The last 10 years game development seem to have gone from being the work of computer wizards, to being a free-time interest for ambitious teenagers, and now also a dream for about every serious game player out there. I've realized my little siblings could design better games with click-and-play game makers, than I've ever programmed. I'm impressed. Though, on Internet I've seen many decent games that nobody really plays, maybe because there are overwhelmingly many of them, who wants to try anything but the most hyped games? Some people spend so much time making games that are played mostly by themselves, is it a waste? Or is game development becoming funnier than playing games? With user-created content, the line between developing and playing seems to vanish. And when programmers buy each other's engines, it reminds me of enthusiasts that build custom cars, keep them for a while then display and sell them. I wonder if future game industry may end up as a strange market where everyone exchange their creations for money forth and back... Haha, maybe it isn't "strange" after all [smile] What's your take on the situation?

Your little siblings can't write the next WoW. Neither can we, for that matter :D If you're doing it as a hobby, as long as you're having fun, it doesn't matter. Where the industry is going doesn't have much to do with the hobbyist though. Budgets will keep increasing, physics will improve, we may move into augmented reality or hyper-realistic virtual worlds (including, probably, pain simulation), the Internet (rebranded as the Cloud) will be embedded in a microchip in your arm to make this possible, and Big Brother will watch you 24/7 if he doesn't already. It's all good :) The future looks bright :D

Game programming, for me, is a hobby, not a vocation. I don't care if I never finish making a game, I don't care if nobody ever plays my games. It doesn't matter. I have no interest in getting a programming job in the game industry, I don't need to make money off of my games (though if I ever finish one and do, that's pure bonus).

Based on all that, I simply don't care. I make games for me - when I actually make games. I enjoy creating things: I draw, I animate, I code, I plan to try carpentry and fixing up cars when I get a place with a garage/workshop. I'm a dabbler, and this serves that function for me.

Why pose the question in terms of all or nothing?

Quote: Original post by Dim_Yimma_H
I've realized my little siblings could design better games with click-and-play game makers, than I've ever programmed. I'm impressed. Though, on Internet I've seen many decent games that nobody really plays, maybe because there are overwhelmingly many of them, who wants to try anything but the most hyped games?

Who is a good question. It opens the spectrum beyond the implied audience. Who are the people that play the most hyped games? Who are the people that don't? (Excluding people who don't play games at all). For that matter, how does projecting the notion that "nobody really plays" change the tenure of these questions? Futility implies utility. Do games serve a purpose or are they works of art?

For me, creating games is an art form. You can take your imagination and make it come to life by making games. I don't know of any artist who wants to paint a masterpiece painting and then hide it in the attic where nobody can see it.

The actual development of a game can become a chore at times, but seeing other people play and enjoy your creation makes it worth all the pain you went through to develop it.

I'm almost of the mind that if I had to choose between getting $5 for every player that played my game or getting feedback/support/criticism/raves/rants/reviews/appreciation of my game, I'd chose the latter.

Let's put some flesh on these bones. When it comes to games as commerce and games as art, what are the implications of the cancellation of Konami's Battle of Fallujah? Konami pulls Six Days in Fallujah, Konami cancels Fallujah battle recreation video game, The Battle Over the Battle of Fallujah. Sadly, it appears that commerce and political correctness win out over art. From this we must conclude that Konami views it's products as commodities rather than as works of art. To paraphrase myself from a thread earlier this week, Konami isn't ready to reform society, it's simply driven to make money. This should stand as a warning to the gaming industry regarding the negative consequences of commerce engulfing artistry. Commercial spotlights sometimes burn like white phosphorus...

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Let's put some flesh on these bones. When it comes to games as commerce and games as art, what are the implications of the cancellation of Konami's Battle of Fallujah? Konami pulls Six Days in Fallujah, Konami cancels Fallujah battle recreation video game, The Battle Over the Battle of Fallujah. Sadly, it appears that commerce and political correctness win out over art. From this we must conclude that Konami views it's products as commodities rather than as works of art. To paraphrase myself from a thread earlier this week, Konami isn't ready to reform society, it's simply driven to make money. This should stand as a warning to the gaming industry regarding the negative consequences of commerce engulfing artistry. Commercial spotlights sometimes burn like white phosphorus...

Even as a Marine who was involved in the first battle in Fallujah, I don't really find this game very controversial. Even though it was canceled, if someone where actually developing it, I would hope that the realism of modern combat would be captured accurately to make a clear statement about the nature of war. There'd better be civilians and screaming families! Unfortunately, what is "fun" is not necessarily a reflection of reality and a war game like this would paint war as "fun" when it is anything but fun for either side.

From what I gather from your argument, you seem to claim that a game like this shouldn't be canceled because of its artistic merits. Ignoring the obvious business influences on game dev, Should every game enjoy freedom from controversy due to artistic license? Let's pick this apart to get a better grasp on a good position to take and then look at more case studies:

What is art? Where does art come from? Who decides what is art? Is there "unethical" art? How is game development 'art'? How is art a reflection of the artist? Does the phrase 'You are what you eat' apply to art & games as it does to food, or is it 'You eat what you like' more accurate?

Feel free to disagree with my answers or revise them:

What is art?
In the most general sense, art is a depiction of imagination through some medium. Optionally, it may convey a message or range of emotions.

Where does art come from?
All art comes from the imagination of the artist. The imagination of the artist is usually inspired by the interests, experiences and creative inventiveness of the artist.

Who decides what is art?
I consider anything that requires creative imagination to construct an object as an art. Definitions may vary. Whether or not it is 'good' art or not is subjective to the interpreter.

Is there "unethical" art?
I can't really answer this. Much like that one judge who says "I'll know its pornography when I see it", I'll say "I'll know its unethical when I see it". I don't consider GTA to be unethical in any way. RapeLay, on the other hand, is really interesting to think about, especially in context to japanese culture, sexual repression in japan, rape fantasies, and the psyches in Yaoi & Yuri which make the manga series appealing to men & women.

Is game development 'art'?
By my definition of what constitutes art, yes. The game designer has to imagine the game world and game mechanics in order to create it. It takes creativity. For what it's worth, I have a lot of respect for Peter Molyneux as an innovative game designer.

How is art a reflection of the artist?
If art is born from the imagination, interests, and experiences of the artist, then the art is a reflection of the mind of the artist. That can be uninteresting. What's more interesting to consider is the generalizations which can be made of the societal psyche based on what 'art' is popular. Pop art can be a cultural artifact. If GTA4 is really popular, what does it say about a society? If RapeLay is really popular, what does that say? If Tetris, chess, or <insert game> is popular, how is it a reflection of the artist and the art consumers?

Does the phrase 'You are what you eat' apply to art & games as it does to food, or is it 'You eat what you like' more accurate?
Suppose you play Counter-strike a lot, or some other first person shooter. It doesn't cause you to become a killer (though, some would argue otherwise). If you play the hentai themed 'RapeLay', does that make you predispositioned to becoming a rapist? I don't think so. It's possible that a rapist could be predispositioned to enjoy playing RapeLay, but even that would be a stretch of a claim to make. Even if RapeLay wasn't banned everywhere, I'd be willing to bet that it would probably be a very small niche market.

So, the answers above all lead to this question:
As a game, should RapeLay be created on its merits as an artistic work which represents the creative imagination of the developers?
If you say "No", then you agree that games shouldn't be made on artistic merit alone since other factors can influence the decision to make games (ethics, business interests, market). You also agree to censorship to some degree.
If you say "Yes": (This would be a more interesting position to take and defend.)
-Is there a limit to what should be developed? Wolfenstein was a game where you're fighting against Nazis. In the name of artistic license, would it be equally permissible to make a game where instead, you are a Nazi and you win by sending as many jews as possible into the gas chambers? If someone protests in disgust, then how is that any different from carpet bombing a city with firebombs? Should the ugly actions and history of man be left out of art because it makes people uncomfortable? Or should 'artistic license' be 'anything goes' and let it be a lens to focus on ourselves as human beings moving through history?

I'm starting to think, "yes, RapeLay should be made". However, I'm not interested in playing it. It just wouldn't suit my tastes, much like Manhunt.

3D graphics is very interesting in itself ,even it don't concern to games,and gives a lot of interesting things to mankind (such a banal sentence!). Teenagers programming is good just like a form of education,and further it will remain a hobby or become an occupation,there are no problems here.Another one banal sentence.
I see here only one problem-boys and girls are trying to save time and use( IMHO of couse) too mush ready articles, sourses and ideas,as result we can see a lot of simular and unused games.I.e. saving of time before and waste of time later,anyway.
In present time I see only two "extremal" ways to take a part in game making:
-if you have a nice gameplay idea- buy/use existing engines
-if you have rendering technique ideas -try to create a technology from inintial API level.

[Edited by - Krokhin on June 7, 2009 1:11:29 AM]

Quote: Original post by lightbringer
Where the industry is going doesn't have much to do with the hobbyist though.

I wonder how much of an impact games like Little Big Planet, WarioWare Do It Yourself and Second Life will have in the long run.

A game which allow players to make money on user-created content, which may also contribute to the developer's profit seems possible now. Something like Xbox Live Arcade but for content in specific games.

Microsoft and Nintendo may have very much control over such networks though, so it may never be a problem for them, they won't be out rivaled by their customers :)

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
I plan to try carpentry and fixing up cars when I get a place with a garage/workshop.

Carpentry is supposed to be pretty rewarding work, not completely unlike programming but more practical, and definitely a powerful skill.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Who are the people that play the most hyped games? Who are the people that don't? (Excluding people who don't play games at all). For that matter, how does projecting the notion that "nobody really plays" change the tenure of these questions?

Good point, even if I have a feeling you're thinking deeper than me here. Nobody really plays yet, right? The purpose of games can be adjusted to be utilized better/more, in "new" areas.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Do games serve a purpose or are they works of art?

I'd say both. It's a very disputed question though. There are many purposes of entertainment, both for the producers (e.g. profit, creative works) and the customers (e.g. recreation, using it as subject in social channels, finding people with the same interest).

Quote: Original post by slayemin
You can take your imagination and make it come to life by making games. I don't know of any artist who wants to paint a masterpiece painting and then hide it in the attic where nobody can see it.

That's where I'm sensing some kind of waste. For example, deviantART is a website where so many talented artists create gorgeous graphics, but only a few get through the masses.

Quote: Original post by slayemin
I'm almost of the mind that if I had to choose between getting $5 for every player that played my game or getting feedback/support/criticism/raves/rants/reviews/appreciation of my game, I'd chose the latter.

Money is extremely abstract, and humans are social beings so I believe many developers feel like that.

Quote: Original post by Dim_Yimma_H
is game development becoming funnier than playing games?

This. I find programming (in general, not only games) a lot more rewarding than playing games.