing, I respect very much.

I remember Jason R mentioning ''the journalist'' in his presentation of Regret. Nice to think that this little game (one of his best sketchbooks in my opinion) was birthed under the eye of and with a little collaboration from someone of the outside.

As for the lifestyle, I do not think everyone should follow suit but I do think that one needs to be honest with oneself and extend his or her beliefs to the way they live. This won't come off as an epiphany to anyone, but Rohrer remains a model of that general principle. And as the very creation of this article attests, the man doesn't either come off as a sour hermit or selfish ''artiste'' type. Just a regular fellow with quirky traits. Like everyone.

[Corpus]

He doesn't come off as a selfish artiste type? He grows his grass intentionally long and refuses to do it in his back garden because then people wouldn't see it and he couldn't make a statement.

What isn't selfish or artistey about that?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Yeah.  Viewing Rohrer as a sort of messiah figure is a bit off the mark (IMO).  That's what sort irked me about it.  The writing (as opposed to the very admirable man in question) is a little too sensationalist to sit comfortably with me.

Viewing cactus as a deity (which is being done in this thread, when the article only mentioned his name) isn't much better. Not that I dislike cactus, I like him, it's just that there's far more deification of him than of Rohrer. I don't think even cactus appreciates this deification. I wouldn't. It's probably uncomfortable. Just like his games, don't worship him.

He doesn't come off as a selfish artiste type? He grows his grass intentionally long and refuses to do it in his back garden because then people wouldn't see it and he couldn't make a statement.

What isn't selfish or artistey about that?

I'm not sure I see how that's selfish. What did he gain from it? It's not like he got money out of it or something. That's a bit like calling gay pride selfish because they should hide it in their backyard. But sure, the article can be annoying at times, but don't blame Rohrer for lines like 'makes games into art effortlessly', I'm sure he didn't come up with them.

[brog]

This article should serve as a warning to anyone considering making games for a living. Turn away now or you'll end up like him.

What, you'll end up exactly where you want to be, living the lifestyle you choose to live, with EA asking you for help?  Oh no!

[increpare]

Viewing cactus as a deity (which is being done in this thread, when the article only mentioned his name) isn't much better. Not that I dislike cactus, I like him, it's just that there's far more deification of him than of Rohrer. I don't think even cactus appreciates this deification. I wouldn't. It's probably uncomfortable. Just like his games, don't worship him.

I don't think I do worship either him or his games, nor do I recall ever having said that I did.  I hope I haven't given that impression, it goes contrary to a lot of my nature. oh wait, that wasn't aimed at me was it?

I'm not sure I see how that's selfish. What did he gain from it? It's not like he got money out of it or something.

Yeah, corp, I agree with Rinku here. I think you misread the article

He grows his grass intentionally long and refuses to do it in his back garden because then people wouldn't see it and he couldn't make a statement.

Or at least I did.  He didn't say that he wanted to put it in his front garden to make a statement, he said he didn't want to put it in his back garden because why should he, it's his land <- something like that.

Or maybe I misread.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I didn't mean you in particular, I meant this thread. Most of the posts here are about cactus, when the article had almost nothing to do with cactus and just mentioned him by name.

But I agree that neither should be deified, and the Esquire writer was a bit too uncritical. But he's a mainstream journalist, what do you expect? It's foolish to blame Rohrer for that journalist's deification.

[increpare]

I didn't mean you in particular,

yep, I copped that and edited my post, but you beat me to it.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

My impression about the grass thing (although I didn't read that part too carefully) was that he just hated the smell of cut grass, and hated the idea of harming life (even life as simple as grass) and hated that his father forced him to harm grass every week. I think the court case was just standing up for his beliefs, and the appeal to free expression was just a convenient way to win the court case.

[Valter]

None of us worship Cactus. It's honestly just a joke on our part. Cactus makes good short games, but the style of his games is so innovative and different that we have to poke fun at him sometimes. It's sarcasm, while this Rohrer fellow seems to be taking things a bit too seriously.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I didn't mean worship cactus literally -- btw, if you really worshiped him, you'd know that his name is not to be spelled with a capital letter! -- but I don't really see why making innovative short games means you have to poke fun at him. And again, I'm not sure he appreciates it, because it just riles up and gives ammunition to all the cactus-haters like Kon-Tiki.

I think some things are worth taking seriously, too. Not everything in life is a joke. The things that Rohrer takes seriously -- elevating games into an art form, and being self-sustaining rather than consumerist, are both moderately serious issues. It's not like he's overly serious about World of Warcraft or something, like this guy. It's good to serious about stuff that matters, and not be serious about stuff that doesn't, rather than to always be serious or always not be serious.