Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
ZeroZilla

The Boy Who Suddenly Had Everything...

Recommended Posts

Personally I think that complete creative freedom is not a signpost for failure.

There have been many games, which were produced that way that were awesome

(Shadow of the Colossus, Super Mario Galaxy or Portal 2 come to mind).

While admittedly there were also big failures in that regard

(like Duke Nukem Forever or Metroid: Other M).

Sequels rarely have complete creative freedom, certainly not games like DNF or Other M where there's an established character.

I actually think that the prequels are more interesting than the original trilogy, but saying that usually gets me a lot of hate.

I think that the basic story, Palpatine's rise to power and its consequences, was more interesting, but the way it was told made it less exciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's saying 'Here's something to think about, but it's not really what I actually think, so either take these points on board or don't'. It's like, for example, if I gave you a fish and said 'here, hold this' and you were all 'hey, is this fish for me to eat, or...?' and I just waved my arms mysteriously, backing off into the distance with a meaningful glare.

I agree. This thread feels so unmanaged, if only we had someone to manage it...

Hmmmmm???

I haven't closed this thread because I don't want to give the impression DF is put off by skepticism or concern. I don't personally think Tim and George Lucas are analogous figures, but Tim always did say this whole thing could turn out to be a big beautiful trainwreck caught on film!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's saying 'Here's something to think about, but it's not really what I actually think, so either take these points on board or don't'. It's like, for example, if I gave you a fish and said 'here, hold this' and you were all 'hey, is this fish for me to eat, or...?' and I just waved my arms mysteriously, backing off into the distance with a meaningful glare.

I agree. This thread feels so unmanaged, if only we had someone to manage it...

Hmmmmm???

I haven't closed this thread because I don't want to give the impression DF is put off by skepticism or concern. I don't personally think Tim and George Lucas are analogous figures, but Tim always did say this whole thing could turn out to be a big beautiful trainwreck caught on film!

Yeah, I kind of agree. I'm kinda confused as to what the point was, but inasmuch as there is one, I think there's nothing here that demands it be closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just thought discussion was kind of over since it turned out the OP point was not to compare Tim and George or not even raise a concern. It seemed like a message to DF to think for 10 seconds, about, hmmm, something, not sure what. But if there is a discussion then sure, why not, won't hurt anyone to discuss, here, that thing we are discussing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmmmm???

I haven't closed this thread because I don't want to give the impression DF is put off by skepticism or concern. I don't personally think Tim and George Lucas are analogous figures, but Tim always did say this whole thing could turn out to be a big beautiful trainwreck caught on film!

Hah, a beautiful trainwreck caught on film, I like it!

I think George Lucas' mistake as with so many other people in his shoes is to lose touch with his fanbase. You guys (DF) are clearly doing everything you can with your fanbase constantly in mind. From asking for our opinions and ideas to the fact that this entire project only appeared because of awareness of the latent desire for such games. That awareness was keenly absent from big time game producers. So I don't think they're analogous at all, quite the opposite (Tim may consider that an insult, haha).

Maybe things will change down the road but right now I haven't seen many companies more in touch with the clients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hah, a beautiful trainwreck caught on film, I like it!

I think George Lucas' mistake as with so many other people in his shoes is to lose touch with his fanbase. You guys (DF) are clearly doing everything you can with your fanbase constantly in mind. From asking for our opinions and ideas to the fact that this entire project only appeared because of awareness of the latent desire for such games. That awareness was keenly absent from big time game producers. So I don't think they're analogous at all, quite the opposite (Tim may consider that an insult, haha).

Maybe things will change down the road but right now I haven't seen many companies more in touch with the clients.

the problem of george lucas is that he surrounds himself with bootlickers nowadays as opposed to the original trilogy of star wars. have you seen the behind the scenes shots from the prequels? pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the problem of george lucas is that he surrounds himself with bootlickers nowadays as opposed to the original trilogy of star wars. have you seen the behind the scenes shots from the prequels? pathetic.
Surrounding yourself with "yes men" is one of many ways to lose touch.

And no, I did not sit through the behind the scenes shots from the prequel... why did you...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the problem of george lucas is that he surrounds himself with bootlickers nowadays as opposed to the original trilogy of star wars. have you seen the behind the scenes shots from the prequels? pathetic.
Surrounding yourself with "yes men" is one of many ways to lose touch.

And no, I did not sit through the behind the scenes shots from the prequel... why did you...?

i have a thing for masochism. a morbid curiosity one might say.

btw have you seen the red letter media (mr. plinket) reviews of prequels? if not either go to youtube and search for it (well, them), or google their website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i have a thing for masochism. a morbid curiosity one might say.
I'm so sorry, let me know if you ever need to talk about it.
btw have you seen the red letter media (mr. plinket) reviews of prequels? if not either go to youtube and search for it (well, them), or google their website.
Haha, listening now. The first 5 minutes have been great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i have a thing for masochism. a morbid curiosity one might say.
I'm so sorry, let me know if you ever need to talk about it.

i might, but i would suggest bringing the recently rererererererereleased edition of the original trilogy on blu ray this time. also a fire poker and ninetails, to decrease the pain from watching since i can take only so much.

btw have you seen the red letter media (mr. plinket) reviews of prequels? if not either go to youtube and search for it (well, them), or google their website.
Haha, listening now. The first 5 minutes have been great.

its legendary. the second one is almost as long as the movie. its almost a scene by scene analysis of wth went wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think George Lucas' mistake as with so many other people in his shoes is to lose touch with his fanbase.

It may be true that he didn't make the movies for his fan base, but he did manage to create pretty successful movies. It's perhaps like the Wii, which was a terrible console for hardcore console gamers, but managed to bring in a lot of new audience. So I won't say it's necessarily a mistake, but it was certainly not a popular decision for fans.

Since DF is backed by fans and made for fans, I don't think that would be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just thought discussion was kind of over...

I did too, which is why I stopped responding to this thread.

Here's the story:

I was trying to make a point in a subtle way by holding up an object lesson that I knew would be jarring. I was using hyperbole, which is not that uncommon...and I thought that that would be recognized, but almost nobody got it. That's to be expected on an internet forum, so I let it pass by...until I thought it was getting out of hand. Whereupon I tried to clarify without spelling out, in detail, the motivation behind every last line of the OP...

Clearly, that didn't work either.

At this point, the score stands as follows:

Posts that are at least trying to be on point: 8

Posts that are way (sometimes completely) off base 10 Often these are responses to each other...

Posts that are Star Wars attack and defense: 15

Add those to the off-base category, and you're 3 to 1 against.

So, as I say, I'd given it up as a lost cause. Until Chris came out with this:

Hmmmmm???

I haven't closed this thread because I don't want to give the impression DF is put off by skepticism or concern. I don't personally think Tim and George Lucas are analogous figures, but Tim always did say this whole thing could turn out to be a big beautiful trainwreck caught on film!

So, I'll go back to my original point once more, with feeling (but, and this is key, no malice).

On the whole, I don't think Tim Schafer and George Lucas are analogous either. I definitely wasn't trying to insult Tim. On the other hand, in one very specific way they are comparable: each was/is trying to do something that they were clearly hoping was going to be awesome. Can you argue with that? George has already taken his shot, and we know how it turned out... Certainly, those movies had some merits, but just as certainly they fell well short of the bar that was set for them.

How did that happen? One of the ways (and Surplus Gamer hit it in his first response) was relying on spectacle. It now seems clear that the Prequels suffered from a serious lack of editing, in terms of which ideas were included in the final cut. I'd be surprised to find there were any ideas that George had that he left OUT of the movie...

How does that relate to the DFA?

To paraphrase DF Chris Remo, I'm not skeptical, but I do have a concern. I'm concerned about excesses. My recent exposure to Double Fine's work leads me to believe that in many ways they've been unfairly held back. Isn't that part of what prompted the whole Kickstarter campaign in the first place? A desire to 'get out from under'?

I'm concerned that that desire might morph into a taking of perverse pleasure in twisting the knob the other way. Every scenario that got toned down in some corporate focus group meeting? Pop it back out there, and put the meters in the red, as it were. Let no concept be too outlandish...leave no idea behind. This is hyperbole. I'm exaggerating to make a point. I shouldn't have to say so, but clearly I suck at being subtle.

That was the point of holding up George Lucas as an example of what not to do.

One last thing:

I don't distrust Tim. I don't hate the DFA. Heck, I don't even hate the Star Wars prequels... not in any pressing way, at any rate. I'm a fan of Double Fine in general, and of Tim's in particular. Of course I am, or I wouldn't have backed his work. Both DOTT and Psychonauts would be in my top 20, all-time (which is out of a list going back to Pong), and the latter would likely be top 5. I haven't actually sat down and made a top 20...so it might actually be better than that.

Do I still think it's a good idea to say, in effect: 'Hey guys, please don't go crazy with the Cheez Whiz'? Yes, I do. Even if I don't suspect (which I tried to make clear) that it's currently happening. Even if it never would have...

As Lightknight77 so aptly put it: Surrounding yourself with “yes men” is one of many ways to lose touch.

Regards,

-ZZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the problem of george lucas is that he surrounds himself with bootlickers nowadays as opposed to the original trilogy of star wars. have you seen the behind the scenes shots from the prequels? pathetic.
Surrounding yourself with "yes men" is one of many ways to lose touch.

This is why it drives me crazy when people make posts saying Tim shouldn't be listening to the Sworcery guys or anyone else who has a different view on what makes adventure games good. If he only talked to people who said: 'yes, Tim, the way you do things is great' then he'd never progress and he'd lose the ability to look inward and say: this thing I'm doing, should I be doing that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, even worse are posts saying "don't listen to us backers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do I still think it's a good idea to say, in effect: 'Hey guys, please don't go crazy with the Cheez Whiz'? Yes, I do. Even if I don't suspect (which I tried to make clear) that it's currently happening. Even if it never would have...

As Lightknight77 so aptly put it: Surrounding yourself with “yes men” is one of many ways to lose touch.

Regards,

-ZZ

It's a valid statement you're making and you're saying it because you've seen it so often just like we have. I just find it a bit odd that it's made here. Perhaps that's the reason for all the confusion here. You're on a message board completely dedicated to hearing the fanbase and letting them be involved in the product he's making. I mean, we're talking a pretty clear dichotomy between George Lucas and Tim at this point. So, you're warning Tim not to do something he has specifically put countermeasures in place not to do. It's like telling someone, "Don't drink that acid" while they're carefully stenciling a skull and crossbones on it to deter others from drinking it.

So it's not like we're disagreeing with you. It's just that there's little to no concern on this specific product. A few years down the road when Tim is in his crystal palace of success (hopefully) the concern may yet be validated. Perhaps you're just warning him now while he's still listening?

I think George Lucas' mistake as with so many other people in his shoes is to lose touch with his fanbase.

It may be true that he didn't make the movies for his fan base, but he did manage to create pretty successful movies. It's perhaps like the Wii, which was a terrible console for hardcore console gamers, but managed to bring in a lot of new audience. So I won't say it's necessarily a mistake, but it was certainly not a popular decision for fans.

Since DF is backed by fans and made for fans, I don't think that would be a problem.

Success =/= true to the fan base. The Wii made a surprisingly wise and concentrated effort to go after casual gamers who were being largely ignored at the time by the market. Had their attempt been for hardcore gamers then it would be a failure albeit a happy one that meant financial success.

Also, in the rest of my post I stated that DF has set up this project in a way that puts the fan directly in the process. So we agree here that it shouldn't be a problem. It's Incredible. It should turn out to be something wonderful it if keeps up this way.

i might, but i would suggest bringing the recently rererererererereleased edition of the original trilogy on blu ray this time. also a fire poker and ninetails, to decrease the pain from watching since i can take only so much.
Wait... in this scenario I'm going to be whipping/burning you while you watch the movie because you're a masochist? Dude, I'm a married man, don't make me blush... haha.
its legendary. the second one is almost as long as the movie. its almost a scene by scene analysis of wth went wrong.
You've ruined several hours of my life with these videos. I'm happier than a kitten in a yarn palace lapping at the cream pool. (Tim, you're welcome to take that as a an exotic place to go in the game :P)
This is why it drives me crazy when people make posts saying Tim shouldn't be listening to the Sworcery guys or anyone else who has a different view on what makes adventure games good. If he only talked to people who said: 'yes, Tim, the way you do things is great' then he'd never progress and he'd lose the ability to look inward and say: this thing I'm doing, should I be doing that?
People making posts telling Tim not to listen to certain people aren't doing anything badly. What they're saying is that they don't like those guys' work and so don't want to see it infiltrating Tim's product. That's a valid statement on their part and they do represent part of Tim's fanbase so he should be listening to them even if he's not going to listen (take what's good, leave what's bad). The problem of "Yes Men" is that when the big guy makes a mistake they don't say, "Whoa there, that's crap, try again." The problem then becomes them NOT telling their boss where to get inspiration from and where not to. They just leave him in a big bubble to float where ever he goes. Unless the boss is incredibly grounded all by himself then that's where they get away from the rest of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I can say: "I don't like star wars".
If you really want to get on people's nerves, you can say something like, "Yeah, William Shatner was awful in it."

Nothing makes a fan madder than when you get their passion wrong. Haha (joke credit to Brian Posehn).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It may be true that he didn't make the movies for his fan base, but he did manage to create pretty successful movies. It's perhaps like the Wii, which was a terrible console for hardcore console gamers, but managed to bring in a lot of new audience. So I won't say it's necessarily a mistake, but it was certainly not a popular decision for fans.

Since DF is backed by fans and made for fans, I don't think that would be a problem.

Success =/= true to the fan base. The Wii made a surprisingly wise and concentrated effort to go after casual gamers who were being largely ignored at the time by the market. Had their attempt been for hardcore gamers then it would be a failure albeit a happy one that meant financial success.

Thanks, that was my point, that like Nintendo Lucas made a conscious decision to appeal to a different demographic, in this case a younger one, and the result was a pretty successful one. It's possible that it would have been even more successful otherwise, but that's just speculation. These movies certainly weren't failures, and they opened the way to an animated series and other stuff.

I also think that a lot of backers will be okay with Tim taking the adventure genre in a different direction. A lot won't, of course. I'm still sore about that 3D adventure trend, which is the reason I never got to play Grim Fandango.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks, that was my point, that like Nintendo Lucas made a conscious decision to appeal to a different demographic, in this case a younger one, and the result was a pretty successful one. It’s possible that it would have been even more successful otherwise, but that’s just speculation. These movies certainly weren’t failures, and they opened the way to an animated series and other stuff.

I also think that a lot of backers will be okay with Tim taking the adventure genre in a different direction. A lot won’t, of course. I’m still sore about that 3D adventure trend, which is the reason I never got to play Grim Fandango.

The 3D trend is inevitable. Look at all the art work they did, it is all intended to give the appearance of 3D before the technology existed or was readily available. Why try to make something look like something else when you can just make that other thing you're trying to look like?

I don't think George Lucas could have failed with the franchise. Heck, I may have not liked them but I still saw every one. Why? Because I couldn't not see them due to their pedigree. This is the same reason I saw The Last Airbender movie. I still cry at night thinking about it.

I think he failed to make a starwars movie. He succeeded in making an off-brand children's version of what should have been normal prequels. These "children's versions" did really well in the box office. So my point was that while he succeeded financially, he did not succeed in several ways that were meaningful for the fans.

Can't wait till he makes the grown up ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is why it drives me crazy when people make posts saying Tim shouldn't be listening to the Sworcery guys or anyone else who has a different view on what makes adventure games good. If he only talked to people who said: 'yes, Tim, the way you do things is great' then he'd never progress and he'd lose the ability to look inward and say: this thing I'm doing, should I be doing that?
People making posts telling Tim not to listen to certain people aren't doing anything badly. What they're saying is that they don't like those guys' work and so don't want to see it infiltrating Tim's product. That's a valid statement on their part and they do represent part of Tim's fanbase so he should be listening to them even if he's not going to listen (take what's good, leave what's bad).

I entirely disagree, because the idea that talking to other guys about their approaches means that some how that thing you don't like is going to 'infect' Tim's work betrays a remarkably naive idea of how a collaborative creative process works. You want to see how everyone is doing it, not just the people who are doing it just the way you would do it, because it's like a focusing tool. It helps to identify where other projects differ in the process, but also what they do well. If you only talk to people who do stuff in a similar way to how you do it, what's the point of talking to other people at all?

The point is, Tim talked to all those people, many of whom said they weren't too into puzzles, and he came to the conclusion that his game did need to have puzzles like the old games - and I'm sure seeing how other people were doing things differently helped him to come to that realisation, rather than the other way around. It was after all this happened that several people felt the need to say 'oh, you shouldn't have spoken to those people!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think George Lucas could have failed with the franchise. Heck, I may have not liked them but I still saw every one. Why? Because I couldn't not see them due to their pedigree. This is the same reason I saw The Last Airbender movie. I still cry at night thinking about

I am completely incapable of understanding that mentality!

Why on earth do people keep knowingly subjecting themselves to rubbish when there are so many great works do be experienced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I can say: "I don't like star wars".
If you really want to get on people's nerves, you can say something like, "Yeah, William Shatner was awful in it."

Nothing makes a fan madder than when you get their passion wrong. Haha (joke credit to Brian Posehn).

But william shatner is great in everything he does. Ive got two of his albums the man is a living legend :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But william shatner is great in everything he does. Ive got two of his albums the man is a living legend :D

I'm pretty sure he died in a bus crash while negotiating travel deals.
I am completely incapable of understanding that mentality!

Why on earth do people keep knowingly subjecting themselves to rubbish when there are so many great works do be experienced?

There's usually a girl involved in the decision process.
I entirely disagree, because the idea that talking to other guys about their approaches means that some how that thing you don't like is going to 'infect' Tim's work betrays a remarkably naive idea of how a collaborative creative process works. You want to see how everyone is doing it, not just the people who are doing it just the way you would do it, because it's like a focusing tool. It helps to identify where other projects differ in the process, but also what they do well. If you only talk to people who do stuff in a similar way to how you do it, what's the point of talking to other people at all?

The point is, Tim talked to all those people, many of whom said they weren't too into puzzles, and he came to the conclusion that his game did need to have puzzles like the old games - and I'm sure seeing how other people were doing things differently helped him to come to that realisation, rather than the other way around. It was after all this happened that several people felt the need to say 'oh, you shouldn't have spoken to those people!'

I'm not saying that he shouldn't go and get more information from others. I'm just saying that the pure act of people telling him not to is ok because it'll make him more careful in what he decides to take from those groups. It's not like people telling him not to listen to someone actually binds his hands. It's just his fan base giving him feedback. There are many elements of that game that I would be pissed to see get in this one, so I understand where people are coming from when they tell Tim to take nothing from them. At the end of the day the buck stops with DF, we can give them all the opinions we want but they have to make the final decision. Us saying no to good ideas isn't as harmful as us saying yes to bad ones. I know that can be difficult to understand but it's true.

What would be most beneficial would be to give specific details of what they like or dislike rather than a blanket dismissal of everything. It's probably most frustrating to you that these groups are trying to have them throw everything out. Like I said, take the good, leave the bad. Either way, I'd rather they at least express their displeasure even if it isn't in the format I'd prefer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But william shatner is great in everything he does. Ive got two of his albums the man is a living legend :D

I'm pretty sure he died in a bus crash while negotiating travel deals.
I am completely incapable of understanding that mentality!

Why on earth do people keep knowingly subjecting themselves to rubbish when there are so many great works do be experienced?

There's usually a girl involved in the decision process.
I entirely disagree, because the idea that talking to other guys about their approaches means that some how that thing you don't like is going to 'infect' Tim's work betrays a remarkably naive idea of how a collaborative creative process works. You want to see how everyone is doing it, not just the people who are doing it just the way you would do it, because it's like a focusing tool. It helps to identify where other projects differ in the process, but also what they do well. If you only talk to people who do stuff in a similar way to how you do it, what's the point of talking to other people at all?

The point is, Tim talked to all those people, many of whom said they weren't too into puzzles, and he came to the conclusion that his game did need to have puzzles like the old games - and I'm sure seeing how other people were doing things differently helped him to come to that realisation, rather than the other way around. It was after all this happened that several people felt the need to say 'oh, you shouldn't have spoken to those people!'

I'm not saying that he shouldn't go and get more information from others. I'm just saying that the pure act of people telling him not to is ok because it'll make him more careful in what he decides to take from those groups. It's not like people telling him not to listen to someone actually binds his hands. It's just his fan base giving him feedback. There are many elements of that game that I would be pissed to see get in this one, so I understand where people are coming from when they tell Tim to take nothing from them. At the end of the day the buck stops with DF, we can give them all the opinions we want but they have to make the final decision. Us saying no to good ideas isn't as harmful as us saying yes to bad ones. I know that can be difficult to understand but it's true.

What would be most beneficial would be to give specific details of what they like or dislike rather than a blanket dismissal of everything. It's probably most frustrating to you that these groups are trying to have them throw everything out. Like I said, take the good, leave the bad. Either way, I'd rather they at least express their displeasure even if it isn't in the format I'd prefer.

Well, quite, the issue is that a number of people were annoyed that he even SPOKE to them. That's nothing to do with 'take the good, leave the bad', that's just silly 'shun the unbelievers' sort of talk. But even apart from that, the video clearly indicated that he had listened to their opinions and come to the conclusion his game needed puzzles. So what were they so scared of? Again, it's just simple naivety about how creative influences actually work.

Even 'take the good, leave the bad' doesn't quite capture it, because it's not that simple in reality. It's more like 'take what you think might work for your project, identify what wouldn't work, try to figure out why it wouldn't work, see if there's a different way that it actually might work, or whether it might inspire a different idea entirely that would work and sort of generally smash all these ideas together until snatches of usable stuff glints from amongst the debris.' Or in other words, there no way of telling how one thing is going to end up influencing another or how ideas are going to form and so the way to give yourself the best chance of grabbing those moments is by being as open as possible.

And that's why I say 'Don't listen to that guy' is naive, and 'Don't even TALK to that guy' is just downright silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, quite, the issue is that a number of people were annoyed that he even SPOKE to them. That's nothing to do with 'take the good, leave the bad', that's just silly 'shun the unbelievers' sort of talk. But even apart from that, the video clearly indicated that he had listened to their opinions and come to the conclusion his game needed puzzles. So what were they so scared of? Again, it's just simple naivety about how creative influences actually work.
If they hated the gameplay of their game then I guess they were afraid that their investment could be ruined. This isn't an unreasonable fear, they're just trying to protect their investment. You can look back in hindsight now and say, "Hah, he made up his own mind!" but that wouldn't have been as easy to determine early on and there can still be the fear that at the end the game will smell/look like a game they hate.
Even 'take the good, leave the bad' doesn't quite capture it, because it's not that simple in reality. It's more like 'take what you think might work for your project, identify what wouldn't work, try to figure out why it wouldn't work, see if there's a different way that it actually might work, or whether it might inspire a different idea entirely that would work and sort of generally smash all these ideas together until snatches of usable stuff glints from amongst the debris.' Or in other words, there no way of telling how one thing is going to end up influencing another or how ideas are going to form and so the way to give yourself the best chance of grabbing those moments is by being as open as possible.
No, there is some black and white to it. There are things that are bad and things that are good. Most of it is subjective and so doesn't have black or white, but everything has some things that really are mistakes. There are also subjective elements that wouldn't be true to Tim's work and are so bad in context. If people feel that their work is all or mostly one big mistake then I understand why they wouldn't want Tim to get inspiration from them.
And that's why I say 'Don't listen to that guy' is naive, and 'Don't even TALK to that guy' is just downright silly.
Again, if they hate pretty much everything they do, then why is that silly? I've only gotten through some of their game so far. I'm personally finding it a little hard to play for a number of reasons. If Tim's game was a lot like this one then I'd be sorely disappointed. I want a "Tim/DF game", not a sword and sorcery knockoff. You say it is naive for them to talk that way, I don't think so. All of us have examples of where people have been influenced by the wrong people and made bad choices because of it. If anything, it is the opposite of naivete. Now, a better word for this may be stubborn or that they're being close minded, but not naive. Sorry for the semantics but I want to make it clear that they aren't being dumb here.

Don't get me wrong, I actually completely agree with you. I have no fear about Tim not staying true to himself. I think he's weighing these things carefully and trying his best to be a good steward of the trust we've placed in him and DF. I'm just pointing out that it's our job to tell Tim yes or no and his job to filter it as he pleases. Even if what they said was dumb, it's still better feedback than just saying yes even when they're scared of the possible outcome. State the fear now and prevents it from being justified later. Hindsight is a bitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even 'take the good, leave the bad' doesn't quite capture it, because it's not that simple in reality. It's more like 'take what you think might work for your project, identify what wouldn't work, try to figure out why it wouldn't work, see if there's a different way that it actually might work, or whether it might inspire a different idea entirely that would work and sort of generally smash all these ideas together until snatches of usable stuff glints from amongst the debris.' Or in other words, there no way of telling how one thing is going to end up influencing another or how ideas are going to form and so the way to give yourself the best chance of grabbing those moments is by being as open as possible.
No, there is some black and white to it. There are things that are bad and things that are good. Most of it is subjective and so doesn't have black or white, but everything has some things that really are mistakes. There are also subjective elements that wouldn't be true to Tim's work and are so bad in context. If people feel that their work is all or mostly one big mistake then I understand why they wouldn't want Tim to get inspiration from them.

Well, that's exactly where the naivety is right there (and if we're going to talk semantics, naivety != stupidity.) It's VERY rarely black and white. Even mistakes might not be mistakes in all contexts. What's a mistake for one game might be a brilliant idea for another. For example, I think there were a few mistake in Quantum Conundrum, recently released. Some were tonal: I thought the death screens and their grim random messages didn't sit well with the generally light tone of the rest of the experience. Others were mechanical: I thought it was a mistake to require to the player to be so precise in the execution of puzzle solutions when clearly the heart of the game should have been in figuring stuff out. But both of those things could have worked great in a different game. Which is why it's just too simplistic to put stuff in boxes of good and bad: instead, it's 'what worked' and 'what didn't work' with a heavily implied silent 'for this particular game!'

But even ignoring that subtlety, my main point was that 'influenced by X' doesn't mean 'like X'. How you are influenced by lots of different sources plays out in all sorts of unpredictable ways. Just like those dots Tim was talking about, you can never be sure when you're going to catch an influence and how it's going to fall - so the best way to ensure that something good will happen is to approach creativity in a very open way where you don't censor or judge or decide in advance who to listen to. Anyone who is saying Tim shouldn't even SPEAK to those other people may well be saying so with the best of intentions, but they are also fundamentally naive - yes, naive (I picked the word on purpose!) about this creative process.

That's pretty much all I got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that's exactly where the naivety is right there (and if we're going to talk semantics, naivety != stupidity.)
Naivety = an ill informed understanding of reality. It's a lack of experience, if you will. If anything, fearing that Tim would fall prey to bad influences is fear gained from seeing it happen over and over again in this industry and others. This fear is only gained from experience. You don't fear fire if you've never been burned. Naivete would be thinking the fire won't burn. You simply assume that Tim can't be... corrupted because he's been so stalwart so far. That's the truest form of naivety expressed so far. Every man falls to something, the only question is what and how it impacts others.
It's VERY rarely black and white. Even mistakes might not be mistakes in all contexts. What's a mistake for one game might be a brilliant idea for another. For example, I think there were a few mistake in Quantum Conundrum, recently released. Some were tonal: I thought the death screens and their grim random messages didn't sit well with the generally light tone of the rest of the experience. Others were mechanical: I thought it was a mistake to require to the player to be so precise in the execution of puzzle solutions when clearly the heart of the game should have been in figuring stuff out. But both of those things could have worked great in a different game. Which is why it's just too simplistic to put stuff in boxes of good and bad: instead, it's 'what worked' and 'what didn't work' with a heavily implied silent 'for this particular game!'
Let's say the game is boring. What other game do you think boring would work well in? That's pretty damn black and white. I do not look forward to finishing the game. That's a fairly bad thing for anyone in my shoes. This may be subjective but even subjectivity can have its black and white depending on who you're trying to please. If most of us hate peas then Tim should avoid trying to serve us pea soup. Simple as that.

As for the rest of the world though, I also adhere strongly to absolute truth as opposed to relative truth (if I say the book is on the floor, there's nothing you can say or believe that would make that untrue). So we could be at a fundamental philosophical difference here and that's not going to change. I believe in subjectivity, of course, but subjectivity only matters in trends and not the individual level when you're talking about what matters to a large group. So if the majority of the group doesn't like X, then X IS intrinsically "bad" in this situation even if it'd "work" in the game.

But even ignoring that subtlety, my main point was that 'influenced by X' doesn't mean 'like X'. How you are influenced by lots of different sources plays out in all sorts of unpredictable ways. Just like those dots Tim was talking about, you can never be sure when you're going to catch an influence and how it's going to fall - so the best way to ensure that something good will happen is to approach creativity in a very open way where you don't censor or judge or decide in advance who to listen to. Anyone who is saying Tim shouldn't even SPEAK to those other people may well be saying so with the best of intentions, but they are also fundamentally naive - yes, naive (I picked the word on purpose!) about this creative process.

That's pretty much all I got.

Once again, if they absolutely hate the game, why would they want any part of it to influence Tim's work here? I think you're still missing the point that they'd rather Tim go to other influences. Everything has an opportunity cost. Tim wasting time with someone they hate equates to him missing out on time doing something they'd feel could make their game better.

You are being unreasonable by blankly dismissing their position here. Perhaps you loved the game and that's your prerogative, but there are plenty of reasonable conclusions that could result in them not wanting him to talk to them. It is still them expressing how they feel about their work. They're saying they don't like the way they do things and so feel Tim doesn't have anything of value to gain from them. That's not a dumb claim to make, it's how they feel, they may be throwing the baby out with the dishwater in rejecting everything they have to offer, but I wouldn't want the CEO of a company I invest in to go get tips from Madoff even if he did some things right.

I personally don't care. Let him do whatever he wants and speak to whomever he wishes and let's just judge the game when it comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that's exactly where the naivety is right there (and if we're going to talk semantics, naivety != stupidity.)
Naivety = an ill informed understanding of reality. It's a lack of experience, if you will. If anything, fearing that Tim would fall prey to bad influences is fear gained from seeing it happen over and over again in this industry and others. This fear is only gained from experience. You don't fear fire if you've never been burned. Naivete would be thinking the fire won't burn. You simply assume that Tim can't be... corrupted because he's been so stalwart so far. That's the truest form of naivety expressed so far. Every man falls to something, the only question is what and how it impacts others.
It's VERY rarely black and white. Even mistakes might not be mistakes in all contexts. What's a mistake for one game might be a brilliant idea for another. For example, I think there were a few mistake in Quantum Conundrum, recently released. Some were tonal: I thought the death screens and their grim random messages didn't sit well with the generally light tone of the rest of the experience. Others were mechanical: I thought it was a mistake to require to the player to be so precise in the execution of puzzle solutions when clearly the heart of the game should have been in figuring stuff out. But both of those things could have worked great in a different game. Which is why it's just too simplistic to put stuff in boxes of good and bad: instead, it's 'what worked' and 'what didn't work' with a heavily implied silent 'for this particular game!'
Let's say the game is boring. What other game do you think boring would work well in? That's pretty damn black and white. I do not look forward to finishing the game. That's a fairly bad thing for anyone in my shoes. This may be subjective but even subjectivity can have its black and white depending on who you're trying to please. If most of us hate peas then Tim should avoid trying to serve us pea soup. Simple as that.

As for the rest of the world though, I also adhere strongly to absolute truth as opposed to relative truth (if I say the book is on the floor, there's nothing you can say or believe that would make that untrue). So we could be at a fundamental philosophical difference here and that's not going to change. I believe in subjectivity, of course, but subjectivity only matters in trends and not the individual level when you're talking about what matters to a large group. So if the majority of the group doesn't like X, then X IS intrinsically "bad" in this situation even if it'd "work" in the game.

But even ignoring that subtlety, my main point was that 'influenced by X' doesn't mean 'like X'. How you are influenced by lots of different sources plays out in all sorts of unpredictable ways. Just like those dots Tim was talking about, you can never be sure when you're going to catch an influence and how it's going to fall - so the best way to ensure that something good will happen is to approach creativity in a very open way where you don't censor or judge or decide in advance who to listen to. Anyone who is saying Tim shouldn't even SPEAK to those other people may well be saying so with the best of intentions, but they are also fundamentally naive - yes, naive (I picked the word on purpose!) about this creative process.

That's pretty much all I got.

Once again, if they absolutely hate the game, why would they want any part of it to influence Tim's work here? I think you're still missing the point that they'd rather Tim go to other influences. Everything has an opportunity cost. Tim wasting time with someone they hate equates to him missing out on time doing something they'd feel could make their game better.

You are being unreasonable by blankly dismissing their position here. Perhaps you loved the game and that's your prerogative, but there are plenty of reasonable conclusions that could result in them not wanting him to talk to them. It is still them expressing how they feel about their work. They're saying they don't like the way they do things and so feel Tim doesn't have anything of value to gain from them. That's not a dumb claim to make, it's how they feel, they may be throwing the baby out with the dishwater in rejecting everything they have to offer, but I wouldn't want the CEO of a company I invest in to go get tips from Madoff even if he did some things right.

I personally don't care. Let him do whatever he wants and speak to whomever he wishes and let's just judge the game when it comes out.

Just a couple of points because I'm going to repeat myself here,

1) There's more than one definition of naivety, and I use the word purely in the sense of 'overly-simplistic, lacking in nuance' I think being worried that if Tim talks to people who made a game you didn't like that's going to have a bad effect on this game is a overly-simplistic, lacking in nuance view of what is actually going on here.

2) I didn't love the game actually, as I've explained in the game club thread, Sworcery turned me right off. But it worries me not one bit that Tim might ask them for their personal take on what makes adventure games good. Not because I trust Tim (though, coincidentally, I do) but because I understand that in order to be a creative person it really helps to have an open approach, particularly at the start of a project. The people objecting might not be making a dumb claim (and, AGAIN, I've never said it was dumb), but by 'throwing the baby out with the dishwater' as you put it, they are most certainly being naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may add my 2 cents regarding developer feedback.

I have nothing against the Superbrothers developers specifically, but I don’t like what they made so far either (in concept I haven’t played it anything from them so that may change), I specifically don’t like it when an indie developer makes like a single game (look at Fish and Blow for an example) and suddenly act as if their opinion matters.

Not going to discredit their games, that’s besides the point, the point is that you can’t just walk outta college make a couple of simple (yet acclaimed) games, and suddenly Tim Schafer asks your opinion about adventure games when you were probably still in high school when he and Ron were making Monkey Island.

I didn’t mind the Machinarium developer for example, since new or not, he at least made something that you can call *gasp* an adventure game (if Superbrothers: S&S EP is an adventure game I’m king Midas).

Does that mean that he shouldn’t ask their opinion at all? No, what it means is that they are other people, with opinions that actually matter that he should have asked first (like most of the people that Kickstarted an adventure game after this project).

The majority of backers had the fantasy of *add your favorite adventure game that Tim worked on while at Lucas Arts* when pledging for this game, you can just look at the majority of comments left at Kickstarter during the campaign for a sample of that, any input should be relevant to adventure gaming, or for that matter you might as well ask John Carmack and Cliff Bleszinski what they think about adventure games (I’d be surprised if they even played one).

I don’t want to sound like I’m overly critical of Tim for his decision to talk to those people (they may be other reasons in place like availability) but I’m not going to pretend that I care about what they think either, not when the are more valuable opinions to take into consideration, if they were adding to a long choir of random game developers relevant or not, is one thing, but they were featured in Episode 2.

Anyway, a small matter like this one doesn’t spoil anything; I’m just expressing my opinion, that’s what we’re here to do right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...