Notgames Forum

i like small communities of people who make stuff & hopefully this is one

some of you may know me, for those who don't, i'm an indie game dev

Hi, Paul! Welcome! :)

You forgot to mention your website (http://studioeres.com/games/) and your best known recent game (http://studioeres.com/immortal/). ;)

So are you visiting out mere curiosity? Or do you have an active interest in developing digital entertainment without the constraints of the game format?

Hey Paul! Nice to see you here.

hi ivan & michael


visiting because, as said, i've interest in small communities which create things and are supportive of the creations of each other; there are far too few of them. lately they've all been gobbled up by bigger forums like tigsource. the contests in particular looked interesting. even if i might not have time to enter them (or to enter every one) it'd at least be interesting to try out and give feedback for the other entries.

and i don't really understand the question; i'm not sure there is such a thing as "the game format". there are a lot of game formats, and i really can't think of some format that fits all games. i'd have a hard time coming up with a format that encompasses, say, both taboo: the sixth sense (a tarot reading game on the NES) and hide and go seek (the game where people hide and others look for them). what do you mean exactly by the game format? could you name some examples of digital entertainment which doesn't meet the game format, and some that does, so that i can understand what you are talking about?

Welcome, brother Paul. It is most pleasant that you have decided to join our Cult.

LOL!

:)

Excuse me for a totally content-lacking post but... I could not resist ;)

Ah, Rinku! Always game for a good discussion!  :D

Hey Paul. :)  Nice to see you here.

I can't speak for Michaël, but from my POV, "games" refers to videogames - games you play only on the computer.  The "format" refers to the quantifiable outcome, or goal, that games have, in addition to certain parts of the abstract rule-based system that define games.

Case study: Bell Brothers (http://www.bellbrothers.net)
Echogenesis - notgame
Record Tripping - game

Obviously the world isn't black or white, but this might give you a better idea of the intention.

i haven't heard of those particular games, could you name some games more familiar to me? or link to those games in question so that i can try them out?

i think there's a tendency for game developers and heavy gamers to call certain games 'not really a game', but i don't think we should let them have the word all to themselves, because there are plenty of things which are clearly games even though they don't have goals. it's gone so far that people have been denying the label of 'game' to games that have goals but not enough action (for instance, yume nikki, or visual novels) or even to games which have a lot of story (like metal gear solid). it's kind of ridiculous, so i just prefer to call everything played on a computer a game.

i also think this denial of the term game to games which aren't orthodox is relatively new. for instance, back in the snes era, nobody called mario paint not a game. it was a game then, yet would not be thought of as a game now.

so i guess you could say that i see this whole 'nongame' term as giving in to a small vocal minority of people who want to deny the term game to games that they don't like.

If you click on my Bell Brothers link above, you'll see the games linked at the bottom of the website there.  You might have missed the link; on some screens it can be hard to see this green.

Your comment about games labeling is why I think Michaël has resisted calling notgames a category and argued instead that it be considered a design method.  From that perspective, the point of my case study was to point out the different design methods being employed in the creation of videogames.  But to me, design methods and labels are pretty synonymous in this context.

I don't think anyone will resist you if you just refer to everything as games.  :)

ah, didn't see, thanks, will try them out

anyway, to sort of answer michael's original question more precisely, i've made games that don't have obvious goals or game over screens or points, yes -- here's one example in flash that i made last year (you may have seen it, but i'm not sure if michael has): http://studioeres.nfshost.com/Valentine.html

i still consider that a game, though, even though others wouldn't. it's somewhat interactive (in some parts, anyway) and there are implicit goals if you look for them, even if the game doesn't tell you if you've achieved them or not.

I've tried this one out some time ago and I loved it :)
I wouldn't call it a videogame myself, though. Every way has its name, or explanation. And this is the main focus of me as a person who interacts with your work. Experience is the goal here. And surprisingly, your valentine love letter is very encouraging to think about love. Much more than any interactive piece I have tried before.

I have always argued in favour of a very broad definition of the word "game", especially "videogame". I still call our own work at Tale of Tales "games" despite of the purists on Destructoid et al.

But the problem that brought me to "notgames" was not semiotic at all. I came to it mostly because of the games industry. Because of its resistance to embrace the greater potential of the medium. Over the years we've been involved with games, we've seen a rise of this idea that peaked 5 or 6 years ago, followed by a long and painful decline that was hastened in an unexpected way by the success of the Wii.

I'm not content with the games industry reserving a little place for things that might not be games in the strict sense of the word. I want the games industry to change as a whole. But it seems to me now that the industry would rather go bankrupt than grow. So I'm distancing myself from it. I don't want to be caught in a niche within a niche.

Because I think this is far too important. The interactive medium should not be owned by the games industry.

oh, yes, but being dissatisfied with how the games industry works and the games it makes are what the indie games movement is about anyway, isn't it? i mean, read the scratchware manifesto if you haven't: it calls for many of the things you just mentioned:

http://www.homeoftheunderdogs.net/scratch.php

also, do you feel the same about the other media? e.g. do you feel that hollywood is successfully running the film medium, or that the large record labels are successfully running the medium of music? it seems to be that in any media, the industry that runs it isn't doing a particularly good job. perhaps the games industry is worse than most, but its problems seem to be only different in degree from, say, hollywood or the large record companies.

oh, and @Kaworu Nagisa, thanks! much appreciated, i'm surprised anyone played it (i didn't promote it much)

I played Valentine, and I enjoyed it too :)  A good way to explore something complex from different perspectives.

By and large indie games are doing exactly the same as the industry. They are not offering an alternative. And they are definitely not acting against the industry.

You're probably right about industry leadership. But first of all, in any other medium there is far more variation. The games industry is to the potential of interactive media what action movies are to cinema and superhero comics to literature. And second, this medium is far more important. It is the medium that can help us save the planet, save ourselves. (not that I have any illusions about the desire of the human species to save itself)

This strikes me as a bit (actually quite a bit) imperious. Do you care to elaborate?

I guess I'm desperate. I'm probably overestimating the potential of this technology. I don't know how many people see things my way, but all I can see is a world that is falling apart, societies are crumbling, very nasty people are taking control of everything. And the main reason why this is happening is because people are willing to accept simple stories, simple solutions. It's the typical tactic of the extremists: offer a simple solution for a complex problem. Be it fundamentalism or racism or unilateralism.

We need to be able to embrace complexity. We need to learn how to think in multiple layers. There is no such thing as a solution for a problem. We need to learn to think in processes. I think the computer can help us with this. Not just on a functional level, as a tool. But interactive environments can also help us achieve clarity in our minds. Clarity without ignoring complexity. Much like the invention of printing was invaluable for the rise of humanism, so does the interactive medium enable us to deal with a new age.

I'm probably overly optimistic. But even if I am, my point remains that for our current time, the computer offers the most relevant medium, capable of expressing our contemporary problems much better than any other medium. For that reason alone, it needs to become far more than games.

And some may say that modernity is overcomplicating things and computers are the very reason for it. Others yet may say that computers are oversimplifying our own thinking. The point is that I think you're also oversimplifying things out of desperation. You said you're being overly optimistic, but I think you're being quite the opposite. The world is no less full of art and culture today as it ever was, it's just full of noise. I think we have to be careful about how filter that noise, lest we filter out too much.

In any case, how can you say that computers are a superior medium to others if you believe that the appreciation of art happens in the viewer's mind. What difference does it make then what it is that something is made of or how it is made?

I think we're all on the same page here generally in our choice of using computers, I just think we should be careful and not get too carried away sometimes.

You're probably right. There goes my last shred of hope.  :'(

no, i agree with michael there earlier, at least in that regard -- i do agree that interactive media are more powerful and offer more of a chance for positive change than the other media do. i don't necessarily think they can save the world, but i do think they can save individual people (from a fate of being automatons). even with normal videogames, i've seen people whose outlook on life changed due to them; for instance, i know someone who freed themselves from a fundamentlist religious outlook / family after playing final fantasy 6.

i do disagree that indie games are not doing this, though. perhaps nine or eight out of ten indie games are indistinguishable from mainstream games or older mainstream games. but even those differ in having more personality in them, and are often created by beginners who don't know better and can only copy what they know. and there's always that one or two out of ten that do things the industry would never have done. i typically see several of these released per month. you might not notice them because you don't play every single indie game, but they're there. there's even the sentiment among, say, tigsource frontpage commenters that the tigsource frontpage focuses too much on games without gameplay, and doesn't cover enough "real games".

and i definitely also do think that indie games were created in opposition of the mainstream games industry, and that indie devs are its natural enemies. there are those who want to work more closely with the industry, and even think that the industry is supporting indie games, but i think they are in the minority. i'd say the majority hold views very similar to that presented in the scratchware manifesto linked to earlier.

No, I don't think you are overly optimistic. I agree with you entirely, and I've said as much here (http://evolutionlive.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-i-care-about-games.html).

This is precisely the reason why I am trying to make games at all. Nothing short of saving the world. Or at least, helping us save ourselves from ourselves. ;)

Thank you for the support.
<finger wipes away tear> ;)

I'll try to be more optimistic about indie games, Rinku.
(Maybe I'm too impatient, but even those one or two out of ten indie games that people point out to me are very weak compared to the interesting work that "real" artists have done with CD Roms and net.art in the nineties or even currently with Processing and Max/MSP. I believe, I know that game technology has the potential to go much further than any of those. But at the moment games are seriously lacking, especially when it comes to content -which, as you know, I believe to be limited by the format, but also, sadly, by the particular talents of the people involved.)

Beautiful. And this is the point which I leave this place, before I even begin. :) Good luck with what you are trying to achieve. I mean that in a sincere and non-sarcastic fashion. This likely isn't the place for me.

i agree that they're weaker, but that's possibly just because they're being made by people trained as programmers rather than artists. but i do think that such attempts are genuine and sincere, and that such people could be supported; perhaps you could give them feedback on how you feel that their work could be improved. mutual feedback helps improve talent.

another issue is time: most of them aren't doing it full time, whereas you are. when you have 8 hours a day to work on something, naturally it'll be more sophisticated than when you only have an hour a day.

Them not being artists is what I meant by lacking particular talents. I don't blame them. Not for trying. If anything, I blame the artists for not trying! But I understand them too. The interfaces to the technology were created by and for programmers. And as much as we want to believe everyone can be Da Vinci, it's just not going to happen. I don't think feedback will get us much further. Art is not something that you do, it's something that you are.

And speaking of which, you can't "be" it part time. We did not accidentally become full time developers. We chose to become full time developers when we realised that there was a lot to do and we couldn't "afford" (artistically speaking) to only work part time on this. We gave up our profession as web designers and figured out a way to make games full time (which is a constant struggle and does bite into your available time, but not as much as a full time job). Anyone who does not work full time is basically not serious about their craft in my book.

Which is fine. I don't mind hobbyists at all! But if the medium is going to evolve, we'll need more than that.

The majority of composers I know and respect do not work full-time at their work.  Many are working teaching in universities, or otherwise having to support themselves in-between residencies and commissions.  Actors tend not to be employed as actors most of the time.  Does this make them not serious about their work?

You're right. This does not apply to all trades. I shouldn't have been so general.
When we were web designers it was perfectly possible to combine that profession with making our web-based artwork. We actually made a point of making little distinction between the commercial work and the art work.

I guess I feel differently about games because I'm interested in realtime 3D. And that medium requires a lot of time! If simple 2D would suffice as a medium for us, I guess we would have plenty of time left for day jobs.

I still think it's a shame that so many artists need to teach to be able to pay the bills, though. A society that cannot support its artists is barbarous in my book.
(and I'm also not convinced that the need to make money makes the best teachers either...)

I wish more people with talent and ambition could work full time on exploring realtime 3D.

Surely we can be more constructive to prevent this kind of response?  It was very good of bento to say that he was leaving and why, but it seems that the reason was because it felt like a destructive atmosphere.

I have sent him a private message asking exactly why he reacted this way. He hasn't answered yet.

This is a forum. I think everyone should be able to say what they want, as long as they are open to the responses they get. I wouldn't want us all to be scared of hurting each other's feelings. We're here to work. There should not be any taboos. And we should be allowed to make mistakes.