Post by videodream in There are only two valid ways to make games. comments

There are only two valid ways to make games. » Comments

Viewing post in There are only two valid ways to make games. comments

I'm not trying to be rude, but I think your idea that people who "enjoy making making games with artistic value" are all doing it as some kind of affectation, as if they're all just chasing clout or potential accolades as some form of personal salvation is just completely ridiculous and a pretty miserable way to view art and creativity, sorry. Most of the artists/gamedevs I know are completely unknown, and make art (art that tries to be meaningful) for like, a handful of people, truly for the love of the game. They will likely never win any awards, they will probably never earn some kind of mainstream prestige for their work. Most of them don't charge money for their games.

And also, this idea of "if you're going to charge money for your game you should just earnestly embrace the idea of being a ruthless capitalist"? Huh?? How is this inspiring any kind of positive change? Don't we have enough people doing this already? I know you want artists to be "responsible" or something and make things that have a chance of succeeding and earning money, but like, I think this is just a very apathetic of the games industry. It's not at all empowering like I think you maybe meant it to be?

The idea that "if your game isn't absolutely terrible then you are doing it wrong", again - huh?? I know you're sorta gesturing towards this idea that artists shouldn't concern themselves too much with pleasing an audience, that they shouldn't obsess about polishing their work or whatever, and I actually agree with you (partially), but I also think it's perfectly natural to think of your audience and try to give them a reasonably polished or entertaining experience. Lots of people who make things love to make things that are specifically for an audience, they like to play the role of the entertainer. I know we usually view "entertainment" through the cynical lens of AAA gaming/soulless corporations, but there is a kind of genuine/sincere desire to entertain that you'll find in many small creative communities that isn't rooted in trying to manipulate you or drain your wallet. They simply want to give you a good time, that's part of their fun. Why should we police these people, it seems ridiculous. Again, I think there's something to be said for the idea of "needing" to please an audience as a form of oppression (it can easily get out of hand). I think you saying something to the effect of "hey don't obsess too much about pleasing people, just make stuff and have a great time", is actually an empowering message that I think more people need to hear, and is probably the only idea here I really found myself nodding my head at.

"Every time you think about making GOOD art or EXPERIMENTING WITH THE GENRE you have started making games NOT for fun." This is where I became convinced that there was some layer of irony I wasn't parsing, and maybe the joke is on me. But like, come on. You can't seriously think that experimenting with a genre isn't fun? It's extremely fun! It's maybe the most fun thing you can do when working on a game! Kill the cop in your head! NOW! HE'S RUNNING! STOP HIM!!!

vaporwario2 days ago(+1)

hi hi! 💜 btw i did find your comment rude. maybe try to be nice specifically.

first off i want to apologize. My manifesto was written to be very inflammatory in the style of some of the others i read, which i now regret, since it makes people sad and it makes it easier to dismiss my ideas and easier for people to argue with my exaggerations.

I meant to directly attack what I see as the current dominant thought in indie game developers, who value artistry and polish over tangible things such as rent and having fun. I didn't want to be empowering and instead wanted to be confrontational.

To your point about commercial games, I see a lot of my peers (myself included) do this thing where they mix business and pleasure, and the game doesn't sell very well and they get burnt out making it. Neither business nor pleasure in the end. My point is if you are trying to pay your rent then you should be as realistic as possible about what you're making and why you're making it. Some genres do much better on steam. I would say prioritize paying your rent and as a secondary thing try to make it something you dont hate doing. This isn't the main point of my manifesto though, if you find a way that making commercial games that works for you, great! im just a lil disillusioned with it.

I am like your friends. I make games for fun and release them for free and basically only a couple of people outside of my friends consistently engage with my work. Until recently nobody engaged with my work at all, i didnt have friends that liked these things. I think as artists we need to have a game making philosophy that still works with an expected audience of zero.

Let me try to clarify my idea of making bad games. Imagine every decision you make while making a game has a mix of 3 effects (on top of many others):

1. it makes your game more or less artistically impressive.

2. it makes your game more or less fun to play.

3. it makes your game more or less fun to make.

When I see people trying to make artistically impressive non-commercial games or fun games on purpose it means they made decisions that didn't optimize 100% for number 3. They are having less fun than they otherwise could, and basically sacrificing for their art. That's the part that can get kind of egotistical. That person wants to be important and are making themselves unhappy reaching for that. If you tried to make an artistic and fun game but failed and the process sucked, then you basically just had a really bad week or month or year or decade . Having fun while making your game is the outcome you have the most influence over.

The manifesto is trying to say that people should have the highest amount of fun and satisfaction as possible making their non-commercial games. In both the way they make games and how they view game making itself. Showing your game to your friends is super fun but usually the game doesnt need to be good in any way for that process to actually be fun. If you're someone who cant have fun without making something that is artistic or fun to play, then I think its worth it to invest in introspection to try to have fun even when making games you think are bad. I'm not perfect at this myself and wrote this partially as a reminder to myself about what i value. I'm disabled and it's hard to find the effort and time to make games. i need that time to be fun even if i can't finish anything or make it good or meaningful.

If experimenting with the genre is fun to you then you should do it, in the manifesto I meant that if you are trying to make some lasting cultural impact within the genre or within games in general than its usually not going to work and if it does, then what? ok you influenced the culture? are you any happier now? is anyone else even happier now or just different?

First we should prioritize being content with ourselves and our worst games. If we happen to make culture along the way so be it.

but i dont want to yuck ur yum, feel free to ignore me and go about your life, im not trying to police anyone. the invalid/valid phrasing is a joke. i just want more people to realize their desire is causing their suffering when making games.

videodream1 day ago (2 edits) (+1)

Reading your response, I realize that my issue is mostly with how the manifesto is written. Maybe that's my fault for taking the post too seriously, but I also think if something is written in a deliberately inflammatory way, I think it's only natural for someone to be annoyed (I apologize for being rude). I appreciate you elaborating on your thoughts, and I agree with a lot of what you say here.

I do think that, unfortunately, a lot of new devs have a completely warped idea of what "indie game development" is. I've heard new devs say horrifying things like "I just want to make a small game, like Hollow Knight", they have no concept of anything smaller than that, or at least they can't understand why making anything smaller than that would be worthwhile. Everything is filtered through the lens of successful products and breakout hits. Part of the problem, I think, is that a lot of people (especially in America) don't really grow up creating things purely for the joy and richness creativity can bring to their life (and to other's lives). I think loving creativity for its own sake is something you have to learn, and unfortunately I think it's easier to learn this at a younger age. We're really trained to see creativity as a tedious means to an end (AI is probably the most extreme expression of this idea), as if the creative act is only valuable because it can produce something which can then be sold. There's so much pressure to commodify everything: your silly jam game, your shitpost, your little playable poems. It sucks!

I actually do think people should deliberately try to influence the culture of games, as unlikely as it may be for that to actually happen. I don't think it's about being about being "important" or being happier as an artist necessarily, but if you think something is rotten in the culture of games, then I think it's good to attack that through your game. We need to present alternatives to the capital G Gamer, because unlike us itch devs, they truly may not know another world is possible. I've heard gamers refer to The Last of Us as an "indie game"! I would even go as far as to say that it's especially important to do this in commercial games, because that's where you're likely the have the most impact. I don't think that there should be such a rigid separation between steam games/commercial games and itch weirdos (I guess I'm a hypocrite in this regard, because I only make free games on itch). I think we should take advantage of the fact that you can quite easily have your weird personal game live in the same venue as Call of Duty 46 or whatever, as this may not be the case forever. This is maybe the best time in the history of games to even attempt to influence the larger culture surrounding games. The vast majority of us probably won't successfully inspire change for the better in games as a whole, but it's worth it to at least try. At the very least, we might plant the seeds of influence that could grow into something in another generation. We might look back in 20 years, if we're still around, and think "damn, we missed our chance". Of course, as you say, it probably shouldn't be your priority. Making something that you love, something that feels sincere to you is always going to be the most important thing (this in itself is a subversive enough act to be culturally influential, I think). But, somewhat on the contrary, I guess I also do agree with the notion that devs should be realistic with their commercial products, to try to set themselves up for success if they can. There's some kind of happy middle ground that I have trouble defining in concrete terms.

Anyways, sorry for the long reply after an already long reply.

"First we should prioritize being content with ourselves and our worst games. If we happen to make culture along the way so be it."

I agree. I like that idea. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Your post made me think of this video of John Cassavetes talking about filmmaking, specifically the part starting at 2:14. Maybe you've seen it, but I thought I would share it anyways.

vaporwario1 day ago(+1)

You're very right, it is only natural to get annoyed at this manifesto haha. Sorry about that again... I really appreciate your response and I do think it's reasonable to try to influence the culture and of course for most it's not an ego thing. Part of manifesto was born out of my most cynical tendencies, so I don't blame anyone that isn't there yet and at least appreciates the goal of having fun making games and not polishing them to a fine paste lol.

I completely agree that a lot of new devs have a completely warped idea of indie game development! Definitely loving creativity for it's own sake is not a given in our environment at all.

When I go to in person game showcases in my local area, most of the games I see are in the style of these huge indie games. Usually they are made for years part time hoping to sell and win the game lottery. I feel like that attitude is like the counter to AAA games. The counter to the indie games to me feels like "art games". I've talked to some people at GDC who make art games and showcase that stuff and try to make really interesting pieces. I think some of those people see themselves as a kind of avant-garde filmmakers or something. Really making culture and influencing people. Probably those people submit their to the experimental game showcase at GDC or other art game showcases. I imagine they look at other games and value them based on some "artistic merits" and how much they go against game norms while still valuing game design skill in some sense. I admit that i've submitted to some of these art showcases and been denied. So this manifesto is my counter to the art game people. I've told a couple of them my bad games theory and they enjoy parts of it but they usually insist on trying to make good games, And instead choose their own definition for what good is.

I've haven't seen that video yet. The part at 2:14 really made me smile. I love that section... Maybe I'll try to soften up on people trying to make culturally interesting games hahaha.

i'll remember this interaction fondly, thank you!

itch.io

Viewing post in There are only two valid ways to make games. comments