I’m a creator (assistant creator) trying to express myself through the art of the virtual, fictional interactive system. For several years now, I have been led by a vision of what so-called videogames can be – one that is not my own. I believe following that vision includes experimentation, constant learning, discovery, and creative expression of the nature of humanity. The end result is the development of meaningful and spiritual videogames.
Here are some ways others have expressed how I feel about games, notgames, or art in general:
When you don’t create things, you become defined by your tastes rather than ability. Your tastes only narrow and exclude people. So create.
I think the reason that incompatibility exists, as an aside, is that language is often simplistic and overly abstract, and reality is far more complex than language can deal with. So just because the same thing can be explained / interpreted in dozens of ways linguistically doesn’t mean it’s subjective, it just means that different people attempt to simplify it in different ways, because it’s too complex for them to deal with as a whole, so they pick and choose specific parts of it, simplify those parts, construct a theory about those parts, and we call it an interpretation. But interpretations are often laughably simple compared to how complex the thing being interpreted is, which is often beyond the powers of language or even the human mind. In contrast to language, art deals with reality through directly portraying something, in a “pointing” fashion. So it can convey a bit more complexity than language can, although it too has its limits.
Make your own kind of music
Even if nobody else sings along.
Experimental Gameplay: Gameplay still not proven to work
Sounds obvious, but there are a few implications:
- There is not another known game to safely compare your gameplay to
- You might end up with something that sucks
If you think about it, the way we do games now seems almost schizophrenic. We put a lot of effort and money to create beautiful content. But then we go ahead and hide it behind all these puzzles so only a small fraction of players can enjoy it. That’s neither in the interest of the developers nor is it really in the interest of the players. If the content is valuable, it should provide entertainment by itself. Interaction shouldn’t lock away content. It should allow them to get more from it.
One of the reasons I love Ella Fitzgerald, for instance, is that she sings like she loves music. Something I often quote is Ruskin’s ‘You will never love art well until you love what she mirrors better’, and I think that’s true, but after loving truth, you have to love your form. Art is what lasts, the voices of human to human echoing down the centuries, that resonates with the deepest patterns in our minds. It’s a sacred trust, and if you don’t love the form, you can have no feel for it – and you’ve got no business mauling about a sacred form that you can’t handle and don’t love.
I suspect that this is the secret reason why non-hobbyists are disdainful of today’s computer games. They intuitively sense the lack of a larger purpose behind the events they see on the screen.
Aside from a few jingoistic platitudes, a bit of narrative hand-waving to set up the slaughter, there’s little or no justification for anything. The fighting just seems to go on and on.
It’s not the violence that bothers people, really.
It’s the uselessness.
Brian Moriarty (1998)