What about a good game with good implementation where every element implemented was carefully considered by someone who is very passionate about the project and is a talented game designer?

For a good game, this is usually the case. But I think your unstated assumption is that this "someone" is/should be one individual. For smaller games, maybe. For larger games, this is impractical.

There is nothing wrong with tinkering with a formula when it is necessary, but every step away from the original idea is likely going to detract somewhat from its personality. Of course it can improve the end product but it seems obvious that starting out with an idea that needs a minimal amount of tinkering and having said tinkering done by the person who originally came up with the idea will result in a game with more soul.

It depends. The "soul" and "personality" include how open to collaboration you are, how you handle other people's creative inputs and willing to compromise when you might be wrong or misguided. A game designed by a tyrannical dictator may certainly have a strong soul, and you probably would feel it through the end product.

This is a very idealistic view of game design, I just think that there is nothing wrong with the ideal itself. And that it could be strived for a bit more in the gaming industry, especially the indie community.

Perhaps. I don't think it is the most pressing game design problem in the game industry, indie or not.

You need artists and nerds to make video games

unfortunately neither artists nor nerds have the right personality for making entertaining video games ...

You need gamers to buy video games

unfortunately gamers are generally boring people

so the video game industry makes boring games for boring people to buy

That is why current video games are so boring

Making video games is 100x more fun than playing them

You need artists and nerds to make video games
unfortunately neither artists nor nerds have the right personality for making entertaining video games ...

Most people don't have one description to their personality. Game programmers usually get interested in game programming because they have an idea(good or bad) for a game that they want to make. Artists tend to be creative people that can be creative not only visually but also in writing, and a project vision. There are also plenty of programmers that are also artists that are also very generally creative people.

You need gamers to buy video games
unfortunately gamers are generally boring people
so the video game industry makes boring games for boring people to buy

Again, most "gamers" are average people that have other hobbies too. Not everybody that plays games does it in their underwear in their Mom's garage sipping coke all day.

Of course, with anything, there are the people who have become obsessed, but they could still be very interesting people that have been trapped in their virtual worlds.

That is why current video games are so boring

I do think that most of the new triple-A shoot em-up games have been pretty generic and boring, but there is a whole world of great indie developers, made up of programmers and artists, most of which are creative people, almost all of which where at won point "gamers" because that's how they got interested in it in the first place.

Are games art?

This reminds of the argument made in "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud about if comic books are art.

It is in the eye of the beholder.

But art could also be defined as anything that humans have made which is not systematically created. Something with a creative process.

Making video games is 100x more fun than playing them

Agreed. Games, like watching TV, aren't fulfilling after you turn them off. But accomplishment gives me a great fuzzy feeling for a long time.

Making video games is 100x more fun than playing them

Agreed. Games, like watching TV, aren't fulfilling after you turn them off.

I submit that you are playing the wrong games.

You're exactly right, someone with enthusiasm suggests how they think things should be and someone worn down by the industry talks beside the question by stating how things are.

Unfortunately, even with all the enthusiasm in the world, the lack of experience basically means your idea of 'how things should be' may not very well rooted in reality.

Let's suppose though, for the sake of argument, you're right. Idea Guys are a downtrodden and under-appreciated font of creativity, and games developers should make better use of them.

How do you propose we harness their untapped potential? Should studios start hiring Idea Guys? What are you actually proposing here?

1. What's the true worth of an initial game idea?
2. "Can video games be art?"
3. who is the painter?

1. $.008333
2. "Yes."
3. The entire team, including the producer.

You're exactly right, someone with enthusiasm suggests how they think things should be and someone worn down by the industry talks beside the question by stating how things are.

Unfortunately, even with all the enthusiasm in the world, the lack of experience basically means your idea of 'how things should be' may not very well rooted in reality.

Let's suppose though, for the sake of argument, you're right. Idea Guys are a downtrodden and under-appreciated font of creativity, and games developers should make better use of them.

How do you propose we harness their untapped potential? Should studios start hiring Idea Guys? What are you actually proposing here?

How about this, you move from huge projects being the standard to medium sized projects. You give the game designer an even bigger say and have him work form an idea he came up with himself or is extremely passionate about. The problem of course is, who in their right mind would finance that over some sequel or rehashed game that is a guaranteed moneymaker? It might turn out to be a flop, it will definitely not appeal to as large an audience as AAA games do, but the end product will have a hell of a lot more integrity.

1. What's the true worth of an initial game idea?
2. "Can video games be art?"
3. who is the painter?

1. $.008333
2. "Yes."
3. The entire team, including the producer.

I couldn't disagree more.

How can a game have any personality what so ever if everyone involved gets a real say as to what direction the game goes in.

Furthermore, do you really think everyone in the gaming industry has good ideas about what games should be like and how a good game is designed?

When I first discovered gamedev I was shocked

there was virtually NOTHING about real video game design

nothing about how to entertain people

nothing about how to create pleasure in peoples' brains

there was some rubbish about rewards and so forth, completely missing the point IMO

in essence nothing describing the most important stuff (which is psych-stuff)

instead it is all about "how it looks"

Probably because we do not possess the language to describe what goes on in the human brain

and all the really good stuff that could happen is "invisible"

Instead we focus on what we can see and describe "how it looks"

which is just a "comfort zone" as long as it looks good nobody can complain ... and we don't have to feel ashamed about our creations

That is why I use the word "boring"

Even the most impressive video games are not stimulating my brain in an interesting way

Many of them are just saying "look at me, look how clever I am"

Which leaves me with an empty bored feeling ...

You're exactly right, someone with enthusiasm suggests how they think things should be and someone worn down by the industry talks beside the question by stating how things are.

Unfortunately, even with all the enthusiasm in the world, the lack of experience basically means your idea of 'how things should be' may not very well rooted in reality.

Let's suppose though, for the sake of argument, you're right. Idea Guys are a downtrodden and under-appreciated font of creativity, and games developers should make better use of them.

How do you propose we harness their untapped potential? Should studios start hiring Idea Guys? What are you actually proposing here?

How about this, you move from huge projects being the standard to medium sized projects. You give the game designer an even bigger say and have him work form an idea he came up with himself or is extremely passionate about. The problem of course is, who in their right mind would finance that over some sequel or rehashed game that is a guaranteed moneymaker? It might turn out to be a flop, it will definitely not appeal to as large an audience as AAA games do, but the end product will have a hell of a lot more integrity.

This has nothing to do with 'Idea Guys'. It's more about how games get funded. And in case you hadn't noticed, what you describe here is kind of already happening.

Non-traditional, incremental release models are made feasible by the ubiquity of high speed broadband. Crowdfunding models such as Kickstarter offer an alternative to the traditional publisher model, with digital distribution sites like Steam providing a strong platform for distribution even for small indie studios.

A number of well known developers have turned to Kickstarter in order to make the game they want to make, rather than the game their publishers want them to make. Isn't this what you are talking about?