[remixor]

By this point I don't know how much longer we can possibly continue this discussion. Jackal has very eloquently reiterated the basic points I was trying to make, and if your responses are still the same there's not going to be anything left for me to say. I read your example from Metal Gear Solid 1, and it's cute, but honestly if that's the kind of thing you define as genius (some rather obviously conceived postmodern guilt trip) then we don't have too much to discuss I don't think.

At least now I see what is informing your opinions; it seems like you do in fact have this kind of "narrative art" bias, which I really don't think is always the best criterion for judging GAMES. Repeatedly calling SimCity a "toy" doesn't change anything I've said about it. If at one point one of the citizens looked up at you (at YOU, not another citizen!!!) and made a comment about consumerism or urban sprawl or something, would it then be a brilliant work? Wright himself has called his games toys, but he has also speculated that they are art. Why must they be mutually exclusive (especially when Metal Gear Solid is still a GAME, a term that has very similar implication to TOY)? With each new medium comes new offerings that were previously unimaginable. With games, probably the biggest one is gameplay. Just as in film, in which a film that is all cinematographic style over content can be a brilliant and important and artistic contribution to the medium even without developed characters or what have you, I would say that in games, a game that presents brilliant and well-realized and creative gameplay might be analogous. SimCity is clearly all gameplay, no narrative (well, no set narrative--it's worth bearing in mind that one of the things Wright likes so much about his genre is that there are as many stories in his games as there are players who play them), but why can't Wright just be an artist of gameplay? That is his medium. He's not trying to make you question your very soul, he's trying to recreate a world and put it in the hands of a player, and let the story emerge. And considering he does iti successfully, I'd say that's some pretty brilliant artististry of gameplay.

Anyway, I already can sort of predict how this thread is going to end up, but we'll see.

[SoccerDude28]

You know, I read a very interesting article the other day by Ron Gilbert about the cutscenes in video games, and he had a very good point. Cut scenes take you away from the experience. Why? Because you sometimes have to see the same scene over and over again, and also because you have to drop down the controller, or mouse and keyboard and watch it. Now if you can actually play through the cutscenes, a little like Half life 2 has to offer, then you never leave the world you are put it.

Mag, if I wanted to watch movies, or artistic ones for that matter, I would rent Moulin Rouge. I really think games should not turn into movies but still offer a story. MGS3 in my opinion suffered from way too many cutscenes.

Another thing to notice, you can say that anyone could have thought of Sims. But the fact that no one thought about it means that Will Write is a pretty creative guy. I agree with Jackal and Remixor, you are mixing between art and creativity and even genius for that matter.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by remixor

t least now I see what is informing your opinions; it seems like you do in fact have this kind of "narrative art" bias, which I really don't think is always the best criterion for judging GAMES.

Agreed. Surely the reason we play games is to have fun? We may learn something about the world, we may not, but surely one wouldn't claim that the people who created Pong and Space Invaders weren't geniuses purely because the games don't have stories? Not that I'm saying that anybody is a genius, mind you, but I've always looked on Kojima almost as a failed film director, trying to force one medium into another with varying levels of success.

[After a brisk nap]

If we see the development of computer games only in light of the development of movies, I am concerned that we will only be able to recognize the kind of innovation that fits our model. So when we talk about "realizing the full potential of the medium", we only consider the potential that is similar to the model. We only consider the potential of games to, like movies, tell a story with a moral.

The example mags quotes from MGS does not, in my opinion, push the boundaries of what can be done, either from the perspective of art or from the perspective of video/computer games. The same effect has been achieved in plays, in novels, in films and in comic books, using slightly different tricks to make audiences invest in a character who is then held up for judgement. I would argue that in MGS it comes across as clumsy and trite.

When Will Wright calls his games "toys", he has a very specific, technical meaning of the word in mind. When mags describes them as "tech demos" that "were mostly just natural extensions of the technology", he reveals how little he knows about what inspired them, and the thinking that went into the design. In this article (written some time before The Sims was released), Will Wright explains how he has been trying to expand the conception of what a computer game is, and how you can play it.

Computer games can be toys and they can be storytelling devices (as well as other things, some which we have discovered, others we have not). Toys and stories can both be art. After all, most paintings are not stories, and many modern art installations are essentially toys. Whichever way a game designer innovates and pushes the boundaries, we should acknowledge that.

Now personally, I enjoyed MGS a lot more than I enjoyed SimCity or The Sims. My preference is for games as storytelling devices over toys. That doesn't mean stories are superior to toys, or the only way to make games that are also art, or the only way to be a genius as a game designer.

[Simon]

Kojima is an interesting one, because on the one hand he's done some quite cool things that can only be done in games, but on the other he seems to be stuck in a rut of cutscene overkill with his MGS games now. He doesn't seem so visionary to me so long as he's chopping up gameplay with long story sequences, but that's how I see it. Even if 'innovative' gameplay makes a great game designer, I think that is undone to some extent when you have big chunks where there's no gameplay. People definitely play the MSG games and love them as games and as they are, though.

About Schafer: I stopped my annoying habit of calling things superlatives like 'Best album of the past decade' every week, and the word 'genius' kind of went out with that. It's partly that I got fed up with people telling me the such-and-such a novelist/director/songwriter/gardener/whatever was a 'genius', and then realised that I was doing it too.

All I know is that the games Tim Schafer makes just do something for me. He writes dialogue that wows me, has interesting ideas and worlds in his brain that he can actually turn into good games, and seems to get all the right people together around him. Schafer's the one guy without which Grim Fandango would not have happened, but for me that last bit about 'the right people' does create a problem (which we've already been over) of crediting a single 'genius'.

[Fairygdmther]

In attempting to look up percentage of genius:population, I came across this article: (bold emphasis is mine)

POTENTIAL AND ACHIEVEMENT CATEGORIZATION OF GENIUS
By Paul B. MacCready

"Genius" is one of those broad, imprecise words that is widely used but never exactly defined (like "common cold"). A generally accepted definition is "extraordinary intellectual power" where extraordinary just means much more than possessed by the person doing the labeling unless the labeler is the genius him/herself.

If intellectual power is normally distributed, perhaps we can be justified in setting the criterion for genius at three standard deviations above average. This corresponds to the top 0.13%, so rare that you may not know one. However, it is humbling to realize that in this world of 5.4 billion people, there must be 7,020,000 of them out there some place, and since the earth's population is increasing at about 250,000 a day, another 325 are added daily to this horde of geniuses. Another humbling fact is that intellectual powers in the population are not distributed exactly normally; the distribution curve is skewed in such a way that more people are below average than above.

The above clarification has introduced one way of categorizing genius. There are many others, all of which could be argued endlessly for or against. Here are four others worthy of consideration:

"Everyone Agrees" Category (posthumous award).
Such a list must include Leonardo, Shakespeare, Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Mozart, etc.

"Officially Designated" Category (which includes many still living).
This list incorporates all Nobel Prize winners, and recipients of the so-called "Genius Awards" by the MacArthur Foundation (many of whom were selected for genius potential rather than genius proven). All these awardees, and those receiving recognition for other comparable prizes, have the added feature that big money accompanies the award. Money and television publicity certainly make these awards generally accepted in our modern culture as defining genius. As a cautioning note I must mention that, for one of these individuals, the genius skills did not apply to all aspects outside his/her specialty, and so my wife had to be called on various times to program his/her VCR. He/she will remain nameless here.

"High Achiever" Category.
If you pick 100 very high achievers who have recently become nationally or even internationally renown--for top level acting or writing or art or athletic performance, for creating a giant business empire, for outstanding political leadership, for a dramatic, dangerous trip, for scientific achievement, etc.--you will be surprised to find how poorly many of them did in school. Achievement is not hurt by intellectual gifts, but more important for most spectacular achievement are dedication, enthusiasm, selecting the right challenges, timing, and good luck. And the achievement must be recognized by others as unique and important. I.Q. may suggest how well you will fare in school, but it is a poor predictor of how you will fare in life. Some very high I.Q. people are great at winning the debate but not at solving the problem. Some are tripped up by overconfidence, or inhibited from being venturesome for fear of being wrong.

Thus, a genius can be considered someone who actually creates the unusual or spectacular result. If the great potential chemist happened to be born and live in a remote, impoverished Third World village, there would be no opportunity to perform the great creative acts.

"Six Year Old Youngster" Category.
Every six-year-old in the U.S. speaks a complicated language fluently, handling subtle terms and exceptions. If bilingual, the child does this for two languages, with perfect accent. The child also is a bit of a scientist, learning by experimenting with bike, swing, or sand box. And the youngster can skillfully manipulate two adults. The child is obviously a genius--until, in many cases, school, parents, or the neighborhood grinds out the spark.

In summary, genius is as genius does. There must be a well-recognized output. Extraordinary intellectual power is sometimes needed, but by itself is rarely enough. The number of geniuses depends strongly on how one defines the term. By any definition, the number is growing--and will continue to until computers take over and render genius obsolete, or will they?

FGM

[Jazhara7]

The only real genius is Harvey Ball. Because of



-

[mag]

You know, this is just getting ridiculous now. You're getting upset because I don't consider Schafer, Miyamoto, or Wright to be geniuses? Do you realize how far you have to have lodged your head up your own ass to be offended by somebody not considering you a genius?

You asked me why I consider Kojima a genius, and I told you. Maybe you disagree with that opinion, and that's your right. But my opinion of Kojima is entirely independent of my opinion of Miyamoto and Wright, so trying to find some way to connect the two is just absurd.

All I was really trying to get at is why I should consider any of these men to be geniuses, which none of you have answered. I can't consider them creative geniuses, nor can I look at them as geniuses based on their technical skills. So what area am I supposed to consider them to be geniuses in? If any of you manage to stop dodging the question long enough to answer this, I'd love to know.

And let me just say also that the games Miyamoto and Wright make ARE in fact toys. If some of you happen to be so stuck-up and pretentious that you consider anything that's a toy to be bad, then that's your problem. I never made any sort of value judgment there. I'm just calling the games what they are.

mag

[EasilyConfused]

Thanks, Snarky, for the helpful post. I didn't read the entire Wright article, but it's clear from it that what he means by a toy is something that is an imaginative trigger for a child--something that doesn't have only one fixed possible use but creates interactive, dynamic possibilities. (Yeah, that sounds pretty pretentious; he explains it better in the article.) Or perhaps a better analogy might be one that someone brought up on the Future of Gaming thread, a thread I keep shamelessly promoting here--the idea of a game as a musical instrument. At some point, in theory, games could (or perhaps have for all I know) reach the point where the contribution of the player is as "creative" as the contribution of the designer or more so. I think this was Wright's point about toys. I mean, one of his examples was blocks. To create or design a set of plain wooden blocks for a kid doesn't take much more "innovation" or "creativity" than scavenging a carpenter's shop. (Assuming that such shops still existed, and that the carpenter was willing.) The kid playing with the blocks is the person bringing creativity and imagination to the situation, whether he or she builds a castle, a dungeon, a space-age city, a cat, a visual representation of Thailand, or whatever. I mean, the block could even become the head or body of a doll, or a boat, or . . . <runs off to buy some 2x4s and turn them into blocks for self.>

So again, mag, I just don't see the toy label as too helpful. The suggestion that a toy is only for entertainment doesn't even I don't think accurately describes the way we all probably played with toys when we were kids.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by mag

You know, this is just getting ridiculous now. You're getting upset because I don't consider Schafer, Miyamoto, or Wright to be geniuses? Do you realize how far you have to have lodged your head up your own ass to be offended by somebody not considering you a genius?

Most people who have disagreed with you on the thread have made it clear that they are not trying to answer who is or is not a genius. They take issue with your claim that Miyamoto and Wright have not made unique contributions to gaming that require extraordinary creative powers. Your description of their games indicate that you have no understanding of them.

You asked me why I consider Kojima a genius, and I told you. Maybe you disagree with that opinion, and that's your right. But my opinion of Kojima is entirely independent of my opinion of Miyamoto and Wright, so trying to find some way to connect the two is just absurd.

You recognize one kind of innovation, but not another. That is worth pointing out for the sake of contrast.

All I was really trying to get at is why I should consider any of these men to be geniuses, which none of you have answered. I can't consider them creative geniuses, nor can I look at them as geniuses based on their technical skills. So what area am I supposed to consider them to be geniuses in? If any of you manage to stop dodging the question long enough to answer this, I'd love to know.

And let me just say also that the games Miyamoto and Wright make ARE in fact toys. If some of you happen to be so stuck-up and pretentious that you consider anything that's a toy to be bad, then that's your problem. I never made any sort of value judgment there. I'm just calling the games what they are.

You are using the word "toy" to mean three different things, and going from one definition to another in order to make your argument.

When you say that "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," you're using "toy" to describe a work that is an exploration by the creator into the medium.

When you say that "It's something that's just fun to play with," you're arguing that the intended effect is merely entertainment, as opposed to some higher purpose. (And your attempts to deny that there's a value judgement here are rather puny.)

Finally, when you say "I think Wright himself has even described his games that way in the past," you're unwittingly using Wright's definition of the word, which is (roughly) something that allows players to engage in exploratory play and make up their own games, something that supports unintended purposes.

The first definition hardly implies the second. Using your film analogy as an example, Battleship Potemkin is certainly a "toy" in that Eisenstein was trying different things to see if they worked, and figuring out how to achieve various effects. However, it was not intended to just be a "fun" film.

The third definition is completely separate, and even in conflict with the second. When Wright talks about his "toys" as vehicles for exploration and discovery, he has something more ambitious in mind than just something that is fun to play with.

[mag]

You know what? Forget it. I'm done with this discussion. You folks obviously aren't really interested in having a serious discussion about this as much as you are in making sure nobody says anything even vaguely negative about people you like. Apparently, the only way you can do that is to constantly misrepresent whatever I say. And I think that's pretty sad. But by all means, don't let me interrupt any more of your Schafer/Wright/Miyamoto love fest.

mag

[Wormsie]

That is so unlike you, mag.

[remixor]

Originally Posted by mag

You know what? Forget it. I'm done with this discussion. You folks obviously aren't really interested in having a serious discussion about this as much as you are in making sure nobody says anything even vaguely negative about people you like. Apparently, the only way you can do that is to constantly misrepresent whatever I say. And I think that's pretty sad. But by all means, don't let me interrupt any more of your Schafer/Wright/Miyamoto love fest.

mag

It's funny how most of the people who keep responding to your posts actually AREN'T engaging in the "Schafer/Wright/Miyamoto love fest" in real life as much as they seem to be doing in your head. Would it help if I said that on the first day this poll was posted, before I got embroiled in discussion, I answered "No" to the poll? People are presenting very constructive opinions, not being the trolls you're making them out to be. Get over yourself.

[Phantom]

I think we're looking at it from slightly the wrong angle. Games can be works of genius while their creators aren't geniuses per se. The perfect example of this is Blizzard, who can be credited with creating some of the most brilliant (even genius) games of all time. Valve is another perfect example.

Starcraft and Half-Life are obviously works of genius. They perfectly fit the description.

As far as I know however, Blizzard games aren't designed by or credited to one single man. Blizzard isn't a company headed by one brilliant designer, but by a group of designers. Still Starcraft is obviously on the genius level. Not only was it revolutionary, original and perfectly executed in all aspects, but it managed to keep the crown for many years to come (and to be quite honest, it still holds it to this day).

I find that pretty interesting, because it doesn't work that way with movies. In movies, the director is much more important to the movie than any person to a game, and most brilliant movies can be credited to the genius of the director (or writer, in rare circumstances). For some games and designers this is still the case, but it appears that games often end up being much more than the sum of its parts.


As to wether Tim Schafer is a genius... I don't really think so. Molineux, Miyamoto, Will Wright and Sid Meier are geniuses.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Is it possible for 'genius' to be comprised of more than one person? That is, can it be made up of a group of people with different talents and intelligence?

[Erwin_Br]

I think this entire question is subjective. We can all present our opinion, but there's not much point in really discussing it. Everyone has their own personal geniusses.

--Erwin

[Marian]

Interesting thread. I'll just throw in one quotation (don't remember whose) which has stuck with me over the years. It may not even be germane to this thread, but what the heck.

"Talent does what it can; genius does what it must."

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Is it possible for 'genius' to be comprised of more than one person? That is, can it be made up of a group of people with different talents and intelligence?

I feel that the team who created Obsidian was genius, unfortunately, their marketers were morons. Not only did it not sell well, but the company went out of business after it.

FGM

[Maquisard]

Who the hell would wanna play games made by a genius?! The guy's a bozo, that's why we all like him

[ConcreteRancor]

Originally Posted by deadworm222

That is so unlike you, mag.

I think it's because Snarky's been able to do the impossible, and out-mag mag.