from the vimeo upload rules ...

Machinima videos are acceptable so long as there is a story.

Something feels very wrong here...

so there are no errors by definitition

 

Or maybe I just need to chill out.

yeah, chill out

Is the universe error-free? like no bugs, glitches or system errors. No patches, no fixes required?
I think that's what we all agree upon. Everything is defined, no ambiguities?

When we create our virtual worlds, we try to remove and fix all bugs, glitches and ambiguities (even Tetris is a virtual world btw). Should we try to get our worlds error-free?

I fixed yesterday a small bug in ASLAP, where some pieces were out of sync. From the players perspective, it would be a bug. From the world/game perspective there are no bugs. As the creator I can decide: this is a glitch or an error. I decided to fix it. If I don't fix it, then the world is as it is. Should I be more involved (as a  creator), to "fix" my world?

After release, I will not patch it or fix it. When it is done it is done. Everything is attribute to that world.

Since it is not physics based, and since I do not give out a user manual or tutorial, there are no errors. The player cannot compare it to the "real" world, like in a driving game, where you would notice artifacts, clipping errors etc.... so there are no errors by definitition, right?

Going back to our "real" universe. Could it be fixed? Are there errors, but we do not notice them, since we cannot compare our universe to a proper-functioning universe? Since there is no tutorial for our universe?

Some would say that death is an error. I don't share this opinion.

( "From the ridiculous to the sublime" needs more love

cheers,

I still like the word software, as a description of the medium. Like painting, books, software. If somebody bothers to ask what kind of software, then I can qualifiy. Arthouse games, notgames, active art, interactive art (which are all the same to me)...

I wonder how much DF will feel responsible to its kickstarter funders. I think a lot of the backers do want that oldstyle Point-click adventure game. But judging from DF's previous work, I think they will do some inventive stuff. And no publisher to talk them into something. Like putting in some RTS elements

I pledged §30, since I get the game and a work in process documentary (I really want to look behind the scenes of that project)... it basically works like a pre-order of a game.

If Jon Blow would go to Kickstarter, I would fund that, too But fortunately The Witness will come out anyways...

check this out. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2048228827/it-rides-upon-usdc-to-nyc-and-back-by-rail-in-phot?ref=category

If less-known artists can get some funding through the popularity of kickstarter, I think it is a good thing. I hope we will get something like that for Europe...

yes, less than 24 hours since announcement. This is a good sign. If you have a community to back you up, I think Kickstarter is a great proposal.

Kickstarter is a site, where you can get crowd funding...

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/66710809/double-fine-adventure

interesting way to fund your project. This morning it was at $320,000 now it is over $420,000
(Ithink they started yesterday)

I think this could work for Tale of Tales (since you guys already have a fan base).
I would fund a Tale of Tales game any day

I don't feel good to have "art" in the name. If we look at other established art forms, we have: books or literature, painting, film, sculpture, music, architecture. We don't call it book art or painting art. All those forms can be art, but often are not or not neccessarily so. I envy those people who can say: I make books, or I make films or I make paintings.
I don't want to say: I make active art. Also I don't feel to say: I make games. I make notgames (not quite there yet). Usually I say, I make software.

I am too in the camp. I don't feel that it is relevant what an author says about his work. What his intention was. The work is what counts. I don't know what Rembrandt said or thought about his Nightwatch. But I know how I feel about it or what my experience is. Also I have the Peter-Greenaway interpretation in the back of my head. Yes, the work is the media for communication. No need to have other form of communication with the artist. Usually they are dead, and nobody knows what they were saying. I remember this David Lynch quote and I agree. I was looking for an interpretation of David Lynchs work by David Lynch, but he refueses to give any interpretations. I think he is right, not to dilute his work even with his own words...

When designing a game, I usually don't feel like I should tell anything to the "user" in advance, except the most basic things about the controls. Everything else should be in the responsibility of the audience. So I refer to this type of style "the tip of the iceberg". I show you the tip of the iceberg, the rest is up to you to find out.

Of course you can get into trouble, when the audience is not expecting there to be more than the tip. It might help, if the user is looking at the file size of the game. He should be wondering what those 100 MB of data/program might contain.

So hand-holding is not my thing. There is too much hand-holding going on these days. The best experiences in cultural things I had, when nobody told me what to think or how to perceive a work.

cheerio

dammit! I am back on the train of my Bejeweled Blitz addiction. That is the only facebook game I have ever played ( I tried out very, very few for a couple of seconds, no more).

Revisiting it after a year or so. They changed it quite a bit. They added a lot of gambling elements to it... I love the solitude of the original Bejeweled 2. Blitz is like a carnival. Like your personal slot machine. And they made it quite tempting to spend real money on virtual money in order to buy power ups. I don't buy them, but I suppose that there are people who do....

I don't understand facebook games and their business model at all. Do they make money? Even if I want, I am pretty sure that I am not capable of writing a facebook game (or any game), that makes money.

Whenever I try to make a "commercial" fun game, I get very bored in making it. Also it feels like wasting my time or talent. There are thousands of silly games out there. I want/have to stay personal in what I am doing.

I think that PC games, hardcore and smaller studios will survive. They have a passion. Maybe graphics and effects will be more simple than triple AAA titles, but that's not what is important in a great game. (I am immeresed in books, and they usually do not have graphics)...

hm, what was the question again? =  

I am currently working on a notgame, where you can get 1 single point in total. Also, you can never reach that 1 point. You would need to spend an infinite amount of time, to get that 1 point.

I think I am done with making games with points... they devalue the art. Imagine going to a museum and getting points for looking at and thinking about paintings. It would devalue the paintings.

If someone is trying it out, please post impressions. I was working with the trial of Multimedia Fusion 2. Although it is quite powerful and easy to use, it can be really a pain do simple stuff without programming, things like sorting or accessing certain objects, which is easy in a programming environment. I felt the limitations ...

I watched it last week for the first time. That film about the Tipton Three made me really angry. What kind of democracy are we running, really? Since when is torture en vogue? How ignorant are we people in the west? Give me a game where I can fight the western "civilization" I almost did forget that something like Guantanamo still exists...

Switching perspective. Played some MW3 (campaign). Have to fight Russians. I don't feel it. The campaign left me neutral. I did not care. There is nothing to it or in it. Nothing of relevance... it is a totally irrelevant game outside of the gaming scene.

Ok, don't want to get angry at MW3. They certainly had a different approach to modern warfare. But Road To Guantanamo has a more realistic view on what modern warfare really is, more realistic than this million-dollar-blockbuster. (It is a solid multiplayer-game, but nothing more). Based on this comparison about modern warfare, nobody can take games seriously as an art form. The big money is being taken seriously, though. I bet that MW3 will make 100 times more money than The Road To Guantanamo. Money. That's why games are relevant. Nothing else. But what will be discussed in 10-20 years? The film.

Verdict:

0 (MW3) : 1 (TRTG)


p.s. Fantasy Warfare 3 would be a more appropriate title for the game

p.p.s sounds a bit harsh. I am talking about AAA games being irrelevant, of course