[Intrepid Homoludens]

Also, must a genius do every single process of realization himself to qualify as one? What about someone who has a brilliant idea but needs a group of specialists to help him give life to that idea and the work involves input of ideas from that group, and it's up to him to facilitate it all to make it work? Is he a genius?

[BoyToy]

For me, the sole idea is sufficient.

And I agree with FGM, it's not really a matter of intelligence.


EDIT: I like your recent avatars, Trep! (The previous one was even a little bit better.) Are there more going to come?

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by BoyToy

For me, the sole idea is sufficient.

And I agree with FGM, it's not really a matter of intelligence.

I disagree. Having new ideas alone is not enough. You have to be able to execute the idea to be considered brilliant. Peter Molyneux of recent years is good only on creating ideas. He has not displayed the ability to create something tangible out of his ideas. Black and White was an utter failure in that regard. Many have said the same about Fable. Sid Meier on the other hand, not only develops new ideas but executes on the ideas as we saw in all three iterations of Civilization, Alpha Centauri, Pirates, and Colonization. He's working on Civilization 4 and I have every confidence that it will be as great as the other three.

[BoyToy]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

Sid Meier on the other hand, not only develops new ideas but executes on the ideas as we saw in all three iterations of Civilization

I don't see Sid Meier as a genius for transforming someone else's idea from a board game into a computer game. (He might be a genius for other reasons though, I don't know.) I agree, he's a great game developer - and even visionary - because he realised that the idea of Civilization would work out as a computer game very well.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by gilly

Having new ideas alone is not enough. You have to be able to execute the idea to be considered brilliant.

Interesting point, gilly. What if, say, a game theorist (someone who only writes about games) came up with a startling idea based on involving the player emotionally and psychologically to the point where the game is nearly impossible to play because of it. A few years later, a young developer is inspired by this idea and creates his game based on it, and the game becomes a commercial and critical success, making millions of dollars and spawning lesser quality clones. Would that young developer be a 'genius' or 'brilliant' in this case?

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

I disagree. Having new ideas alone is not enough. You have to be able to execute the idea to be considered brilliant.

But it's not Peter Molyneaux or Sid Meier or Tim Schafer themselves who sit and code the game. It is a group of 50 something engineers. Maybe Peter's team is not as talented as Firaxis or Double Fine. Plus Sid always tends to build the same types of games. Civ, civ 2, civ 3, colonization are kinda the same with slightly different mechanics. Fable is so different than Dungeon Keeper, is so different than black and white, which is so different than Syndicate.

Don't take Sims 2 lightly either. The way characters interact with each other, and the outstanding level of AI in the game is among the best in any game.

[Erkki]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Interesting point, gilly. What if, say, a game theorist (someone who only writes about games) came up with a startling idea based on involving the player emotionally and psychologically to the point where the game is nearly impossible to play because of it. A few years later, a young developer is inspired by this idea and creates his game based on it, and the game becomes a commercial and critical success, making millions of dollars and spawning lesser quality clones. Would that young developer be a 'genius' or 'brilliant' in this case?

One could be a theoretical genius and the other a practical genius

[Eye-Z]

Genius
1.very great and rare natural ability or skill, especially in a particular area such as science or art, or a person who has this


i'd say hes close to being a genius

I'm a genius, i have an IQ of 142!
that realy doesn't say much though

[Fairygdmther]

Creative genius is one of the most difficult to measure. The game developers we've mentioned do have this amazing ability. Each has created new and unique themes and/or approaches to gaming. This makes them geniuses IMHO.

FGM

[mag]

Schafer is overrated. He's definitely not a "genius." That's not a put-down. He does what he does, and he does it very well. But "genius" is a pretty high standard, and I'm afraid that Schafer, from what I've seen, doesn't come close. All of his games so far deviate very little from the same basic adventure game formula. That's not what I would call "genius." Other than being of a noticably high quality, there's really nothing that differentiates his games from any other adventure game.

Now Hideo Kojima is a genius. But he's really the only game designer I can think of who falls into that category.

mag

[remixor]

Originally Posted by mag

Schafer is overrated. He's definitely not a "genius." That's not a put-down. He does what he does, and he does it very well. But "genius" is a pretty high standard, and I'm afraid that Schafer, from what I've seen, doesn't come close. All of his games so far deviate very little from the same basic adventure game formula. That's not what I would call "genius." Other than being of a noticably high quality, there's really nothing that differentiates his games from any other adventure game.

Yes, but that assumes you're talking about gameplay innovation as your criteria. I mean, Einstein never deviated from the basic adventure game formula either. His genius lay in other areas. I'm not even making a call on whether Schafer is a genius or not, but I don't think saying "his gameplay wasn't innovative enough" is a fair way to judge. I think those who would claim he is possessed of genius would point to his writing, his seamless blend of varying genre influences, themes, and humor, as well as simply his incredible imagination. Mozart didn't "innovate", per se--if anything he helped to further solidify a bunch of forms that were already on their way to being standardized. He is classified as a genius because of his seemingly supernatural attunement to music and consistently high quality of output. By those standards, if one feels that Schafer is a brilliantly succesful constructor of his medium (that is, games rather than music), and I'm not necessarily saying he is or isn't, then I think it would be reasonable to call him a genius. When it comes down to it, though, I think these things are much more obvious in hindsight, so let's wait a few years...

[EasilyConfused]

Originally Posted by remixor

When it comes down to it, though, I think these things are much more obvious in hindsight, so let's wait a few years...

That's a good point. I have no idea who any of these people are as usual (except Einstein and Mozart) so I'm not one to talk. But the suggestion that all you have to do to be a genius is come up with a brilliant idea can't be right. We have an artist friend of the family--he's a great artist in my view, probably not the best ever, but still very good and creative. He says ideas are a dime a dozen, it's getting the work made (and SEEN) that is the hard part. There are tons and tons and TONS of talented people out there (and here! ) so pat yourselves on the back for all being geniuses or else . . . find a better word. 8-)

[Sirus]

Yes... errr, no. I'll have to see if he screws up with Psychonauts first.

[mag]

Originally Posted by remixor

Yes, but that assumes you're talking about gameplay innovation as your criteria. I mean, Einstein never deviated from the basic adventure game formula either. His genius lay in other areas. I'm not even making a call on whether Schafer is a genius or not, but I don't think saying "his gameplay wasn't innovative enough" is a fair way to judge. I think those who would claim he is possessed of genius would point to his writing, his seamless blend of varying genre influences, themes, and humor, as well as simply his incredible imagination.

The thing is, he's not extraordinarily good at those either. I mean, what does he have to point to that's so great? It's really just three games. Day of the Tentacle, which he can't even take full credit for (and which, frankly, kind of sucks). Full Throttle--a mediocre story saved mostly by good, though not outstanding, writing put into your typical LucasArts adventure game with a poorly integrated action system thrown in for good measure. And as far as genre influences in this game, they're hardly "seamless." The only really brilliant game he has is Grim Fandango.

I just really don't see what he's done that earns him the title of "genius." But like you say, it's probably best to wait and see what happens. He certainly has a lot of potential. And I'm very interested in seeing how Psychonauts turns out.

mag

[Jayel]

*GASP*
Heathen!!!

[SoccerDude28]

If genius is in terms of gameplay innovation, Peter Molyneux gets the nod. His games don't really belong to a certain genre except maybe fable. I mean look at his resume:

Populous: The first god game ever made
Syndicate: So unique I've never seen a game like it be4
Magic Carpet: Again a very unique game
Dungeon Keeper: The only game that's close to it is Evil Genius which is a rip off of DK's gameplay
Black and White: Very very original merging populous with Creatures

And now he has The Movies, He was working on BC and Fable. I actually watched a documentary about him the other day, and I'm really very impressed by how he left EA as a vice president to start his own company, coz he said that in EA all he did was meetings, and it was not where his passion lied. His passion lies in creating games.

As far as Mag's post, all I can answer is

[Kingzjester]

Mag is a Jane Joeunsen fan. His opinion is not worth spit.

[SamandMax]

If he's a genius at anything, it's comedy. He's a very funny guy.

[remixor]

Originally Posted by mag

The thing is, he's not extraordinarily good at those either. I mean, what does he have to point to that's so great? It's really just three games.

Well, that and according to Ron Gilbert many of the funniest bits in Monkey Island 1 and 2.

Day of the Tentacle...frankly, kind of sucks.

Ah, see, I think it's pretty much not possible for us to have this discussion. There are certain opinions we seem to have that are simply too disparate to allow reasonable discourse.

Full Throttle--a mediocre story saved mostly by good, though not outstanding, writing put into your typical LucasArts adventure game with a poorly integrated action system thrown in for good measure. And as far as genre influences in this game, they're hardly "seamless." The only really brilliant game he has is Grim Fandango.

I just really don't see what he's done that earns him the title of "genius."

I never said he's a genius, I just said I don't agree with your system of evaluation.

But like you say, it's probably best to wait and see what happens. He certainly has a lot of potential. And I'm very interested in seeing how Psychonauts turns out.

mag