Changing gameplay in Sequels

Not that I disagree with you though it is interesting how often designers like Feng Zhu, Noah Bradley or Scott Robertson talk about their work rather as a craftsmanship, comparable to many other professions, rather then doing simply art.

I believe that every human beeing is capable of beeing creative, and doing great art, as its a natural process, you just have to find the medium you love and do it with passion. But art doesnt really follow any rules, none which would be set in stone. Perspective? Composition? Colour-theories? Important, yes absolutely, its always good to know those, but you will also find equally good art out there that is completely ignoring any rules, I mean hell, the whole point of Dadaism was to break away from it for the one or other reason. But a creative job, like design, has not the luxury of art. I mean you are a problem solver after all, there are some incredible Designers out there but they could not draw anything or beeing really "artsy" even if their life would depend on it, in fact if you're hired somewhere as freelancer, as concept artist for example, there is a good chance that your art director will not be very good in making art/designs but he's very good at telling you what works and what doesnt - if he's a good arti director, having the eye and some sense for it. I mean you dont have to know how to draw a human beeing to spot the mistakes in an obviously bad drawing. But if someone tells you to create him a character, like a vilain or heroine, then you should know the fundamentals. That's why you are hired in the first place.

But I feel that quite a lot see game design, or design in general in some very naive way, like as it would be levitating above the usuall jobs out there. Hell, just like with many other jobs, you will spend a lot of the time doing very boring and tedious stuff. In Graphic design? Moving around blocks of texts, finding the right format spending a couple of hours just to type out the stuff in indesign, for hours, and you're close to smashing your head on the keyboard because someone sended you again 12 pages of text in open-office with a completely wrong format, or pictures that differ in colours and quality. It can get very repetitive, just like most jobs. Or if you have to paint again for the 10th time the same landscape over and over again because your art director simply isnt happy with some of the details, and once you did countless characters with just small variations between them, and you simply cant see it anymore then this whole design thing doesnt feel that romantic anymore. I am not saying those are not great jobs! But they are not above the rest of the others.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, there's a vast gap between hand-eye-coordination and "having an eye for it". If you have an eye for composition and you can create as well, good for you! But few people can really do that. I've got an eye for dynamic composition, but I struggle to create it, myself (I LOVE the panel design in Bleach, and I'll give Kubo endless praise for those details, but hell if I could emulate that).

One thing I feel is universal, at least with things like Dadaism, Cubism, and all those "break away" styles, is this: "You have to know the rules first before you can break them." Picasso was an accomplished painter in the Classical style before he invented Cubism. You couldn't call him a hack, even if you disliked his newer style, because he could CLEARLY create beautiful paintings in the traditional sense. But when someone swallows some paint just to spit it up at a canvas, and calls that art, I feel like they're inviting themselves to be torn to shreds for not displaying a true understanding of other mediums before they claim to have a bold new statement.
 
I am not sure though if Dada makes still sense today. I mean its somehow missing its historical context.
 
Well, my comment about art existing actually comes from a discussion I have had a friend for a while. A lot of my snappy one line comments are actually kind of private references (and I guess is kind of rude to do so). So, when I use them here kind of substracted from their context of two dudes havign a discussion about wether DmC is a good game that then turns existential I asure you that I am not just letting an all encompasing cynism guide me. I actually tend to change my mind a lot so even if I say the most cynical shit one day I might wake up farting rainbows (altho opaque colored rainbows). But for now I am just doubting if "art" is even a thing outside of an easy term to refer to visuals or by people that want to agrandize somethign they like.
 
Well your comments felt to me like something that context doesn't really address. Sure, I don't really know that they come from a series of in-depth conversations you had with a friend, but does that really matter? Whatever the cause, you're still coming away with a notion that there's no such thing as art, and I think that's astoundingly cynical. As I've said, you're not mistaken that people throw around the word "art" in an abusive manner. You're spot-on when you say that happens. But those are just isolated incidents that do no preclude art from being impossible. Art is a very real thing, and some people get far too hipster-ish when they decide to just CALL what they're doing art rather than explain what it's supposed to do, but some people really have invested much into something they created, like a good movie or a book or whatnot they don't want to spoil the experience of the audience by cluing them in on what they should expect, so they try their best to dodge explanation for the sake of the audience's enjoyment. It's those kinds of endeavors which get emulated, hollowly, by people wanted to use cop-out retorts, rather than have anything worth contributing. It's like I mentioned before, it's the difference between ACTUALLY spotting someone's misuse of the strawman logical fallacy, and someone being a thick-headed asshole just saying, "That was the biggest strawman I've ever seen. You're wrong." because it's an easy escape for them.

Art is very real, and for someone like yourself who's participated in the Movie Thread, I'm just kinda surprised that you ponder art's very existence. Movies are, of course, a form of art. Some are just little more than short-lived experiences (anything from Michael Bay comes to mind), while others are remarkable and touching, or memorable, thought provoking, or any other number of things. That method of touching the senses of human beings is what makes those art, and not just information conveyance. Yet conveying a theme or a message or something through a storytelling medium is what makes a movie about a disaster art and a documentary about an actual disaster not art. If it seems like the lines are just way too subtle to discern and that it appears to be finicky and absent of rules that span the entire medium, well... that's kinda the point. That's WHY true art really can't be pegged down to basic categories and why the term is so broad based. Tragically this is also why those assholes have such an easy time just tossing around the word "art" to get away with crap; still, they're NOT representative of the existence of art, merely the existence of those very assholes.

Epilogue: The reason I used the word "art" repeatedly without much definition, in this topic, was because I was largely addressing a series of hypotheticals, so when speaking generally, I can't help but use the most generic terms at hand, and "art" is one of them. I also made repeated use of terms like "good games", and I feel like some people just missed my message, confusing my focus for a stress on the obscurity of games as an art form, rather than a stress on games being permitted to do WHATEVER they wanted, including changing core mechanics, settings, characters, or even genres, as long as the end result was a good game. I can't place enough emphasis on that, so long as it pertains to games, that it's a "good game" is what matters most, to me, and I feel like that extends to all, as well. =)
 
Back
Top