jay pettitt on 25/10/2013 at 08:36
Quote Posted by Starker
He isn't saying innovation is worthless unless it leads to better quality. He is saying that that it should not be the goal of a game and placed above quality. And he isn't saying that the industry is too obsessed with innovating. He is saying that it is treated as a magic spell that makes anything automatically better by some people.
Also, he does define what he means by "innovating for the sake of innovating" -- doing new things without regard for whether they make for an entertaining game.
We really should drop this soon, 'cos I got a funny feeling that it ain't very interesting for anyone else. But you also gotta define 'quality' - 'cos it's going to mean different things to different people. But if we can go back to thinking about it like music - Jim likes words you can heat and a proper tune. That's what he considers quality and he'd probably think that Jazz musicians motivated to do new things are self indulgent especially if there aren't words you can hear and a proper tune at the end of it. For Jim the 'quality' suffers.
That's fine by the way. That's what people who do personality profiling call a 'settler' and it's as valid a set of values as anyone else's. But it's not universal (Jim apparently thinks it is). Other people value other stuff. Including innovative ideas. That's why some people are genuinely delighted (and entertained) by games like Dear Esther or Beyond Two Souls or The Path or whatever - while other folk go meh because they wanted a proper tune they can hum along with.
--edit--
This isn't trying to find cracks in his argument by the way. As an argument, the entirety of the video is tosh from start to finish. It's down there with the worst of the worst of the low value, ill-considered ramblings on youtube - '5 things atheists can't answer', 'Why women can't drive' and 'evidence of life on mars' etc etc. Among other ills it's conflating entirely different things - minor itterations on individual mechanics on JRPGS with titles which trying to forge entirely new genres. He's ascribing motivation to developers which are almost certainly twaddle. Jim thinks David Cage is innovating self indulgently, without considering the possibility that perhaps (just perhaps) Cage thinks stagnation is a genuine issue and hurts 'entertainment'. And on and on and on and on and on. Every aspect is defenceless rubbish. It really is awful nonsense.
Maybe it chimes with what you think about what's going on with Thief 4. But that's not a defence for the vid. That's just chance. And while it might be the case that T4 developers are making changes for no reason other than because they can, it's also possible that they're making changes because they see opportunities to do things better. Maybe their judgement is wonky. Maybe their judgement doesn't appeal to you. But I kinda think it's unsporting to imagine Eidos Montreal came up with, for example, T4s control system using the same mental process that lead to Jim putting on a wig and some funny gloves and learing 'hurr huurrr huuurr look at me I'm being innovative aren't innovative people stupid'.
--edit edit---
Also, dammit that vid is so wrong it's kinda got to me. The idea that innovation is a free pass is offensively stupid.
Innovation is inherently risky. Aside from the fact that some people enjoy and are entertained by trying new and different things - so it's fine by me if a review gives The Path 7 out of 10 just as it's fine if Jim scores it 2 out of 10 (though I do wonder if reviewers who just don't like certain genres shouldn't just leave them alone, rather than just saying that the game shite'.
But anway. Let's say a game like Heavy Rain, which is trying to do interesting stuff is a bit hit and miss. That's not a free pass. That's risk that comes with being innovative. Sometimes you're gonna get things wonky. But maybe, just maybe, flawed efforts like Heavy Rain help lead to a games like The Walking Dead that are near universally praised.
The idea that you should only innovate when it's safe and innovators are looking for a free pass is just wrong.
Starker on 25/10/2013 at 11:58
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
You have to really immerse yourself in order to have the same positive experience because no one is guiding you? :weird:
Nah, one is for wankers.
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
But you also gotta define 'quality' - 'cos it's going to mean different things to different people. But if we can go back to thinking about it like music - Jim likes words you can heat and a proper tune. That's what he considers quality and he probably thinks that being motivated to do new things is self indulgent especially if there aren't words you can hear and a proper tune at the end of it. For Jim the 'quality' suffers.
That's fine by the way. That's what people who profile personalities call a 'settler' and it's as valid a set of values as anyone else's. But it's not universal (Jim apparently thinks it is). Other people value other stuff. Including innovative ideas. That's why some people are genuinely delighted (and entertained) by games like Dear Esther or Beyond Two Souls or The Path or whatever - while other folk go meh because they wanted a proper tune they can hum along with.
Uh... you have to define quality now? We really won't get anywhere if we start defining every and each word that we use. And he isn't speaking for everyone else. He says very explicitly, "In my opinion".
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
It's conflating entirely different things - minor itterations on individual mechanics on JRPGS with titles like The Path and Beyond Two Souls which trying to forge entirely new genres. He's ascribing motivation to developers which is almost certainly twaddle. Jim thinks David Cage is innovating self indulgently, without considering the possibility that perhaps (just perhaps) Cage thinks stagnation is a genuine issue and hurts 'entertainment'.
Minor iterations my ass. Anyway, he was not conflating these things, these are entirely different examples from different parts of the video. When he was talking about JRPGs, he was talking about how trying to reinvent the battle system was (in his opinion) not good for the titles. When he was talking about The Path, he was talking about how innovative games seem to get a free pass because they are innovative. David Cage was there as an example of how some people talk about innovation as if it's all-important.
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
This isn't trying to find cracks in his argument by the way.
Could have fooled me. However, dismissing the argument in toto just because "that guy is talking nonsense" in not really convincing either.
jay pettitt on 25/10/2013 at 12:03
Quote Posted by Starker
Uh... you have to define quality now? We really won't get anywhere if we start defining every and each word that we use. And he isn't speaking for everyone else. He says very explicitly, "In my opinion".
Minor iterations my ass. Anyway, he was not conflating these things, these are entirely different examples from different parts of the video. When he was talking about JRPGs, he was talking about how trying to reinvent the battle system was (in his opinion) not good for the titles. When he was talking about The Path, he was talking about how innovative games seem to get a free pass because they are innovative. David Cage was there as an example of how some people talk about innovation as if it's all-important.
Could have fooled me. However, dismissing the argument in toto just because "that guy is talking nonsense" in not really convincing either.
Yes, Jim needs to define quality if he wants to use it as an argument. It's not universal. It's not an a priori.
Was, say, Dear Esther a quality title or not? It depends who you ask. BECAUSE PEOPLE ENJOY DIFFERENT THINGS. There isn't a universal recipe for 'quality' that will appeal to everyone, and even if there was there's no rule that says you shouldn't create something that'll appeal to some folk more than others.
Also. Opinions are points of view without a basis in facts or rational argument. Which is okay I suppose if facts and rational argument are low on the ground. But it's lazy as hell to fall back on 'it's my opinion' instead of trying to ascertain actual information.
Great. It's his opinion. It is valueless twaddle. It's a waste of his time, yours and now mine. Let's move on.
Starker on 25/10/2013 at 12:49
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Also, dammit that vid is so wrong it's kinda got to me. The idea that innovation is a free pass is offensively stupid.
Innovation is inherently risky. Aside from the fact that some people enjoy and are entertained by trying new and different things - so it's fine by me if a review gives The Path 7 out of 10 just as it's fine if Jim scores it 2 out of 10 (though I do wonder if reviewers who just don't like certain genres shouldn't just leave them alone, rather than just saying that the game shite'.
But anway. Let's say a game like Heavy Rain, which is trying to do interesting stuff is a bit hit and miss. That's not a free pass. That's risk that comes with being innovative. Sometimes you're gonna get things wonky. But maybe, just maybe, flawed efforts like Heavy Rain help lead to a games like The Walking Dead that are near universally praised.
The idea that you should only innovate when it's safe and innovators are looking for a free pass is just wrong.
He isn't saying that innovation is bad or that you should only innovate when it's safe or that innovators are looking for a free pass. He is saying a game shouldn't be getting a free pass just because it's innovative. It's not about innovating or innovators, it's about the perception of innovation.
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Yes, Jim needs to define quality if he wants to use it as an argument. It's not universal. It's not an a priori.
Was, say, Dear Esther a quality title or not? It depends who you ask. BECAUSE PEOPLE ENJOY DIFFERENT THINGS. There isn't a universal recipe for 'quality' that will appeal to everyone, and even if there was there's no rule that says you shouldn't create something that'll appeal to some folk more than others.
Also. Opinions are points of view without a basis in facts or rational argument. Which is okay I suppose if facts and rational argument are low on the ground. But it's lazy as hell to fall back on 'it's my opinion' instead of trying to ascertain actual information.
Great. It's his opinion. It is valueless twaddle. It's a waste of his time, yours and now mine. Let's move on.
The point is not whether Dear Esther is a quality title, the point is whether it shouldn't be criticised or whether it should be criticised less because it's "innovative".
Chade on 25/10/2013 at 13:29
There are no rules around what we can and can't critique in a game. Many people will enjoy experiencing something different, and critique an innovative game less just because it's innovative, and that's fine. That's their preference. A subset of those people will be game creators, and will go around making games that appeal more to people who enjoy trying different things, and talking about them in that way, and that's fine too. Other people won't enjoy these games, and will be more critical, and that's fine too. Different people will have different ideas about what is innovative and what is not, and that's fine as well.
Of the examples given in Jim's talk that I know anything about, I don't believe a single one was "guilty" of being "innovative for innovation's sake" (if that's even possible). Jim slandering each one for not following his personal preferences wrt innovation would be ridiculous even if he was right about the games in question. But he's not.
Finally, you were saying tha he's just talking about a few specific people/games. Here are a few statements that Jim makes which are either about the industry at large or apply to the industry at large. These statements range from plain wrong to highly questionable, and he doesn't say anything to back them up:
Quote Posted by TFA
The way some people talk about it, I fear we're wandering too much into the territory of innovation for innovation's sake, doing new things without regard to whether they make for an entertaining game. It's something many of us encourage.
In my opinion, insecurity about innovation has done more harm then good.
I'm all for innovation but only when it's called for, innovating for no other reason then to be innovative is a bad idea.
Invent when it's necesary, not just because you can.
Quote Posted by Shinrazero
That is exactly what EM is doing and yes, they are doing it for wider appeal. I think the clearest illustration of this is experience points. It's as if EM said "this is a mechanic found in many successful games so Thiaf has to have it too." As I am sure you know, EM backpedaled on this "innovation" because fans said it just does not fit and they are quite right. Making advancement based on theft is a step in the right direction. Even so, they were trying to innovate for no other sake but innovation, something the video summarized well, IMO.
So are they innovating for innovation's sake, or are they doing it to appeal to a wider audience? It can't be both.
You seem to be saying that while the goal is appeal to a wider audience, the specific "innovations" they are using are chosen randomly, with no theory behind how they are going to help accomplish the goal. If that's the case, I would suggest that just because you can't imagine the reasoning behind a decision, doesn't mean there was none.
Starker on 25/10/2013 at 13:45
Those things being applied to the industry at large is purely your interpretation. Phrases like "The way some people are talking about it" indicate that he is talking about a specific attitude within the industry, not about the general state of the industry.
Also, yes the Thief reboot is trying to be like other games, but in the process it also seems to be making substantial changes to the Thief gameplay. The swoop mechanic alone changes the pacing of the game at the very least. It's not hard to imagine that it was someone's idea of "(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV97ozaD4vs) the awesome button".
Goldmoon Dawn on 25/10/2013 at 14:34
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
and 'evidence of life on mars' etc etc.
Hey watch it bud. :ebil:
Seriously, nice post jay.
jay pettitt on 25/10/2013 at 18:51
Quote Posted by Starker
Those things being applied to the industry at large is purely your interpretation. Phrases like "The way some people are talking about it" indicate that he is talking about a specific attitude within the industry, not about the general state of the industry.".
We who?
Starker on 25/10/2013 at 19:42
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
"The way some people talk about it, I fear WE'RE wandering too much into the territory of innovation for innovation's sake..."We who?
It's just a general we. This guy certainly isn't part of the game industry, so it's probably not "we, the game industry".
jay pettitt on 25/10/2013 at 19:59
Ah, just a general we. Not a specific we. He's reviews editor in chief for a major games publication, isn't he.
