Warren Spector farts hot air out of his mouth

[YeomanTheCastle]

And needs to retire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-Fnn0yOw74

[bobby 55]

I found his talk quite interesting. It was more a Warren Spector retrospective than anything in my opinion. Your tastes do change as you get older so why shouldn't your tastes in games change as well? If you told me five years ago that I'd enjoy other genres other than FPS/RPGs I probably would've laughed in your face. I did smile at the end when he put up his contact details and mentioned he was currently unemployed. Apparently it's "not the done thing" at those kind of events.

*Edited out a superfluous "more"

[Cybernetic pig]

Haven't we already discussed this before?

Yeoman, Warren Spector deserves better than your harsh criticism

It's hard to say though, he has lived more than twice my age, and I am sure things change as you get older, but I am certain I will continue to hold my opinions on games well into my 50's.
First off, he is the dude that made my favorite game of all time, Deus Ex, aswell as many other in my opinion superior experiences, so he hasn't had the joy experiencing them for himself.
Second, He grew up with text-based and whatever, I grew up with something far, far better.

I don't plan to have children, but things change. Even if one day I have children I will still play FPS/RPGs I am sure of it. He himself said he will always game, so why does it have to be casual games, or whatever, not "men in armour". It's just his opinion. And as I said before time doesn't factor in as you can just play the longer games over time.
"Casual" games do not come close to satisfying me. Sure I can play Trials or Peggle for an hour, but the enjoyment I get from those games doesn't even come close to "men in armour", and never will.

Maybe one day, I'll be playing Deus Ex with my child, and i'll use it as an educational tool. I'd rather that than him/her playing future virtual reality CoD (which would be fucking awesome regardless, but not beneficial except for entertainment and fitness).

"UNATCO teaches teenagers to fight when it all seems just a like a game". That is what virtual reality cod could possibly be, as a manipulative tool. Deus Ex could counter it
....Just chatting shit on that last sentence, trying to justify my LGS love

Isn't time better spent playing smart games than something like Peggle or Angry Birds anyway? If you are gonna game do it properly WS

[AEmer]

he's unemployed?

JONAS YOU MUST HIRE HIM! AND EVERY DAY, YOU MUST TELL HIM "THE STUDENT HAS NOW BECOME THE MASTER".

Ahem.

[YeomanTheCastle]

It was an interesting speech, but he said something that almost completely removed my ability to care about anything he said during it. Pretty sure what you guys know what I'm talking about, but when he said it I almost turned the video off right there and then. He says that casual, OTT, ridiculous games that don't require much thought (or pretty much just the opposite of what Deus Ex is), like Lollipop Chainsaw, should not have been made. What, because it doesn't appeal to his demographic? I'm known to react very badly to statements such as this, because it's frankly ridiculous and just god damn selfish to say "if your game doesn't suit my tastes IT CAN FUCK OFF AND DIE".

This is the problem I have with Warren Spector. I get the feeling that he just can't stand the thought of people not making games similar to his. Don't get me wrong, Deus Ex is my favourite game of all time, but fuck me. He's 57 years old, he's been in the business since the 80s and he doesn't seem to realise that some people might actually enjoy games like LC? Honestly, if games today were made up of 1000s of Deus Exs or whatever, wouldn't that be fucking boring?

I also get that "fisherman's better than the fish" vibe from him. If that's his attitude, then ughhhhhhhhhh...

[AEmer]

I watched it now.

First of all, the idea that he farts out his mouth here? You know, whatever dude. It's fine that you don't care what he has to say, you're free to express how you feel about it. Go on, be headstrong. Is he being obnoxious ? sure. But you know what else? this guy has probably forgotten more about games than you will ever know. 30 years man. But I'd just add that there are some who'd argue that shitting on a man with that kind of ethos is pretty moronic.

Secondly, the talk is good. If you don't get where he's going with it, it might not be for you, but as one of those 20 somethings that's nearing 30, if I want to spend as many years in game development as this guy, I need to get my first job there yesterday. What he says speaks directly to me, and honestly, anybody in my position should probably pay attention too.

Thirdly, lets talk about games which should not be made. This will be long and bumbling, but I have a lot to say on the subject.

Is he wrong that there are games that shouldn't be made? No. He's not wrong. I will tell you right now, there are games which absolutely should not be made.
This is a highly controversial statement, I realize this, trust me...but it's a matter of ethics.

Back in 2007 I took a course in computer game design, and in 2008, I took one in computer game development. I had the pleasure of attending lectures with iconic game designers of the time. I had the pleasure of participating in some discussion with the loud voices in game design at the time. A lot has happened in the intermediate years, but some things remain the same. Chiefly, I recall a 4 hotshot indie designers showing up and giving charismatic and empowering talks, and they had a questions round afterwards.

Their talks had focused on why they had turned to game design, and what they wanted to do with it. Now, people love their medium, especially when they get into it, but they will tell you the strangest things about their chosen profession. I recall asking Jonas why he wanted to do game design, and as I recall, one of his reasons was that games are a medium with a broader range and capacity for experiences. There's video, there's writing, there's audio and music, and there's interactivity that coats it on top; it is superior to the other mediums, at least in terms of technical potential. Personally, I want to do game design because I love computer games. Perhaps games have influenced the way I think, perhaps I would always have turned out as I did, but I seem to be wired in a fashion that compells me to dive into the narrative of worlds. Characters, and character fiction interests me less than settings and mechanics and rules. I'm simple like that; I like tanks, tools, weapons, even torture instruments more than I like portrayals of people using any of those things. Games are the only medium that caters to people like me, if you don't enjoy watching the discovery channel.

Well, anyway. These people were all in gaming for another reason: Because they believed gaming to be the most subversive, most culturally influential medium. That gaming was able to make the strongest statements, and affect people the most. Now, that idea is pretty ludicrous, for the moment anyway. Gaming simply does not posses as deep and varied a language as older mediums. I'm not talking about breadth of vocabulary here; I'm talking about an existing context of works, form language, tropes and mechanisms. Things that exist within the head of the audience even before they watch the movie, listen to the music, or open the book. Games, whatever else they do, are not yet able to express things as a whole in the same way, because there are so relatively few games that say anything significant at all. They're slaves to the contexts of the other mediums, and they can only ever dip slightly into the intertextuality they have with those mediums because the experience of gaming as a whole is so radically different. So; even if games have potent mechanics and greater potential, I don't see how you can argue that they're necessarily more influential right now, or able to express more depth of emotion, or able to evoke a deeper sense of art, than other mediums. At most, they're at the same level of other mediums, I think. Of course, I was totally with the designers in the lecture hall back then, but you live and you learn.

Well, anyway, that should be enough context.. I raised my hand and posed the designers the following question:

If games are more impactful, if they're able to speak in clearer tones, show more important messages, and subvert their audiences more easily, do game designers not have more responsibility for what their games mean than authors within other mediums? Are evil games not particularly unethical?

Clearly, this was not some unique snowflake that had come to just me. Several of them had answer for me, two chose to give them. They seemed to have fire in their eyes, they spoke in clear, excited tones, and they were...offended. They were offended at the very notion that game authors would have any additional responsibility, even given what they had just said. They argued that whatever influence a game may have on people, that influence is wholly the responsibility of the individual audience member. As with any art, you cannot control how people react to what you do; we don't hold our writers responsible for people being incised by writing, we don't hold our movie directors responsible for what their fans might do in response to watching movies. This, it seemed, was a free speech issue. A matter of liberty. They dug in their heels; games were just like other mediums, and deserved exactly the same place.

That last part is not wrong, but the reasoning they used absolutely is. The blank check concept - the idea that people should not assume responsibility for what they contribute to broader culture - is exactly as wrong for games as it is for movies, and we absolutely have moved away from it for movies. Our culture is a public good. We all give to it, and we all take from it, but like any good, it is worth exactly what it is made up of and how useful it is. If it is indeed a public good, it may be poisoned.

For example, the male gaze has long since been accepted as a concept within movie making. Whatever it truly contributes to our culture, when you choose to use it, you are (and should be!) held responsible. You made a choice to use it. In that sense, I staunchly disagree with the game designers I argued with; whatever you may think about freedom of expression, there are contributors and exploiters of our culture, and if you take a lot more than what you give, you are in the wrong. You should not be doing that. You are selfish, you are polluting the waters for the rest of us. If we don't realize this - if we don't take the time to appreciate those who truly contribute, and shame those who truly exploit, we don't deserve to have nice things.

As such, yeah, the worst offenders? Those games should not be made. The relationship between individual games and our culture should be symbiotic; it should not be the relationship between a leech and a host. For a concrete example, look no further than the war Z.

[Cybernetic pig]

He says that casual, OTT, ridiculous games that don't require much thought (or pretty much just the opposite of what Deus Ex is), like Lollipop Chainsaw, should not have been made. What, because it doesn't appeal to his demographic? I'm known to react very badly to statements such as this, because it's frankly ridiculous and just god damn selfish to say "if your game doesn't suit my tastes IT CAN FUCK OFF AND DIE".

I was in a busy room whilst watching the video, but I'm sure that is not what he meant. I will watch again later.

Even I don't say that, I just say casual games shouldn't get the majority of the recognition and success, it should at least be equal.

[CrocMagnum]

I find most of his speech relevant actually.

I can’t say anything about the 2 'fantastic' games he was talking about since I never played them (Heavy Rain and The Walking Dead).

BUT

The way he's talking about games needing a heavy involvment (time/skills) is really sad though. I understand he got older and changed, but he shouldn't dismiss those games so lightly. I mean Warren is fondly remembered for the very kind of games he's ditching today.

Also he’s actually encouraging Developpers / Publishers to make games for a somewhat Senior audience. More mature games. But when you look at the games he produced in the recent years you find he's just contradicting himself. (come one! Epic Mickey 1 & 2!).

I may sound a little harsh but I like the man. In this vid Warren showed he was still a smooth-talker ("Maybe there's more to life than blasters and broadswords") and still capabale of giving another take on the game industry.

And needs to retire...

Forget it. In that vid Warren said:

...And I’m not ready to retire, let alone dying!

[AEmer]

Well he said that there are games which should not be made in the context of what kind of gamer he used to be; he said that he specifically went out of his way to play the games which made him a delinquent. Games which went over the top, games which were ridiculous.

That some games should not be made - I don't know whether that was an aside, but he said that he used to play the edgy, politically incorrect games as he had lollipop chainsaw up. Maybe that's why he had the picture of it up in the first place; because this is the type of game he would have played when he was in his 20'es.

The aside - and the gesture he made when he said some games should not be made - I have no clue if that was actually in reference to LC.

[DDL]

AEmer: there's a fairly easy divide between game that should not be made because they are in fact direct infringements of other games' IP (like the warZ) and games that should not be made because they are somehow offensive/objectionable to some demographic. The former has both legal and (even when quasi-legally legit) internet-angry-man issues, namely: it's a direct, shameless rip-off. The latter? I strongly disagree that any game should fall into this category. Games should have every right to be as offensive, ignorant, stupid, juvenile or pointless as film, art, literature or any other media.

[AEmer]

@DDL
We're not talking about rights here. Nobody said anything about rights. The question is, are there games which should not be made? And just like anything that can be made, yes, an object of cultural value can have properties such that, no, in fact, it should not have been made.

I'm not saying The War Z shouldn't have been made due to any kind of infringement issues. I'm not even saying that there should be a law of any kind changed. This is purely an ethical matter, a matter of whether something should exist, not a matter of how to prevent its existence. In this case, preventing the existence would do far more harm than good, so that point is inarguably. It's also irrelevant to the point I tried to make.

I picked The War Z because it is an idea which has been lifted wholesale right after it had been proven good, it is trying to capitalize on a zeitgeist, and it not only mislead players but also eroded confidence in the steam platform. I picked The War Z because it has the lowest metascore of 2012 in spite of being only out for 2 weeks of 2012. I picked it not because it offends me, I haven't played it, and I didn't pick it because it offended some narrow demographic of blowhards. I picked it because The War Z is a turd of a game, a selfish game, a game which ruins things for other game developers and wastes a ridiculously disproportionate amount of player time, goodwill and money compared to ordinary games.

[DDL]

Well yes, but it's also all of those things because it's a direct rip-off of an existing game. Which is (or at the least, should be) a legal issue. If it was wholly original IP, then it would be a flawed gem for having an interesting hook handled terribly.
As it is, it's a direct copy of an original IP, handled terribly.

[AEmer]

I disagree. It did not have to be any of those things in spite of lifting the idea for a milsim zombie survival game. For instance, Dota existed in a pretty good format as a Warcraft 3 mod. In spite of lifting the idea wholesale for the games Heroes of Newearth, Dota 2 and League of Legends, each one of those games absolutely deserved to be made.

It is not that the gameplay is a derivative, that is an issue with The War Z, and in fact, the game could have been exactly those things and been pretty good. Choose the shooting model from counter strike, the map of GTA: San Andreas and the zombies from Left 4 Dead, mix it with survival loot, everything is suddenly peachy.

Don't believe me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UwpLOVTjLU

In this clip, everything looks pretty good; it's also a very different look and feel from DayZ. It showcases a largely urban environment, a significantly different inventory and interaction system, much different zombie mechanics, and an incredibly reactive feel. Sure, it's a clone, just like Duke Nukem 3d is a Doom Clone.

The War Z is a terrible game because of the launch, the player betrayal, and the opportunism behind it that caused these things.

Duke Nukem 3d was many things, but a rushed betrayal of confidence it was not.

[DDL]

Huh. Well, everything I've read about it has indicated it's an objectively terrible game. Poorly balanced, horrendous respawn mechanic, stupid difficulty curve, etc. The fact that it's also a direct copy of a much better game that uses the exact same setting and does everything better is vastly the more dangerous concern though. Shitty shitty games are fine, because you can simply not play them. It's like shitty art: there's a ton of it, it doesn't sell well, no problem. I've played a fuckton of shit games, and not one of them would I think "shouldn't've been made". Games let the players down ALL THE FUCKING TIME, and that is not in any way a problem. It's disappointing, certainly, but not a problem.

As an analogy, shitty art that doesn't sell well but that also somehow managed to be copycat enough to make, say...Monet seem like shit at the same time..would be a problem.

[AEmer]

DayZ actually has it's share of problems too. Between the terrible game performance, the terrible animations, the myrriad known bugs, and the rampantly allowed cheating, there's just issues with it. And while first party, it's just a mod, it's not actually a paid for product like most games, which allows it to skirt on a lot of things. Anyway.

I think copycatting is an artificial distinction. I'm not going to argue that the shitty games you've played shouldn't have been made, at least not unless you come up with a concrete example that I can actually argue shouldn't exist.

What I mean to say is, there's a threshold beyond which a clear distinction can be made between what shouldn't have been made, and what has some reason to exist. There's some amount of subjectivity and posturing to making such a statement in the first place - it often serves as a metaphor for expressing that something is not just a net bad but actually a net _terrible_ - but if you really get down to it, then yeah, there's shit which just shouldn't exist.

http://blog.games.com/2010/09/08/zynga- ... nnovation/

Do you remember this gem of a quote? Zynga were purposefully using malicious business practices. This kind of company, and the games they make - similar to those iphone vendors that make bank by having kids shell out micro payments via their parents cellphones - they're fucking assholes. It's like the companies that make money from spam advertisements. They're doing borderline illegal stuff, but that's not the issue, the issue is the moral and ethical bankruptcy they've declared before they even produce games. They're right up there with telemarketers who call after 6 in the evening, or the tv infomercial runners who trick old people to buy crap jewelry.

Games that are made for disingenuous, bullshitty, greedy reasons, games that make their players and purchasers suffer undeservedly when the developers know and just don't give a shit, these games deserve to be on everybody's shitlists. They'll always have a right to exist, but they're pollutants, cancers on the games industry.