Independent Games Summit: Innovation in Indie Games

I found Jenova’s insights on video games appealing to feelings rather than technology or gameplay style pretty neat. Makes you think. Should games be marketed and catagorized based on their feeling? Well, to be honest, some games don’t make me “feel” a certain way. How would you catagorize Quake? “Badass”? Yeah, this game gives me a BADASS feeling. It’s not as easy to catagorize. Usually with movies, people can tell you what sort they like. Horror, comedy, etc. Just as well, with games people say they like First Person Shooters, Real Time Strategy, Action.. etc. It would be weird asking someone what sort of video games people like playing, and having them reply “Feel-good games.” or “Comedy games.”

The movie industry, however, is pretty bland, when it comes to mainstream. Take a look. Do you want to play games the equivalent of a bunch of romance novel film spinoffs? No, not really. And any truely unique film is not mainstream. It’s even worse than in the gaming industry. So what incentive do we have to model independent gaming after an industry that fails at bringing new ideas to the table? What was the latest “innovative” mainstream movie YOU saw?

Even though i found the panel very interesting, relative to the usual output of such panels, for me, it still failed overally. What it got through tough, was the aspect of “meaning” (Blow called this “deepness”).

What it failed to nail down though, how one efficiently achieves this deepness. To keep it short: most of the devs (except of maybe Blow) bought into the “subjective vs. objective”-mentality: Either-Or Mode of thinking. This was extremely obvious with Mak. Efficiency and Innovation is not the result of “Either-Or”. It is not “Imagination OR Implementation” – what kind of bullshit is that? It is not enough to be creative. It is not enough to have methods, tech and concepts available for implementation. Innovation and efficiency comes from having BOTH: Great ideas, and great means to implement them.

It is the same in an analogous way with the “I versus The Audience” stuff. If Mak is totally only creating for himself, then why does he even release his games to the public? This is crap. It is an interaction. You create something to express something… to communicate it to others… of course not everyone will be interested in the meaning which you try to express… so, off course you need to piss off people who are completely different… but this doesnt interfere with trying to make your expression accessible to as much people which are open for it, as reasonable. The flow-example was a quite good rebuke in that regard to Mak… flow wants to express a feeling… and this feeling is not about “its difficult” – so you can as well make difficulty a non-showstopper for your audience.

I really dont get, why they are making it artificially difficult: its like communicating a message as efficient as possible to those, which are open for it.

– Lyx

Guesst:

Yes. Direct Google Video link is: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1373490163872090270&hl=en

But you can also download an MP4 at http://ia341225.us.archive.org/3/items/igs-2007-game-innovation-panel/igs-2007-game-innovation.mov for offline viewing.

How do you efficiently create deepness? I think the answer to that is that you can’t. The reason so many novels and films and whatnot are shallow is that depth is a difficult thing to achieve, even for people who are very good in their medium, you can’t just decide to make something deep and make it come out that way. It’s hard work combined with the ever-present possibility of failure… and I think the only reason people try to make things that have the depth is that they can’t help themselves… there’s an overwhelming passion to create something great, and a lack of interest in anything less than that, which drives those people to take the in some way fundamentally irrational decisions necessary to make something with real depth.

Steves Wank lol

“How do you efficiently create deepness? I think the answer to that is that you can’t. The reason so many novels and films and whatnot are shallow is that depth is a difficult thing to achieve, even for people who are very good in their medium, you can’t just decide to make something deep and make it come out that way.”

It seems that you cannot decide. First you say, that it is not possible. Then you say that it is difficult. And last you say that one cannot intentionally do it, and that instead it happens purely “by accident”. To me, it appears that you are just looking for reasons to justify that YOU DO NOT WANT IT to be possible. Possibly because YOU do not know how to do it, but do not want to accept the possibility, that it may be a lack of you – in contrast to it being GENERALLY not possible.

I am but just one example of a person, which can make something intentionally deep. And i know persons which can do so as well. But as i said in a previous post already, you need BOTH for that – creativity, and conceptual means to implement it. And you need a good understanding about meanings and semantics… so, it also has a lot to do with psychology. You need to understand yourself, before you can efficiently express it to others. Because if you yourself dont even understand what kind of meaning exactly you are trying to express, then how do you expect others to understand it? This is, why deep works are rare… not because it is impossible, but because it requires a lot of abilities, experience and effort. Most people have no time to spend that much mental resources into a hobby-project. And while we have lots of artists and programmers, there is a general lack of talented introspective project coordinators which can efficiently analyze, create and express meanings and “visions” to the rest of the dev-team.

– Lyx

BTW, I’m not offended by Jon at all, I’m just pointing out that there’s nothing wrong with innovating to express an emotion.
Anywho, it’s important to not have the mindset that you “have to do something innovative”, innovation (if there’s any) should come from the vision/direction of your game concept.
Approach from the angle of personal expression, in other words.

So what you’re saying is that even though you haven’t created anything you can show, your opinion is somehow more valid than those of the people on the panel, even though they have, with their individual and unique methods, achieved a notable level of success in the general public.

The really ridiculous thing is that you think you understand something that they don’t, as if there is a right and wrong way to go about creating things.

Maybe you should stop trying to slap people in the face on websites with your e-penis, and instead focus on creating something for a while. See what you come up with.

I’m actually not making any threats. You are the one who is posting long ass threads insulting anyone who doesn’t agree with your view of the world.

You know what? Sometimes people don’t have to agree.

I’m just suggesting you take a chill pill and come back when you have a better understand of how to relate to your fellow human beings.

Yeah, that’s right, ignore anything negative directed at you and keep spewing your meaningless shit all over everyone else on the internet.

Clearly everyone here is riveted by your mindless blathering about how you love to publicly fellate yourself.

Keep up the great work, its a sticky job, but someone has to do it.

No, its much better to be a cynical jackass like yourself.

As is often the issue with having artists speak in an open forum, several of the panelists weren’t very good public speakers and their ideas though similar clashed on ideological levels.
I think Jonathan Blow was the best speaker of the group, but I would much rather let them speak for themselves through their preferred medium. It was interesting to watch but not that enlightening.

From Artful Gamer:

“Jon [Mak], in his markedly passionate and direct Torontonian style, turns us toward the importance of “individual expression” in game development. He suggests that worrying about [technological] innovation does not matter, since the technologies that are used in games are simply tools used to further an expressive agenda….”

More here: http://www.artfulgamer.com/2007/10/01/a-game-begins-with-an-idea/

I agree that when we say a game is ‘deep,’ we mean that it has some communicative aspect, but I don’t necessarily think that you need a rational grasp of psychology or even some set amount of personal development to be able to effect that. I think it can be an intuitive process.

Obviously, classifying depth as the communicative aspect of a game makes it a pretty subjective concept, so it’s hard to establish any definite metric. For example, a game that appeared stupid or silly to everyone but spoke volumes to a single person could still be as deep, arguably, as something that affected a large group of people. However, I think it’s still possible to agree on general terms without rigor.

For example, I think if some studio churned out a game tackling contemporary gender issues in the United States that dealt with the subject matter with a fair and even hand and came up with some interesting insights, or did likewise for social upheaval in India in the 1970s, or explored possibilities for the development of life on Earth, it would be considered deep in comparison to a game where you match tiles for points (to pick on an easy target).

I don’t think this requires some kind of PhD level of critical theory to achieve, it’s simply the idea of writing a game as a communication instead of as a product. While you would certainly be assisted by an understanding of writing and design mediums, I don’t think that’s a complete necessity.

What follows is on the somewhat more opinionated side of things:

First of all, I don’t really think anyone can make the claim that they can produce art with depth. I’m not picking on anyone in the argument, necessarily, but hear me out. I just don’t think that’s any individual’s place to judge. After all, when we talk about communicative depth, that requires a subjective judgement by other people. It would be pretty meaningless to suggest that you had created a real communicative work in a vacuum, I feel, so while you can say, “I think my work will affect a lot of people on a very deep level,” fundamentally it comes down to a lot of people (or even one person) saying, “This work really affected me.”

It’s a bit of a guessing game, really. We all try our best to do that, I think, with varying levels of success.

In closing, I’d also like to comment that I think feeling as if you have a complete grasp of human psychology might actually impair your efforts. The audience is a pretty slippery thing. Often, they won’t get the same meaning from something as you are initially trying to convey and, if you think about it, they have just as much right to their own personal interpretation as you do to yours. I think a conscious attempt to ‘manipulate’ people artistically will probably not be met very well, especially if people realize that you are attempting to manipulate them. Like any communication, I feel that art is more successful if it is genuine. I think that’s the core of ‘designing for yourself.’ It doesn’t mean that you ignore or exclude everyone else while producing something, simply that you base your ideas on concepts that appeal to you and are interesting to you, instead of attempting to cajole, mislead or pander to others.

by Derek:
“Lyx, I think your points would be much easier to understand if you used some concrete examples. For one thing, I’m not quite sure what you mean by a “deep” game.”

I think one could reduce it to the following definition: The “intensity” of the expressed meanings.

Some people – probably because of practical experiences – often think that what for example makes a discussion between two people deep, is “what” they talk about. I would say, that this is not the case, and that this impression comes from the fact, that shallow people often talk about similiar topics – so those topics are considered shallow (its a bit like “blaming the tool for how it was used”).

From my experience, deep discussions come from “how” you are discussing – not “what” you are discussing about. I can have a rather deep discussion about clothes with someone – by focussing on what one can express with them, etc.

So, its the meanings, which make something deep for us. Or more specifically – how intense and “valuable” we perceive those meanings. Obviously, this is a very individual thing. Something which is important to one person, may not be important to another person.

Still, this doesn’t change the fact, that regardless of taste, it matters if there are meanings in the message or not. If the contents lack it, then there is nothing for others to perceive meaningful in the first place. In addition to this, it of course matters how talented and intense those meanings are expressed. This for example is the difference between a talented storyteller and an untalented one.

So, while in the end, the receiver of the message (the player) of course matters, we can have a lot of control on the “potential” of a game. The meanings which you try to express in a game come from YOU and YOU are the one who expresses them. So, you do already control the origin and transmission of the message – the only thing of which you naturally have no control, is the receiver.

And i dont even think that this is a “problem”. I mean, people have different tastes, interests, desires, etc….. just like gamedevs do. The interactions between people with completely different interests, do not matter, because there wont be much interaction in the first place. What matters, is what happens when similiar minds meet – when both are open and interested in what is expressed…. this is, what we IMHO should focus on: How can we efficiently express something to those, which are interested in it.

I Like Cake:
“I agree that when we say a game is ‘deep,’ we mean that it has some communicative aspect, but I don’t necessarily think that you need a rational grasp of psychology or even some set amount of personal development to be able to effect that. I think it can be an intuitive process.”

A) There are at least two things, which people mean with “intuitive”. One is not being able to explain it formally to others (communicating it). For example, with words. This however does not having a “wordless” abstract concept of it in one’s own mind – thus, understanding something conceptually, yet having no means yet to formally express it to others.

B) The other is actually having no abstract understanding of it.

I agree that one can express meanings efficiently if “A” is the case. I disagree however, that one can do it efficiently, if “B” is the case… because the meaning emerges from the interaction of BOTH: having an abstract grasp of it AND being able to imagine it. So: Imagination + abstract idea = meaning

Why is that so? Well, imagine that you are looking at an abstract painting – without interpreting some kind of concept into it, it is just chaotic colored patterns without “meaning”. Only by recognizing some concept in it, the abstract painting gets a meaning.

Now asume that you are just imaginating this abstract painting in your fantasy – and you get an example relevant to this discussion.

Efficiency does not come from EITHER-OR. It comes from the interaction of BOTH. Its not sufficient if an artist is just creative, but sucks at forming and expressing this creativity with technically talented brushstrokes. The result would be chaotic. Similarily, it is not enough to just technically be a talented painter, but being uncreative. The result will just be like a tech presentation. For a qualitative painting, you need both.

The same is the case, when trying to communicate meanings to others. It is not enough to be very extroverted. And its not enough to just conceptually understand yourself and communication. Efficiency comes from being talented in both.

*In closing, I’d also like to comment that I think feeling as if you have a complete grasp of human psychology might actually impair your efforts. The audience is a pretty slippery thing. Often, they won’t get the same meaning from something as you are initially trying to convey and, if you think about it, they have just as much right to their own personal interpretation as you do to yours. I think a conscious attempt to ‘manipulate’ people artistically will probably not be met very well, especially if people realize that you are attempting to manipulate them.*

I so disagree with you here. The audience is extremely controllable when it comes to how you can make them feel. Even with games. I don’t think people ever interpret a game as traditional art, they just experience the story, gameplay and interaction. Why would they get all philosophical about it as people would with traditional art? The general audience doesn’t see games as art anyways.

Anyways, movies abuse this controllability all the time. Good movies can make you cry or feel sorry for a person. It’s very possible to control emotions.
A lot of daily television series are predictable AS HECK … and you know why? So the audience feels SMART knowing how it most likely will end/continue.
Those kind of more subtle subliminal-kind feelings is what the audience really likes. They get addicted to it.

Just the same in games.. Games, if done properly, can make you feel frightened or like a superhero, someone with control over others, like a army general with a very powerful army or it can simply be very cheerful and fun… and so on.

As long as the aimed for emotions are made clear enough through interaction/visual presentation and so on, in other words; scary moments should *really be* scary instead of being unconvincing, there’s no way people would interpret it “wrong”.

Off course, the emotions within current day videogames often aren’t all thát convincing because it’s hard to relate to some polygons as if it were real characters… but at least the basic psychological control is still very existent.

People usually get happy or at least happier from playing games aimed at the happy-emotion so to speak. Games with nice colorful graphics, cheerful music, funny soundeffects and at least mediocre gameplay… I don’t think the general public would ever REALLY misinterpret those kind of intended feelings.

I do admit that there’s the occasional horrible game that totally wasn’t intended as such… but that’s usually related to it’s production values, quality control and so on…

No, that’s not what I meant. I meant as a purpose… Off course games should (or could) be more than just plain fun to play, but innovation should never be a purpose. What I was getting at was that games should always simply provide entertainment.

Entertainment is a better word for what I meant there actually.

by PHeMoX:
“Actually he only said he created it with his own ideas and feelings in mind, not especially for a certain public, but for himself. It’s not that he said that he didn’t want anyone to enjoy it other than himself, he just said how he approached making it.”

I think the core issue behind Maks talk, and what we are discussig now, is “integrity”.

Since we live in a relative world, it doesn’t make much sense to talk about “the integrity”, because there is no such thing. Integrity is a property. A property of “what”? This is the deciding difference, between Maks approach, and mine or chens: Integrity of “what”?

Mak focusses on ones own integrity – so, that the creation (the game) must only be about oneself. I think that this is an inefficient starting point. However, i will later get back at this point to show, why it does indeed matter – but not in the sense as Mak suggested.

Back to the basics: When we create a work and release it to the public, then what are we doing? We are trying to express something to others. An interaction.

My point now is, that the integrity of the message – what you are expressing – matters the most (but its not the only thing which matters). Its important to not sacrifice the meaning of your message – because if that gets lost, then what is there left to transmit in the first place?!?

So, to get back at the flow example: even though it has a different difficulty than what his creator likes, what it tries to express is unrelated to this modification. Thus, the meaning which flow tries to express keeps its integrity. There is no shame in doing this kind of “audience-focus” IMHO, because “what” you are expressing stays pure.

Modification for the masses only becomes problematic, when you start to modify the meaning of the message, so that more people like it. At this point, you are corrupting the original meaning and “identity” of your work. You are introducing changes, which have nothing to do with what you originally tried to express. Besides of this corruption, the problem is that deepness will typically also suffer. The more generic the appeal of your expression becomes, the less it typically has to express.

Now, to get back at Maks point: Ones own integrity matters as well. It is difficult to express something efficiently, to which oneself has no deep connection. When you start to add all kinds of stuff which dont matter much to yourself on a personal level, then all this stuff more and more shallow. Why? Well, when the stuff in the game doesn’t mean much to yourself, then there is no deep meaning there anymore which you can express. At this point, expression becomes mechanic and soulless.

– Lyx

*Personally, I hate feeling like a film, book or game was made with a conscious effort to manipulate me to feel a certain way. It’s insulting.*

Yes, it is insulting to those who see through it, but it’s really happening on ALL levels, not just the over-obvious levels, even in the little things, but mostly things like camera angles, lighting, perspectives, sounds and so on and so forth matter. The whole goal of movies is to manipulate to create feelings, it’s basically what it’s intended for in the first place. Sure … there are movies that are unconvincing and suck at it, but the manipulation is very possible and existent.

Same goes for manipulation in games. Recent examples would be the Call of Duty games with their cinematic approach of how the whole place is chaos and hectic. That’s where games borrow the methods used in movies and I think we’re going to see a lot more of that. (In fact on other levels games like Bioshock heavily rely on that too).

However, it’s still way harder to make it all convincing enough in games, or perhaps it’s just as hard but requires a certain level of skill. Perhaps that’s even harder for indie developers, especially since they often *tend* to make more abstract games…

*to get back at Maks point: Ones own integrity matters as well. It is difficult to express something efficiently, to which oneself has no deep connection.*

Yeah, if you somehow end up being alienated from your own creation that wouldn’t exactly help you much, perhaps especially in the ‘creative part’ although this may sound artificial now? When I come to think of it I don’t think I would be able to even finish a game that I have no deep(er) connection with.

If your only goal is to manipulate peoples’ emotions, you’re making propaganda not art.

Art can be propaganda, but not all art is propaganda. Not every bird is a chicken, but every chicken is a bird. Anyways, art, no matter which kind or which purpose always manipulates emotions, even if it’s not a desired effect… still, don’t most artist at least want you to think about what they have made???

If your intent is to manipulate, you are aspiring to propaganda even if you happen to have created art in the process.

Propaganda makes for uninteresting art because there is only one intended interpretation (the artist’s, obviously). Good art (and I am of course speaking subjectively) means different things to different people. It enriches human experience because it reflects different facets of it. It is multi-dimensional where propaganda is uni-dimensional.

Plenty of filmmakers and game designers set out to manipulate, but that doesn’t make it intrinsic to either craft, and it’s very cynical indeed to think that it is.

It comes down to what kind of creator you want to be. Do you want to express something within you and let other people take from it what they will, or do you want to be Bill O’Reilly cutting someone’s mic so you can shout over them?