[BoyToy]

Originally Posted by Wormsie

That is rather vague.

That's what I like about this 'definition'.

Are you sure that's possible?

No. It's just my opinion, until I find a better one.

Originally Posted by Gilly

Sure it's possible but there would really be no way to verify it.

That's absolutely true.
Would you say 'being a genius' is something that could be verified? (How?)

That said, I pretty much agree with EC's thoughts. And that example about Darwin and the other guy makes my aproach pretty questionable.
Also, like EC said, everybody is influenced by everything he sees, reads, hears etc. Thus there will always be a fine line between inspiration and plagiarism, when it comes to 'ideas'.

Originally Posted by Jackal

To me the more important question is whether a person is unique.

That sounds like a good idea.

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

[...] That passion for what you do deserves a lot of respect. Regardless if they are all geniuses or not, they are all brilliant at what they do.

I wholeheartedly agree!!!

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by mag

I know, I know. I shouldn't dare to point out Schafer's flaws here on LucasArts Gamers. Allow me to apologize for subjecting the Schafer fanboys here to a different opinion.

Flame! Flame! OOOOh! OOOOOH! That is like so very hurtful to me! Ow! OW! A low blow if I ever saw one! It hurtsssss usss, it hurrrrtssss usssss!!

[remixor]

Originally Posted by mag

The thing with both Miyamoto and Wright is that their games are really just toys. They're very well made and very fun to play, but there's not much more to them than that. Their games are really the most basic thing you can do with the technology. The reason I say that Hideo Kojima is a genius, rather than any other game designer, is because his games really push the boundaries of what can be done with video games. They're not just toys like Miyamoto's and Wright's games, nor are they merely attempts to mimic other media like so many other games today. Kojima is by far the best at making games that actually take advantage of the strengths of the medium.

In my opinion, you couldn't be more wrong here. The games of Miyamoto and Wright in fact take FAR more advantage of the strengths of games than do Kojima's. Kojima's games are basically like interactive movies. Apparently tons of people find that really fun, but how exatly does it push the boundries of video games? Now SimCity--there's a game that really pushed the boundries of what games could do. How could you possibly make something like SimCity in another medium? I guess you could sort of make a board game of it, but it wouldn't at all capture the game. There would be no way to have tons of events occurring and changing all over the board simultaneously. At the very least you'd need another "gamemaster" person there overseeing things, and at best you'd need a whole team of them. SimCity is almost a perfect example of a game that really exploits the medium. And as far as Mario goes, how exactly do sidescrolling platformers NOT take advantage of the medium of games? Honestly, out of Metal Gear Solid, the Sim games, and Mario-esque games, MGS by far "pushes the boundaries of what can be done with games" the least. And that has nothing to do with its quality, by the way. You seem to be the one that puts "innovation" and "pushing boundaries" above all else in terms of quality.

[Martin Gantefoehr]

It just falls flat on a few areas.

So, Half-Life 2 and Full Spectrum Warrior aside, is there a game on this planet whose visuals you like?

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

. My only concern is the visual style is a little messy, some of the colours don't really work well together - some of it could be described as Muddy.
http://timisgod.mixnmojo.com/

Tim is not an artist. He was a developer in The Secret of Monkey Island if you read the credits and Tim Purcell was the artist. He just has a vision in his head, he describes it to the artists, and they go do their own business. He actually explained it himself, in his latest interview:

"Our world-builders, who build the environments, they get to own their area. So it's their level and they work on it for a long time and they take pride in it and they make it perfect the way they want it. That means they have to do all the skills involved in it -- they have to interpret the concept art, they have to make up stuff sometimes if they don't have concept art, then they have to shape it and work with the texture artist to light it, and they have to make it function, so that when you grab a ledge the fingers grab it and the ladders work, and do all that. Our artists, their skills cross disciplines. Because of that they really get to feel like it's their world"

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by remixor

In my opinion, you couldn't be more wrong here. The games of Miyamoto and Wright in fact take FAR more advantage of the strengths of games than do Kojima's. Kojima's games are basically like interactive movies. Apparently tons of people find that really fun, but how exatly does it push the boundries of video games? Now SimCity--there's a game that really pushed the boundries of what games could do. How could you possibly make something like SimCity in another medium? I guess you could sort of make a board game of it, but it wouldn't at all capture the game. There would be no way to have tons of events occurring and changing all over the board simultaneously. At the very least you'd need another "gamemaster" person there overseeing things, and at best you'd need a whole team of them. SimCity is almost a perfect example of a game that really exploits the medium. And as far as Mario goes, how exactly do sidescrolling platformers NOT take advantage of the medium of games? Honestly, out of Metal Gear Solid, the Sim games, and Mario-esque games, MGS by far "pushes the boundaries of what can be done with games" the least. And that has nothing to do with its quality, by the way. You seem to be the one that puts "innovation" and "pushing boundaries" above all else in terms of quality.

If I had a twin, and he was a reporter he will be you. Man I was gonna say the same exact things. Thank you

EDIT: The Sims is amazing, in that you DON'T KNOW what you are gonna do with the Sims. My gf has 2 Sims games, and in one of them she has me and her and she put me as a more homebody kinda guy. Dude the similarity to my life is so freaky, I got scared playing it MGS is a wonderful game, but I've never seen something as scripted. And innovation? Ok he innovated in that you can sneak up on people. But besides that, it's a sneaky shooter on steroids. Actually 75% of the game is cutscenes. To call cutscenes innovation is pushing the limit. Kojima is an awesome story teller. But in terms of innovation, I will choose the Sims EVERY DAY.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Martin Gantefoehr

So, Half-Life 2 and Full Spectrum Warrior aside, is there a game on this planet whose visuals you like?

TMOS

[mag]

Originally Posted by remixor

In my opinion, you couldn't be more wrong here. The games of Miyamoto and Wright in fact take FAR more advantage of the strengths of games than do Kojima's. Kojima's games are basically like interactive movies. Apparently tons of people find that really fun, but how exatly does it push the boundries of video games? Now SimCity--there's a game that really pushed the boundries of what games could do. How could you possibly make something like SimCity in another medium? I guess you could sort of make a board game of it, but it wouldn't at all capture the game. There would be no way to have tons of events occurring and changing all over the board simultaneously. At the very least you'd need another "gamemaster" person there overseeing things, and at best you'd need a whole team of them. SimCity is almost a perfect example of a game that really exploits the medium. And as far as Mario goes, how exactly do sidescrolling platformers NOT take advantage of the medium of games? Honestly, out of Metal Gear Solid, the Sim games, and Mario-esque games, MGS by far "pushes the boundaries of what can be done with games" the least. And that has nothing to do with its quality, by the way. You seem to be the one that puts "innovation" and "pushing boundaries" above all else in terms of quality.

I didn't say it was all about innovation. You're the one that keeps talking about that. And even if I did put that above everything else, that would still be a better measure of genius than that of all the people here who seem to think that a genius is just anybody who's really smart. Guess what? There are a lot of really talented people out there. But they're not all geniuses. That's my point. You can't just say that anything you happen to like is genius.

And I never accused Miyamoto and Wright of trying to mimic other media. I said that other game designers try to mimic other media. What I said about Miyamoto and Wright is that they make toys. Their games are basically tech demos. I'm sorry, but I don't consider that to be "genius." It's just a matter of knowing what's possible at a purely technical level.

mag

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by mag

I didn't say it was all about innovation. You're the one that keeps talking about that. And even if I did put that above everything else, that would still be a better measure of genius than that of all the people here who seem to think that a genius is just anybody who's really smart. Guess what? There are a lot of really talented people out there. But they're not all geniuses. That's my point. You can't just say that anything you happen to like is genius.

And I never accused Miyamoto and Wright of trying to mimic other media. I said that other game designers try to mimic other media. What I said about Miyamoto and Wright is that they make toys. Their games are basically tech demos. I'm sorry, but I don't consider that to be "genius." It's just a matter of knowing what's possible at a purely technical level.

mag

Can you please explain what genius is to you? Coz Kojima makes toys... Is it the maturity of the game being produced? Or how much you actually enjoy it yourself that makes it genius?

[scout]

Originally Posted by Martin Gantefoehr

So, Half-Life 2 and Full Spectrum Warrior aside, is there a game on this planet whose visuals you like?

SJH simply can't admit any visuals are up to his "standards". He would lose all sense of self and melt. There would just be his jaw and a bananna in a puddle of ink.

[remixor]

Originally Posted by mag

I didn't say it was all about innovation. You're the one that keeps talking about that.

I'm only talking about it because you keep bringing up (in terms of things like "pushing the boundries").

And even if I did put that above everything else, that would still be a better measure of genius than that of all the people here who seem to think that a genius is just anybody who's really smart. Guess what? There are a lot of really talented people out there. But they're not all geniuses. That's my point. You can't just say that anything you happen to like is genius.

For the last time, I'm not calling anyone a genius or not a genius. The post you were replying to was me taking issue with your judgment of games by Kojima, Miyamoto, and Wright.

And I never accused Miyamoto and Wright of trying to mimic other media.

And if you read my post, I never said you accused them of that. You said their games do not take advantage of games as a medium, that they "are really the most basic thing you can do with the technology". This is clearly absurd. You still have not actually qualified what makes Hojima's games such excellent paragons of game design and innovation. Is it the complex storytelling? Because that's far, far less unique to games than anything in a Wright or Miyamoto games. Is it really really good stealth gameplay? Because that's just good game design, not anything that specifically exploits the medium. What is it? I'm trying to get at why you think Hojima is such a greater manipulator of the medium than those other two designers.

I said that other game designers try to mimic other media. What I said about Miyamoto and Wright is that they make toys. Their games are basically tech demos.

I'd like to know what you consider a good game, in very general terms. Do you consider games a primarily narrative form? That's the only reason I can think of that you'd consider something like SimCity a "tech demo" (a description I find pretty absurd). Or, I don't know, maybe you mean a good game should have a blend of gameplay or something? You're being incredibly vague.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider that to be "genius." It's just a matter of knowing what's possible at a purely technical level.

mag

No need to apologize; I never said I considered it genius either. Although if I were going to go around calling thing genius (which I haven't so far), I'd be far less likely to ascribe the term to anything Kojima's done. His work is more what I'd call "solid" (no pun intended). What makes Mario and SimCity purely technical excercises? I almost feel like you haven't even played those games, or haven't played them correctly, or something. What are they lacking? I've already asked this question a few times in this post, because I'm hoping eventually you'll answer it.

[squarejawhero]

Martin is stalking me. That's actually kinda cool.

I'm hideously fussy as my own work is based purely upon constructive criticism, plus I tend to be horribly critical of my own stuff. I'm surrounded by artists who've worked on stuff like Roger Rabbit and various Disney stuff so my worklife is hideously spoilt with beautiful artwork... the current animation I'm working on has a character designer from Mulan on it as an example!

All I'm saying is I find on a conceptual level, something like Grim Fandango, despite lifting from various sources, is superior to Psychonauts, even if the game is older. It still animates beautifully, no question, and is the closest to CGI film animation I've seen in games, it's just for me the beautiful animation jars somewhat to some of their color scheme choices and a couple of designs that don't fit in the videos. How it works out ingame remains to be seen.

As for Martin's comment...

Full Spectrum Warrior, I've never said looks "amazing". It does a great job of reproducing what it needs to do, the effects are good and it does what it needs to. I rather like the newcaster style camera.

Half Life 2 does a stand-up job by making 3D dolls feel alive through great voiceovers and subtle animation, and the conceptual art its based on is strong and has been followed through as much as poly's can allow. It's not perfect by any stretch, but it achieves what it needs to achieve and puts you in a well-imagined future sci-fi nightmare with zeal.

As for visuals I like... recently, I've taken interest in Second Sight, which seems basic but in actual fact, like Blizzards WoW, hides within its relatively low-poly and texture frame a strong design ethos and excellent animation. Can't wait to play it! I'm not looking for realism or the latest in technology, just visuals that hang together nicely from a design perspective. I LOVE Syberia's designs, I've actually imported Benoit Sokal's Amerzone book just for his artwork, just for example I feel the models don't suit it and it could have better animation in-game. See? I just balance things out!

For me, TMOS had a lot of care and attention put into its gameworld and future vision. For the small team that worked on it and the money, it's really extremely good and one of the better looking adventures out there. I'm just trained (and in the habit of, fortunately or no) in spotting directorial errors, and am very concious of things from a visual standpoint. There's a lot I loved about it, but also things that stood out for me because their wasn't as much attention in some areas as I'm sure HOT would've liked.

Perhaps it says a lot about the highly immersive quality of most of the technical design that the occasional annoyance sticks out? It's a more positive way of looking at things, after all!

Besides, what are forums there for other than to add your comment or flavor to the procedings? It might seem bigheaded to some, but hell - we're all opinionated hothouses here! If I want to go about using what I've learnt in my years doing animation for a living to stir the pot talking about graphics, then why not? I don't personally think I'm a fantastic artist either (who could when you're working alongside some of the people I do)! Just I knows what I knows, I gets hired for whats I does, and it's fun lending whats I knows to other things for laughs.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by remixor

I'd like to know what you consider a good game, in very general terms. Do you consider games a primarily narrative form? That's the only reason I can think of that you'd consider something like SimCity a "tech demo" (a description I find pretty absurd). Or, I don't know, maybe you mean a good game should have a blend of gameplay or something? You're being incredibly vague.

I don't know if this is what mag is getting at, but a number of game designers and game design theorists (including, I seem to remember, Sid Meier) feel that a real game needs to be goal driven. In some way, it needs to be winnable. They call games like SimCity, The Sims, and (I assume) most MMORPGs "toys".

It's not really a criticism that applies to Miyamoto's games, though. (In fact, it doesn't need to be a criticism at all, just a technical classification.)

[mag]

Originally Posted by remixor

For the last time, I'm not calling anyone a genius or not a genius.

Yeah, I caught that the first time. I was referring to the other people here who want to call anybody they happen to like a genius. To me that just seems to be an absurd measure of what a genius is.

Originally Posted by remixor

No need to apologize; I never said I considered it genius either. Although if I were going to go around calling thing genius (which I haven't so far), I'd be far less likely to ascribe the term to anything Kojima's done. His work is more what I'd call "solid" (no pun intended). What makes Mario and SimCity purely technical excercises? I almost feel like you haven't even played those games, or haven't played them correctly, or something. What are they lacking? I've already asked this question a few times in this post, because I'm hoping eventually you'll answer it.

Well, I didn't really want to turn this into yet another of my speeches about how great Kojima is, but since a number of you are asking for clarification, I guess that's how it's going to end up.

First off just to be clear, I don't think that Miyamoto's or Wright's games are really lacking anything. They made the kinds of games they wanted to make, and they made them quite well. It just so happens that their games are basically toys (I think Wright himself has even described his games that way in the past). The most impressive thing about their games are the technical aspects of them--and there's any number of people who are capable of handling such technical aspects just as well.

The thing with video games is that they can be a toy, but they can also be art. Some games, like SimCity, lean much more heavily to one side of that spectrum than the other. A lot of games are somewhere more in between the two, although most still tend to be more toy than art. But this is just the process that every artform goes through when it first begins. There are really three stages to the development of any new medium. In the first stage, the medium is still brand new, and so people are just seeing what they can do with it. The result is that these creations are pretty much just toys to see what's possible and what isn't. Mario Brothers is a toy. It's a fun game and well made, but it's still a toy. All Miyamoto did was take the concept of jumping and put it into the form of a video game. In the second stage of development, the creators try to mimic already established media. The earliest films are pretty much just plays that film makers decided to video tape because that's all they really had as a point of reference for what a movie should look like. In video games, for the longest time we've had game designers trying to make their games be like movies. When critics wanted to compliment a game they'd call it "film like," as though a game is supposed to be like a film. I think this probably reached its worst during the FMV game fad of the 90s. But even today there are a lot of game designers who just try to imitate film.

The final stage of development is when people begin to realize the specific strengths of the medium and using that to create a new form of art. And this is what I like about Kojima because he is the only person I can think of who does this with video games. I know a lot of people say that MGS is like a movie, but those are mostly just people who like to whine about long cutscenes. You really can't turn MGS into a movie without losing a great deal of the impact that the game has. What I'm talking about isn't just technical innovation. Yes, Miyamoto created something that can only be done in the form of a video game, but he didn't actually realize the full potential of video games.

Specifically, look at the first Metal Gear Solid (and BTW, be forewarned that I will be dropping spoilers here). The main theme of this game is pretty much your standard anti-war message. But this is a video game. It's not like books or movies where all the creator can do is tell us that war is bad. The main strength of a video game is its interactivity. So Kojima knows that he can actually have us experience that feeling. And the fact that it has a pretty standard action story setting is all the better, because it almost lulls the player into a false sense of security in a way. So you go through this game, and you're killing all the members of FOXHOUND and hundreds of genome soldiers along the way. And you're having a good time doing it. And finally you get to the final confrontation with Liquid Snake. Here the camera goes into a first person point of view as Liquid gives his bad guy speech. And that's when Liquid looks right at you (YOU, not Snake), and says, "So why are you here then? Why do you continue to follow your orders while your superiors betray you? Why did you come here? Well... I'll tell you then. You enjoy all the killing, that's why. Are you denying it? Haven't you already killed most of my comrades? I watched your face when you did it. It was filled with the joy of battle. There's a killer inside you..." That's really a powerful moment because in truth, you can't deny it. You really did enjoy all the killing. And Kojima is only able to do this through the gameplay. If you were to see the same scene in a movie, you could just tell yourself that the villain is wrong, and it would lose almost all of its emotional impact. But here you know that the villain is right because you actually experienced it. Kojima does this sort of stuff all the time. And that's taking advantage of what can be done with the medium in a way that Miyamoto never did. Miyamoto and Wright use the strengths of the medium to make fun toys. Kojima uses the strengths of the medium to make a point. And that's the difference between creating a toy and creating art.

In the past few years more game designers have been moving away from the trend of trying to make movies like films. They've been focusing on actually make video games. But I still have yet to see any of them really use the strengths of the medium as effectively as Kojima has.

mag

[ConcreteRancor]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

That said, this is a fine piece of marketing.

http://timisgod.mixnmojo.com/

Hey! Motley Crue is back together! Woot!

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by mag

And that's the difference between creating a toy and creating art.

Neither of which is any more or less a legitimate exploitation of the medium's strengths, nor any reflection of the "genius" (or lack thereof) behind it.

Appreciating art over fun is anyone's prerogative, but let's not pretend one has any more inherent value than the other. And don't say you aren't, because your bias is plainly obvious:

But I still have yet to see any of them really use the strengths of the medium as effectively as Kojima has.

Had you ended that sentence with "to achieve the purpose I deem more important", then it would be accurate. As it is, your statement is incomplete.

Not that it matters, but calling those games "toys" is just a euphemism. They are interactive "toys" that create gameplay dynamically, dependent on player input. That's a pretty damn brilliant (and utterly innovative) toy, and to suggest that it's a purely technical exercise shows no real understanding of them. I'm not arguing to defend them, as I don't particularly like the sims-style games, myself. But I'm not ignorant of the complex nature of their design on many levels.

Note: this has nothing to do with designers being geniuses, which I've already established is impossible to tell merely based on their creations.

[mag]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Had you ended that sentence with "to achieve the purpose I deem more important", then it would be accurate. As it is, your statement is incomplete.

No, my statement is fine as it is, thank you. I'm not saying that either art or fun is more important than the other. But creating art does require a great deal more creative talent.

Originally Posted by Jackal

Not that it matters, but calling those games "toys" is just a euphemism. They are interactive "toys" that create gameplay dynamically, dependent on player input. That's a pretty damn brilliant (and utterly innovative) toy, and to suggest that it's a purely technical exercise shows no real understanding of them. I'm not arguing to defend them, as I don't particularly like the sims-style games, myself. But I'm not ignorant of the complex nature of their design on many levels.

First of all, that's just a misuse of the word "euphemism." If it was a euphemisim, that would mean that I was trying to use a term that is less harsh or blunt. Clearly that's not the case. What you mean to say is that calling those games "toys" is inaccurate.

And I never said anything about the complexity of the games. I'm not using the word "toy" to mean something simple or unimportant. I'm using the word "toy" to mean toy. It's something that's just fun to play with. There are a lot of toys out there that are pretty complex. That doesn't make them not toys. Like I said, Wright himself has called his games toys. Miyamoto thinks of his games in the same way.

I can't really think of them as creative geniuses because their ideas didn't really require an extraordinary amount of creativity. They were mostly just natural extensions of the technology. Miyamoto's games grew from the idea of exploring caves. Wright pretty much just took the strategy game and brought it to the computer. There's not much more to those games than that.

And I find it even more difficult to think of them as technical geniuses because there are plenty of people out there with just as much if not more technical ability.

mag

[EasilyConfused]

I absolutely agree that by labelling something a toy (rather than art), you create an instant hierarchy. I personally don't even have a problem saying that art is of greater value than pure, mindless fun--but then, I have a pretty broad definition of art, and a pretty narrow idea of what pure, mindless fun is. I wouldn't describe toys as pure, mindless fun, for example.

BoyToy suggested an interesting definition of art on the "Future of Gaming" thread--that art is anything that stimulates your imagination. Stimulating your imagination, making you think, making you see the world in a new way, giving you a unique perspective nobody else could--these are all things that someone's work could do. Whether you then label it "a toy" or "ART" is not really much more helpful than the "genius" label.

To step away from semantics, I still don't see that one person's view that something stimulates THEIR imagination or that something is thought-provoking to THEM prevents other people from making an equally persuasive case that for the second group, entirely different things are thought-provoking. That's why I think that at the end of the day the assessment of most of this stuff is a matter of taste. Yes, mag acknowledges that toys and art overlap, but when he contends that they lie along a spectrum, this raises the question of what the endpoints of the spectrum represent. Are the endpoints something "objective" that all humankind acknowledges as important? Or are they goals that just certain people value?

For example, I don't see that SimCity or FMV AGs games are of LESS value than the admittedly fascinating game mag describes. I see mag's point about the way Metal Gear Solid uses the medium, and it's an interesting point, but it's neither here nor there in terms of the contribution of the person making use of the medium. People still turn plays into films and vice versa, and do so brilliantly. (David Mamet's Glengarry Glenn Ross is a great play and a great film. And to get really esoteric, Clement Greenberg thought that Kasimir Malevich made the best use ever of the medium of paint--but if you asked a million art lovers whom they thought the most significant or best or most important or most moving painter of the 20th century was, I bet Malevich would be near the bottom of any those lists.)

I remember the first time I played SimCity. I thought, "My gosh, I've never thought of the world I live in in THIS way." Except for few seconds in an airplane take-off or landing when houses and offices look like monopoly pieces, I'd never thought of the world I live in as made up of these structures . . . streets, houses, electricity, water. (Okay, call me limited. ) Sure, SimCity didn't make me understand what it felt to be a criminal, but it wasn't mindless fun either. (Though it was pretty darn fun. ) My mind wasn't switched off. As Jack pointed out, because the games we've discussed require dynamic input from the player by definition, it would have been hard for me to be entirely switched off and still be playing the game.

(I'm not going to try to find the meaning in Mario Brothers. I could never play it, so there wasn't any dynamic player interaction going on there at all. )

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by mag

And I find it even more difficult to think of them as technical geniuses because there are plenty of people out there with just as much if not more technical ability.

It is interesting to watch pages and pages of argument on a semantic level and not really on the topic at hand, I think.

Everyone keeps arguing--as if I am side-flowing a debate--what is or what is not a genius.

Genius could be a high intelligence quotient, usually broken down at 140 or above. But I don't think any of these men have records of their IQ available for the public to sift through. Thus, we can't really make an IQ judgement about the men (or women) since the data isn't quite available.

Another common definition would be: extraordinary intellectual power especially as manifested in creative activity. Though this is something more workable in this forum discussion, the definition still leaves itself wide open to connotative differences. What is "extraordinary intellectual power"? What is a "creative activity"?

If a creative activity is CREATING a toy, and the use of extreme intelligence is CREATING a toy that no one has ever thought of creating before, well, then, several of these pioneers in game development may be--according to my semantics--geniuses. I could talk myself into circles if I wanted, but since I'm derragned enough as it is, I won't subject myself to such pressure.

Ok. Maybe I will.

I would merely say that some of these men have a genius for what they do. Genius, in this sense, does not so much define the man as it does define his quality and actions. Someone's genius may be a strong natural talent. By this definition, if you agree that these men have "strong natural talent", then you may also agree that these men have some genius...but not that they are necessarily geniuses.

And I do not think I have yet seen anyone mention the one game designer who I see as a distinctive and innovative force in the gaming world: Yu Suzuki. The man who could have--with enough moral backing--created a flourishing world from his Shenmue series to push video gaming into a new direction. As is, his FREE gameplay system has been left isolated, only to be picked apart and theived by more recent games like Resident Evil 4.

Overall, I would never really use the word genius to describe anyone in the video game industry. This isn't because I don't think they are geniuses. Instead, it is because what they create are subjective works of art. The ultimate genius or Jackson Pollack may create an amazing and dynamic drip painting of previously unknown proportions, but to some observer, it may be nothing more than a monkey at the canvas.

For me, much of what we call genius is the search for beauty. And that, oddly enough, is only in the eye of the beholder.

Kirk

P.S. Yu Suzuki has a cool car.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by mag

No, my statement is fine as it is, thank you. I'm not saying that either art or fun is more important than the other. But creating art does require a great deal more creative talent.

And if we were discussing creative talent, that might mean something. Since you seem to have forgotten, I'll remind you that you were discussing utilizing the medium's strengths. The medium has far more to offer than artistic expression, so all you've done is compare them from the perspective of art. Which is fine, but entirely unhelpful. If your point was simply that one was far more artistic than another, I'd have to ask why you're stating the obvious.

First of all, that's just a misuse of the word "euphemism." If it was a euphemisim, that would mean that I was trying to use a term that is less harsh or blunt. Clearly that's not the case. What you mean to say is that calling those games "toys" is inaccurate.

Wow, thanks dad. No, I didn't mean inaccurate, and a I DID mean euphemism, of course, replacing the harsh reference of the "basic" technical coding that you've implied is all these games are, in essence. But even using such a euphemism is to drastically sell them short, as they are far more than any non-interactive "toy" that one could reasonably compare them to. Anyway, thanks for that pointless semantics exercise.

And I find it even more difficult to think of them as technical geniuses because there are plenty of people out there with just as much if not more technical ability.

As Remixor said in this post (whose points are basically the same as my own, and remain unanswered), it sounds more like you don't really understand the games you're discussing, or the design elements involved quite outside mere programming ability.

It really doesn't matter to me if you do or don't, personally, but it does matter to me that you're grossly misrepresenting them.