next »

[Farbs]

I'm not convinced that TIGSource has a responsibility to anyone. It wasn't founded by the society for advancement of indie games and funded by our membership dues. It's built and maintained by a few people who feel like it. If it becomes something people don't like then people will leave. They may even start their own communities. That's okay.

[aschearer]

I'm not convinced that TIGSource has a responsibility to anyone. It wasn't founded by the society for advancement of indie games and funded by our membership dues. It's built and maintained by a few people who feel like it. If it becomes something people don't like then people will leave. They may even start their own communities. That's okay.

That's the rock star attitude and it effectively ignores that there are structural problems which make it difficult to impossible to simply "start a new community", not to mention the negative impact that would have on indie gaming in general.

It's possible for a sapling to grow to be a tall tree in the midst of a forest but it's not very likely. It's much easier for a sapling to grow to be a tall tree in a meadow. That is to say the environment impacts and shapes what is possible. TIG et al (being inclusive this counts all of the established rock stars, too) are tall trees. Whether they are duty bound to take any action or not largely is a matter of how you view power.

[JLJac]

Might be that there is some rock star mentality, but that's okay as long as everyone have the same possibility to become a rock star, right? There are very few of the rock stars who has that status for no reason.

If you create good stuff you'll propably become a rockstar too, some day.

Then of course there are the real big shots. For example, let's pick two games for comparison, spelunky and all of our friends are dead. The spelunky thread has 200+ posts, AOFD around 10. I certainly think that spelunky is more polished than AOFD, it has obviously more man-hours put into it and is propably made by a more experienced creator. But is it 20 times better? No, that's just Yu-power.

Still that rock star status is achieveable for everyone, I like to imagine.

[Derek]

I think the Spewer discussion was more the result of a "straw that broke the camel's back," to be honest, and not any specific comment.

Regarding TIGSource, I do take the responsibility very seriously.  Seriously enough that I try to think about more than just which creators get featured on the front page how many times!  Which seems to be the main arguing point, but if you were to ask me what I'm considering when I head off to make a post, it's not only about the creators, but the genres, platforms, graphics, audio, 2d or 3d, the story behind the development or how the game was released, interesting anecdotes, useful information for developers, socially-relevant issues, controversy, humor, how it relates to the "scene" and various trends, etc.  Not to make it sound like it's anywhere near a science, and I'll be the first to admit that it's still based on personal taste... but to say it's either "rockstars" or "nobodies" or that it has to or should be that way is a gross oversimplification and a misunderstanding of the kind of diverse topics we are dealing with here.

(Sadly, a lot of times time constraints force me to post something that I already know about in favor of something that I have to find out about.  I'm aware of this and I'm trying to improve that.  Having Xander, Brandon, Alehkhs, Paul, Ithamore, and other editors around really helps.)

If you want my opinion about "rockstars" in the community, I would say that they are important.  Not the attitude, per se (although interesting personalities are interesting, natch), but the idea of a "well-known game developer."  For one thing, it puts some real faces on the face of indie gaming... the community is so large that it helps to have familiar faces if you're at all interested in seeing indie gaming get noticed outside of the community itself.  I also think it's important within the community to have people to look up to who are not only experienced and talented, but successful, well-known, popular.  Secondly, I believe that it's crucial that we track the growth of developers beyond what it necessarily "great," or even "good," and into what is possible or impossible.  That is to say, you can look at each game separately, as if it's in a vacuum, or you can look at the game as though it's part of a person's total experience as a developer and try to find some truths about game development that way.  Sometimes the "bad" games are going to be crucial parts of a person's growth and the understanding of it.  We should follow developers that are interesting and successful in one way or another and see where their experiences are taking them.

As to who gets "chosen?"  Well, I think we all decide that.  Obviously some people like myself, TimW, anyone else that has a popular blog, etc., have more influence and more resources at hand, but I try to keep opening more avenues for people to be seen and heard as time goes on.  First it was putting more editors on the front page (which is still open, by the way), second it was TIGForums, which are probably more influential overall now than the front page is, and then it was TIGdb, which I imagine will grow up the same way TIGSource and TIGForums did and will ultimately be the most objective of the three sites (I know that seems laughable to some of the people who have submitted games that haven't gotten added, but it's true).

So yeah, tl;dr - I think that promoting new developers on the front page is crucial to the growth of the site and of the scene, but there's also a lot more to consider than that.

[aschearer]

Hey Derek thanks for chiming in. I basically completely agree with you and apologize if I was making thing sound black and white before. As you say it is important to have established people in the field to serve as role models, etc, so long as it's not at the expense of the rest of the field. It's a balancing act to be sure, and it sounds like you're already thinking about the problem and have a pretty good handle on how to tackle it.

[Edmund]

There's no solid dividing line, it's more about whether you come off like a jerk or not, which is hard to quantify. Saying a game feels like an extended tutorial is a fair criticism, but it'd help to give reasoning for that, and elaboration, rather than just saying a single negative sentence about a game without any suggestions on how it could be improved. The other comment, that went something like "this game is just not fun" was more clearly troll-like than the second.

This is basically what i was trying to say.. but used to many words, or maybe that post just wasnt the perfect place for what i had to say.

Honestly i think its pretty easy to simply think to yourself when posting something critical.. "would i say this to the persons face?". ill use the spewer comments as an example of this. saying spewer feels like an extended tutorial is very valid.. but the way it was stated wouldnt be how it would be said in person, and also online you dont see an expression at all. anyone could get away with this comment in person if they were saying it with a smile or patted you on the arm while saying it.. but somehow online people just dont seem to care as much.

The thing that sucks most about critical discussions about games and game design is... its EXTREAMLY important for us to have in order to see outside of our very closed in view of our work. its super easy to spend 4 months on something, playing it the whole time and it feels perfect to you because you've been LIVING its for 4 months... sometimes its almost impossible to see how the game actually plays to others. So honesty from the dev community and constructive criticism is very very very important in order to make a good game.

that said, even after doing this for 6 years... criticism is very hard to take, especially if its valid. When people say spewer sucks.. i dont give a fuck because i know it doesnt.. but when they say spewer sucks because it lags on their pc to the point of being frustrating and unplayable.. it does hurt, because its valid.

in the spewer situation theres nothing i can do about this but just say, yes spewer requires a lot of ram and a good processor to run because we are attempting something that flash doesnt do well at all. it would have been nice to do it in C, but that wasnt an option and im stuck with the limitations i had.

but what im getting at here, and on the front page is that criticism is important.. but it fucking hurts, bad. its emotionally damaging when its harsh and something that takes years to get use to, my whole post was mostly me thinking about how Eli must feel when people talk about the game running slow.. this is one of his 1st big flash games, and i can still remember how i felt when people bashed gish, even when it was valid.

i know its lame to speak for everyone here, but im going to do it anyway. Most game designers are usually fucked socially, putting it nicely we are delicate nerd flowers plagued by depression, isolation and many other fun anti-social issues...

PLAY NICE WITH ONE ANOTHER! we are on the same fucking team here, there have been many times when ive been down and had another dev pick me up out of a funk and ive done the same for many others. just be fucking cool guys.

its hip to be square.

OXOX
-Edmund

(i typed this after drinking Nyquil.. i hope it makes sense, NIGHT!"

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I'd be more inclined to buy into your interpretation if I saw some real preview-y stuff for Runman. Personally it just strikes me as a call out from a friend to another.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

I still think this is fairly inaccurate. I've never heard of Derek and CoolMoose being "friends" -- have they even met in real life? He and YMM are famous Game Maker developer, and as I said, were famous long before TIGSource even existed. So I think your rockstar theory has more validity than your friend theory here, unless you can provide some type of evidence or something that it was a personal favor.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Reposting something I posted on the front page in hopes of moving the discussion there to the forums (and bringing the anonymous guys into the light):

"Didn’t you just say in the Glum Busters thread that you don’t care about gameplay anyway? Why isn’t that valid when the comments are bashing a game instead of orgasming over it?"

"It’s art/protest; And as such you’re not allowed to have an opinion. Do something better; aka unless you’re one of the chosen ones or our fanbois, shut up."

I realize language is subtle, but it helps to give the other person the benefit of the doubt in their claims and not to make them out to be crazy.

Saying that you don't really understand the problem with nasty comments if you've never been personally attacked for a game you made isn't equivalent to saying you can't hold negative opinions about a game or that you should shut up if you've never made a game.

Saying that you value the atmosphere in a particular game more than the gameplay and enjoyed the game just for the environments alone doesn't mean you don't care about gameplay or were orgasming over a game.

Expressing profuse enjoyment of a game isn't just "the opposite" of a personal attack on a game's developer. The opposite of profuse delight isn't "hating" a game, it's not enjoying a game, being frustrated or bored by it. There are many games which I don't enjoy, there are many games that frustrate me or bore me. But that doesn't lead me to hate the game and its developers.

So in simple words, what I have the problem with is when someone *hates* a game and its game developer just on the basis of not enjoying their game. You can not enjoy a game or criticize it without having to hate on it.

[JLJac]

Since Derek obviously knows what he is doing, I think we can all agree on that it's kinda good as it is: There are rockstars, but that status is also possible to reach for all us ground dwellers

On critisism, there's a very simple rule in my opinion: If you think something is bad, be quiet. No-one, ever, is interested in hearing that you thought that game was bad. BUT if you have a suggestion on how something can be improved, speak out!

I don't like the front page comments very much. People feel to anonymous, they think they can say anything. It's the steel cold, harsh internet, unfiltered. Putting a good but somewhat fragile game on the front page is the same thing as putting your expensive car on the street in a bad neighbourhood and leave it there for a month. I think the comments function should only be accessable when logged into a forum account.

[Mipe]

I don't know Derek Yu, I only know that he's popular around here. I don't know Paul Eres either, I just found his name in Immortal Defense by sheer coincidence. I don't know Alex May or the rest, hell, I don't know any of you lot. I've probably played a lot of games without knowing the names behind them. Point of gaming is to enjoy the game, not to learn why is the developer awesome.

I don't care who is King in life or not; the most important thing is that here on TIGSource I can discuss my favorite topics without running into all the leetspeak, kawaiispeak, teenybopperstuff and all that crap. Hell, people around here are being reasonable and have more salt in their brains than most other communities I've had the misfortune of experiencing.

So, yeah, about being rockstars... here is a question for you all. Does it really matter?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

So, yeah, about being rockstars... here is a question for you all. Does it really matter?

Are you asking if the negative effects of rockstardom (i.e. possibly good games being overlooked in favor of worse games by more-known people) really matter, or if "being famous" really matters? Your question is ambiguous.

[skaldicpoet9]

Hmm, I think maybe he was getting at the point as to whether or not it really matters if either interpretation is true or not.

I don't really see why we need to classify developers as this or that anyways. I have never, nor probably will ever, thought of cactus or any other indie developer as "rockstars". The way I see it they are good guys making great games and that's it.

Personally, I think that the way things are done on the blog are perfect. It gives you just enough information to get interested and is personal enough to make you feel like it is written and maintained by people that are friendly and passionate about their community.

I really don't think TIGSource has a responsibility to anyone but itself. Now, I don't mean that to be seen as some "elitist" viewpoint but I don't see why TIGS would. TIGS isn't some faceless news site that has any obligation to report anything but what the members of it's community deem to be relevant.

If TIGS was more formal I probably wouldn't even be here. I like the fact that everyone kind of knows each other, it makes it feel like a real community rather than a lot of other internet communities where you are but one small voice in a low, dull roar.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

(Well, I can definitely agree that the idea that there's a problem with rockstar indie game devs is just an interpretation which has no connection to reality, but I also think the idea that there's no problem and everything is fine is also just an interpretation that has no connection to reality. But that's just my epistemology, I tend to think any theory or explanation about how things are or work is necessarily simplistic, since the brain a pretty weak tool compared to all the complexities that exist in any given situation. I.e. I think both "there's a problem" and "everything is fine" are wrong, and even the idea that the truth is somewhere in the middle is also wrong. But talking about things is fun despite it being so inaccurate.)

[skaldicpoet9]

Is where your coming from.

If I wanted to play devil's advocate and represent the other side of the argument here I could definitely make a correlation between our little blog/forum community and the greater indie community at large and how what we do here impacts the greater gaming community.

TIGS is known outside of our little community and has been featured in many mainstream magazines and blogs. Derek Yu and a handful of other prominent/semi-prominent developers maintain the site and are regulars as well. So we do in fact get a lot of attention here from a lot of different people.

So maybe, perhaps, we do have somewhat of a duty to represent indie games in a way that is not too obscurest. However, that is to assume then that we really have that great of an impact on what indie games is/are.

I don't think that we have the final say on that, there are a lot more components to the "scene" then simply what goes on here at TIGS.

[Tom Sennett]

I am a rock star, and I party like one.

That is all.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Yeah, there are too many complexities.

Does who TIGSource features have a large impact? Maybe; it has an impact, but it's not too large. I think the entire sum output of TIGSource matters less than a single blog post on Kotaku or Joystiq in terms of influence. Derek could be posting  about a game every five seconds, but all that pales in significance to the power of the truly large blogs and sites, which can make or break the careers of indie developers with a single word. But that doesn't mean TIGSource has an insigificant impact, it can build up an indie dev from nothing to having fans, or haters. It can shape the worldviews of many people and how they perceive indie games.

Does its impact translate into duty? Maybe; that depends on one's morality and principles. Duty's an abstract concept and doesn't really exist except as a mental tool, so it's what people want it to be. If people think you have a duty to them, and if you accept their thoughts, you have a duty to them; if they don't think you have a duty and you don't think so either, you probably don't, and if some people think you have a duty and some others don't, and you're ambivalent about your duty, what then? What if you don't actually want to do good in the world, do you still have a duty to it? And so on.

[skaldicpoet9]

And so on.

Ah, so good to see you again Mr. Vonnegut 

 

[Movius]

are we not men?

[moi]

-I don't think that the games featured on the frontpage are chosen because of the author's acquaintances. It's true that people known by other people have greater chances to be featured but I don't think it is biased. After all it's just one website and the reviewers here are doing  their best IMO. It's true that the indiegame blog has a more diverse selection, but it's very difficult to do, and they are using TIGSource as one of their sources anyway.

-I do agree that some "joke" games should not be featured in favor of other more seriously worked on games, but as I said it's not an easy job doing reviews.

-I disagree with Derek about the rockstar attitude, I think it's doing a disservice to the community. Most of the time they end up acting like dicks (and "acting like dick" doesn't only mean being injurious toward other people, you can be perfectly polite and still be a dick). There are little industrious people working and releasing several interesting games that don't get to be known, while these rockstar sometimes don't have to release more than one game, and go drink some beers with the right people at the conventions. Yeah it's making a lot of people bitter and for good reasons.
Also, you end up hearing always the same people exressing their opinions in the medias. I think little indie medias (like TIGS) should interview smaller less known devs, leave the rockstars for the mainstream medias.
I'm not saying that the rockstars sometimes aren't deserving it...Sometimes they are good.

-I think criticism is ok. Everyone should express their opinion in the way they see fit. It's up to the creator to take it like a man, and be intelligent enough to see the points being raised behind the bad wordings. I am for free criticism. I think the frontpage is awesome as it is. Not everyone can invest all their time to come in the forum engage in long discussions about pokemon. Yeah, the audience on the frontpage is different, but it's good for TIGS, where else do you have heated discussions like on the frontpage huh?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I agree with what moi said, except that I don't think personal insults are a type of criticism, and the problem is more with the insults/hating than with criticism. Criticism implies there's something you could do to change which would make the critic happy, whereas a lot of the comments are more like abuse, where the commenter wants someone to feel bad and nothing they could possibly do would make the commenter happy.