Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller I disagree that large corporations 'rule' American culture. The companies that make what consumers want grow. Those large coporations are in that position because customers buy what they have to offer. It's not a matter of being spoon-fed.

Hmmm...

Large Corporations put out what they want and think consumers will buy. Consumers...have no choice but to buy what is available, and that's whatever the corporations choose. The less corporations they are, the less they go by what the consumers want and the more they go by what they want the consumers to want. Do you think McDonalds sells fattening fast food because people "just like it?" It's a habit that they profit off of and have a good reason to reinforce. People could just as easily be habitually accustomed to vegetables, but that would require changing current models. People are accustomed to Tolkienistic fantasy worlds, through a combination of limited innovation and corporate control, that's all they get.

Quote:

Original post by axcho Quote: Original post by nicksterdomus It's the same now. There's a few gems among many failures. To me, that just seems like a normal thing for entertainment in general, not just video games. I think that is true for pretty much every creative process. Even nature mostly comes up with uninspired clones. And before genetic recombination was invented, that's what everything was! The whole universe just keeps on learning how to be more creative. Anyway, I'm not worried. I don't have any trouble finding fun games or thinking of original ones. :)

Nature doesn't come up with uninspired clones - they don't even come into being unless they've got the bare minimum to survive, and even then, alot of cool creatures still die out. The implications for games are that clones aren't natural - nature tends to diversify, only human nature and other "intelligent" processes simplify and degrade to the "unoriginal." Even natural selection results in diversity down the line - it's in our nature to simplify even though the best things tend to be so because the run counter to that current.

Quote:

Original post by Nytehauq Hmmm... Large Corporations put out what they want and think consumers will buy. Consumers...have no choice but to buy what is available, and that's whatever the corporations choose. The less corporations they are, the less they go by what the consumers want and the more they go by what they want the consumers to want. Do you think McDonalds sells fattening fast food because people "just like it?" It's a habit that they profit off of and have a good reason to reinforce. People could just as easily be habitually accustomed to vegetables, but that would require changing current models. People are accustomed to Tolkienistic fantasy worlds, through a combination of limited innovation and corporate control, that's all they get.

This sort of circular logic bothers me. On the one hand, you are assuming that all people are braindead drones with no free will or choice but to do what the "corporations" tell them to do. On the other hand, you seem to be forgetting that "The Corporations" are not malevolent alien machines from outer space; they are groups of people, the same ones you are claiming are braindead and unable to think for themselves. Especially in the case of game development, where nearly every retail game necessitates a corporate structure for the team. Do you really think every retail game developer is a souless automaton? Now, I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with the American corporate system; personally I think it's one of the worst ideas in history... but at its heart it is just people taking advantage of other people. There isn't some magical line that divides us all into "braindead consumers" and "evil faceless corporate entities". As soon as you charge money for a game, you are supporting the American corporate structure; just how many copies do you need to sell before you move from "rebel independent artist" to "evil corporate fascist"? 1000? 10,000? 1,000,000? How many people have to like something like "Tolkein" for it to move from a legitimate like to "just being brainwashed"? And don't you realize that if these are true, then if you were ever succesful and created something that a lot of people both liked and paid for, you would be both an evil brainwasher AND an evil corporate fascist? It would seem in this case, the only way to be "good" is to try and create something that people both will not like and will not pay for.

Quote:

Original post by Nytehauq Nature doesn't come up with uninspired clones - they don't even come into being unless they've got the bare minimum to survive, and even then, alot of cool creatures still die out. The implications for games are that clones aren't natural - nature tends to diversify, only human nature and other "intelligent" processes simplify and degrade to the "unoriginal." Even natural selection results in diversity down the line - it's in our nature to simplify even though the best things tend to be so because the run counter to that current.

Nature works through a hierarchy. Humans, intelligent processes, are nature. We're not seperated from it. We're part of the hierarchy, and so are the video games we create. No different than a bee dropping a flower seed. Perhaps our bigger goal is to destroy ourselves to allow super life to rise from the ashes of our neglected planet once we're gone.

But you can't say nature is original yet humans lack originality. Compared to every other life form on this dirt ball, we're pretty damn impressive. We've taken nature's way of doing things and milked it for everything it's worth. We laughed at the food chain, knocked the hell out of the stronger-is-better theory, and completely ignored our natural limitations using super machines. There's no reason to start feeling self-pity. We could all just give up and go back into the forest, but I personally wouldn't enjoy it.

Sorry, I guess I got a little off subject.

Quote:

Original post by makeshiftwings There isn't some magical line that divides us all into "braindead consumers" and "evil faceless corporate entities".

I believe there are evil faceless corporate entities. But one must evolve into such a creature. So the line is not so much a line but a large blur. There's not much we can do about it, though. Nearly everyone wants to live the good life. Money is the easiest answer for that. Profit equals money, and huge corporations yield the best profits. It's unfortunate that no one realizes that good is relative, or we could avoid the whole mess.

Quote:

As soon as you charge money for a game, you are supporting the American corporate structure; just how many copies do you need to sell before you move from "rebel independent artist" to "evil corporate fascist"? 1000? 10,000? 1,000,000?

Just enough to keep my dinner out of the trash cans. I'm in it for completely selfish reasons, but not for money.

Quote:

How many people have to like something like "Tolkein" for it to move from a legitimate like to "just being brainwashed"?

That poor guy probably invented those creatures because of that trench fever he had. There's nothing wrong with loving the fantasy setting. But we've been loving it for a long time. I'm just getting a little bored with it.

Quote:

And don't you realize that if these are true, then if you were ever succesful and created something that a lot of people both liked and paid for, you would be both an evil brainwasher AND an evil corporate fascist? It would seem in this case, the only way to be "good" is to try and create something that people both will not like and will not pay for.

My whole point was that corporations rule our culture. I didn't really say they were evil. I don't think all large corperations are evil and money hungry. For example, I don't think Microsoft is evil. But I think that Wal-Mart and several telephone companies are [smile]

I dare you to prove Microsoft is NOT money-hungry, though...

We humans have long removed ourselves from the Natural Selection process. However our capitolist based buisness culture is very Natural Selection friendly.

Sorry, but calling Microsoft, Wal-Mart, etc "evil" for being so successful is shortsighted.

If Nature and Natural Selection is amoral, then ...well... Buisness is just buisness...deal with it! :P

Bottom line. In the buisness world, if you ain't comfortable BEING the Great White Shark...become the Remora instead.

Quote:

Original post by Fournicolas I dare you to prove Microsoft is NOT money-hungry, though...

Everyone is money hungry. I don't think Microsoft is any worse than the coffee shop on my street. They make great software. They make software that people need, and use. In some cases, they make the best software. And they keep trying to make their software the best, rather than buying everyone else out and just dishing out crap. I'm not with the rah rah down with Microsoft guys at all. I think they're about the best example of a decent large corporation that we have. If any evil company takes over and runs our government in the future, I doubt it will be Microsoft. It will probably be Verizon. And when Microsoft starts handing out super smart SMGs to fight back, you'll all feel bad about this [grin]

Quote:

Original post by MSW We humans have long removed ourselves from the Natural Selection process.

That's a slightly arrogant way to look at it. But heck, everything I just said about humans was also extremely arrogant. How do you know that we have removed ourselves? Nature should include everything you know that is natural. That means not only plants, but also the sun, and space. We're still here, living off of this planet. We're so vulnerable, we can barely break out to look beyound it's bubble-like atmospheric protection. From far enough out, we look as insignificant as an ant hill. Our machines and unnatural creations would not look very impressive from that distance.

To assume we have completely beaten the natural selection law is assuming there is no other life that will survive if we were to destroy ourselves with N-bombs. Individuality is what makes humans tick. But if we're that dumb in being unable to work together as a populated planet, then natural selection could step in any moment, and we all die because of that individuality. That would be natural selection. Nature deciding that the ant-life is better than the human-life, simply because individuality can become so destructive.

Quote:

Original post by Kest Quote: Original post by MSW We humans have long removed ourselves from the Natural Selection process. That's a slightly arrogant way to look at it. But heck, everything I just said about humans was also extremely arrogant. How do you know that we have removed ourselves? Nature should include everything you know that is natural. That means not only plants, but also the sun, and space. We're still here, living off of this planet. We're so vulnerable, we can barely break out to look beyound it's bubble-like atmospheric protection. From far enough out, we look as insignificant as an ant hill. Our machines and unnatural creations would not look very impressive from that distance. To assume we have completely beaten the natural selection law is assuming there is no other life that will survive if we were to destroy ourselves with N-bombs. Individuality is what makes humans tick. But if we're that dumb in being unable to work together as a populated planet, then natural selection could step in any moment, and we all die because of that individuality. That would be natural selection. Nature deciding that the ant-life is better than the human-life, simply because individuality can become so destructive.

In nature dieseases like Polio wipe out entire species, we beat it. In nature those that cannot find/hunt/forrest for food die of starvation, we feed the hungry. In nature its very posseble for the birth process to kill both the newborn and the mother, we have figured out ways to greatly improve the odds against this happening. In nature its not possable for Gekkos to survive in the Antarctic, with the right supplies we can live most anywhere. No other species of life on this planet can do what we do...and that is simply because we have largely beaten back good old mother nature

No, we have not completely removed ourselves from natural selection...but we have minimalized its effects on our species far more than you may think. The only thing arrogant is how much we take this for granted.

Drop any one of us bare nekkid in the forest...with no tools...nothing more then our moisturized clean skin to protect us from the elements...put us on par with our animal kindred...and we likely won't live long enough to learn the skills our great forefathers knew to survive in mother natures kingdom.

I read page 1 and then I skipped to page 5. Filling in the blanks, I get the idea that we have decided that Walmart is to blame for bad games. Or maybe that Walmart is the key to a new wave of original games. Or maybe McDonalds.

*slumps against wall in defeat*

Quote:

Original post by MSW Drop any one of us bare nekkid in the forest...with no tools...nothing more then our moisturized clean skin to protect us from the elements...put us on par with our animal kindred...and we likely won't live long enough to learn the skills our great forefathers knew to survive in mother natures kingdom.

Of course we won't survive. Neither would any animal. The animal survives when it arrives naked in the wild because it has a parent, which at a minimal shelters it until it finds food, etc. Of course, there's plenty of exceptions, but not in more highly evolved animals (including basically all mammals I can think of). Communal survival is a fundamental aspect of many species, and shouldn't be discounted.

Drop a naked baby in the wild with it's parents and it's survival is far more certain, regardless of the sophistication of the parents. Imagine some of the Amazon basin tribes that are essentially unchanged over thousands of years. On of their children could most certainly be raised in modern society and likely be (mentally) indistinguisable from any first world child.

Don't believe we're still affected by natural selection? Do successful people not commonly marry other successful people? Seen many hot women married to poor, ugly guys? Many smart folks having children with dumb folks? Natural selection is most certainly still affecting us, we just happen to have more criteria than survival factoring in as a fitness metric.