Gameplay vs artistic/creative merit.

[Lacrymas]

snip

Look, how is what you are saying helping us make better games? How do you propose we make a better game with your arguments? How are they useful in determining which games are better? How do they answer the question whether gameplay or creativity, or something else is the logical center of gaming?

Everything else is far too convoluted to go into long tangents about (art-as-objectivity, technical competency, what is contextually relevant, subjectivity-as-criteria (if such a thing exists), etc. etc.), so just leave it since it would take literally years of discussion to go anywhere.

 

[Major Malfunction]

Look, how is what you are saying helping us make better games?

By deflating any notion of objective criteria thus forcing context-sensitive appraisals of game mechanics and design choices and by bridging the illusory gap between mechanics, art and design. :troika:

How do you propose we make a better game with your arguments?

By going back to the old model of concept over construct, constraining art and design naturally through the limitations of mechanics rather than the other way around. Also, by avoiding the pitfalls of undefined excellency; the gameplay fallacies that exist because developers think they need to exist; all the machines that serve no function.

How are they useful in determining which games are better?

The good & gooder debate becomes reliant on producing a set of concrete albeit subjective criteria which need to be met by the game.

How do they answer the question whether gameplay or creativity is the logical center of gaming?

They don't -- the question is demonstratively dumb.

 

[Lacrymas]

By deflating any notion of objective criteria thus forcing context-sensitive appraisals of game mechanics and design choices and by bridging the illusory gap between mechanics, art and design. :troika:

Context-sensitivity is always objective. There is obviously a gap that *can* (and 99% of the time, does) exist between mechanics and the art, mechanics-as-metaphor (for example) are very rarely utilized to any degree.

By going back to the old model of concept over construct, constraining art and design naturally through the limitations of mechanics rather than the other way around. Also, by avoiding the pitfalls of undefined excellency; the gameplay fallacies that exist because developers think they need to exist; all the machines that serve no function.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

The good & gooder debate becomes reliant on producing a set of concrete albeit subjective criteria which need to be met by the game.

Concrete and subjective are polar opposites. Very few things on this world are subjective (taste, for example, ISN'T) and creating something out of subjectivity is a) pointless and doesn't go anywhere (i.e. lacks context-sensitivity), b) schizophrenic and c) I don't think it's even possible. To go back to personal preference vs choice - what and how you choose isn't based on personal preference, your personal preference may be to not have a child, but you do it anyway to please your partner. Your personal preference in times of fear may be to run away, but you choose not to in a display of courage. In the context of creating art - you only have the finished product in front of you, so only the creator's choice affects you, and his/her personal preferences have no relevancy at all in how you evaluate this particular piece of art.

They don't -- the question is demonstratively dumb.

It's not, here's why - opera's logical center is the music, everything else is secondary, whatever skewed understanding of uncle Wagner you (general you) might have :p. Gaming is in the same boat, music is demonstrably not the logical center, so what is? I shouldn't have named this creativity I suppose, because you can exhibit creativity in the gameplay as well. What I meant by "creativity" is actually the elements outside of the gameplay. Aesthetic, music, plot, graphics etc.

EDIT: What I meant to write is "which is preferable in the long run", it's obvious that the gameplay is the logical center.

 

[Major Malfunction]

Context-sensitivity is always objective.

Well, it means you depend on a context that's created for that specific purpose. You're picking one point of view over potentially thousands in order to get concrete data in objective relation to that specific pov, so while the data can be objective the pov isn't.

There is obviously a gap that *can* (and 99% of the time, does) exist between mechanics and the art, mechanics-as-metaphor (for example) are very rarely utilized to any degree.

How is there obviously a gap? In the sense of different development strategies, designer ideals or are we talking literally about different forms of data? I see it as a conscious choice of streamlining the actual development process that has caught on due to efficiency despite churning out mediocrity.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Something along the lines of,

Concrete and subjective are polar opposites.

No they're not. You're thinking of abstract, which is the polar opposite of concrete.

Very few things on this world are subjective (taste, for example, ISN'T) and creating something out of subjectivity is a) pointless and doesn't go anywhere (i.e. lacks context-sensitivity), b) schizophrenic and c) I don't think it's even possible.

Taste is personal, biased, impossible to verify or transmit from person to person -- it's about as subjective as it gets. Creating a set of concrete albeit subjective criteria for a game is the definition of context-sensitive analysis, and it isn't pointless because it enables an objective debate on the merits of said game. Why would it be schizophrenic or impossible?

To go back to personal preference vs choice - what and how you choose isn't based on personal preference, your personal preference may be to not have a child, but you do it anyway to please your partner. Your personal preference in times of fear may be to run away, but you choose not to in a display of courage. In the context of creating art - you only have the finished product in front of you, so only the creator's choice affects you, and his/her personal preferences have no relevancy at all in how you evaluate this particular piece of art.

This is some of the most inane shit I've read in recent times and I don't even see how this is relevant to any point you could possibly want to make. Are you saying that my choice in how I choose to write this response isn't directly related to my preference for how to communicate my point across, and that this specifically tailored communication has no effect on how you choose to interpret and evaluate it? Well, I guess it makes sense that we're talking past each other when you're stuck in a completely different fucking dimension.

It's not, here's why - opera's logical center is the music, everything else is secondary, whatever skewed understanding of uncle Wagner you (general you) might have :p.

Oh really? I'm not a big fan of opera, but I figured it was DRAMA set to MUSIC, not the other way around. Take away the music, you have theater. Take away the drama, you have music. It's multi-platform cross genre at its finest.

Gaming is in the same boat, music is demonstrably not the logical center, so what is?

Your whole idea of a logical center in any creation is flawed, based on a subjective preconception of how things work, or if not how they aught to work, and you continuously fail to demonstrate any necessity for your view to have any merit. If a game is the sum of its parts, including fluff such as music, it may just as well consist of 7 or 8 "logical centers" without which the house of cards comes crashing down. Maybe it would help if you could break down a game into all the various constituents and put them up to your ear like a sea-shell found at the beach and hear the waves roll in each one.

I shouldn't have named this creativity I suppose, because you can exhibit creativity in the gameplay as well. What I meant by "creativity" is actually the elements outside of the gameplay. Aesthetic, music, plot, graphics etc.

EDIT: What I meant to write is "which is preferable in the long run", it's obvious that the gameplay is the logical center.

But by your own definition of gameplay, these elements are not outside of gameplay but rather an intrinsic part of it. Look, study this video carefully and return to the discussion once you know what you're talking about:

Spoiler

 

[Lacrymas]

snip

Yeah, figured from your very first sentence that you'd find everything I say insane :p Especially the "taste which isn't subjective" part. It really isn't, but I don't have the (literally) years required to explain why. This discussion is fruitless because the gap in logic is immense. I'll just debate this topic with myself quietly :p

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Blasphemy! Heretic! etc., but hear me out.

I've been playing a little bit of Starcraft 2 (literally 1 mission) and since I also played a bit of Starcraft 1 recently, a thought wormed itself into my brain - which one is better?

Undoubtedly both have good gameplay, but Starcraft 2 takes the cake for being much more fluid (I can't comment on balance, and that's a separate issue entirely). The problem is that Starcraft 1 has better atmosphere and creative juice flowing in it. The dreary, washed-out colors and designs of everything in 1 are really tense and set a bleak tone that is even more underlined by the extreme USA-istic heroism of the Terrans. The music while playing them is sarcastic and almost ironic when combined with the visuals (listening to it on its own is nothing special though). The story is nothing to write home about, but it still is better than Starcraft 2's (uuugghh). Though it kinda ruins itself when Kerrigan turns into a zerg queen, because it attaches a human face to an alien threat which demolishes the whole concept of alien-ness (think Lovecraft). Now that I mention Lovecraft, I dare say that the zerg ARE eldritch in some sense of the word (before Kerrigan). They do embody a post-Nietzchean "God is Dead" universe (in a literal sense, and again before Kerrigan).

Now comes Starcraft 2 - the polar opposite of all that. There really is nothing to talk about because all the creativity is gone, replaced by surgically polished gameplay. The cognitive dissonance comes from the fact that I can't reconcile the two. I am giving them as an example because they both have good gameplay that eschew other factors. The differences between Diablo 2 and 3 are much more numerous (in favor of 2) to give as a good example, though the same principle can be applied to them as well. So, what is the KKKodexian Konsensus on this matter? Does creativity trump gameplay or the other way around? Assuming good gameplay between the candidates and assuming we can't have both. I have no idea if this has been discussed before lulz.

The problem is that SC1 is still a RTS which means it's shit by default.

 

[Axe Father]

Fuck all this intellectual bullshit. The real reason Starcraft 1 is better than 2 is because in the sequel they made the Ghost sound like a gay teen in a gas mask being pumped full of aphrodisiacs

Give me Chris Metzen Ghost or give me death.