Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
THEMES AND MESSAGES
Posts
NeverSilent
View playlists
CloseThank you, suzy. Though I do believe I worded some of my opinions badly or did not manage to express them clearly enough. Max McGee and LockeZ bring up some good points, especially regarding propaganda and the value of interpretation.
No. I disagree entirely. Entertainment is definitely an important aspect of art (in fact, I believe art that fails to entertain or fascinate fails in its entirety), but it is not the one and only main goal.
The main point of art is to give the things inside your head a tangible form and make it possible for others to experience those. Art is, in a way, an extended and vastly enriched form of communication that allows us to materialize our innermost thoughts and emotions that can't be expressed in any other way.
This is why I am also strongly opposed to the principle of l'art pour l'art. While on the surface, this concept seems to raise the value of art to a higher, unique level, in reality it reduces art to a consumable, isolated from the remaining parts of our lives. But art is something that shapes, defines and, in a way, educates us, and it deserves to be treated as such.
I don't like Stephen King much and don't really accept him as an authority on this field, but I partially agree with this. There is an important difference between good art and propaganda, and suzy already made some good statements about this. Basically, the goal of propaganda is to screw with your head and trick you into thinking certain beliefs are absolute and indisputable. Propaganda is one-sided and does not try to convince you, it tries to indoctrinate you.
Meaningful art, on the other hand, gives you the chance to experience and consider new perspectives and beliefs. It offers you the opportunity to learn and broaden your horizon while experiencing the pleasure of beautiful art. In short, propaganda tells you to believe something, meaningful art invites you to rethink your beliefs.
(Of course, since we all tend to be more receptive to different opinions and forms of art, it is not always easy to draw the line.)
This also ties in with what LockeZ and Liberty said: If you start seeing art only as a mere vessel to convey your messages and nothing more, you're on the path to producing propaganda (or just bad art). That's the opposite extreme to l'art pour l'art. I believe before starting a serious project, you should have a broad and well thought out idea in mind of what you want to do. And this should include things like basic story or theme, wrting style, main gameplay elements, your message or motivation etc. But they all need to come naturally and complement each other. If you just start with one aspect alone and mold the others to fit, the experience will feel cheap and artificial.
This should always be kept in mind, too:
Of course, like you pointed out, there are thousands of ways to mess up when writing with a specific message or thought in mind. Which is why these things need to be given serious consideration and time to discover flaws in your own approach. But that is true for every aspect of game-making, or art in general.
P.S.:
No offense, but maybe that's the problem? How do you want to be able to express yourself if you have nothing to say?
Of course, making cool technical stuff can be fulfilling and enjoyable for your players, too. But I imagine it must be quite difficult to stay motivated after the initial creative ecstasy has passed if your work does not feel relevant and meaningful, not even to yourself.
author=Max McGee
Remember, the first and most important goal of the artist is to entertain.
No. I disagree entirely. Entertainment is definitely an important aspect of art (in fact, I believe art that fails to entertain or fascinate fails in its entirety), but it is not the one and only main goal.
The main point of art is to give the things inside your head a tangible form and make it possible for others to experience those. Art is, in a way, an extended and vastly enriched form of communication that allows us to materialize our innermost thoughts and emotions that can't be expressed in any other way.
This is why I am also strongly opposed to the principle of l'art pour l'art. While on the surface, this concept seems to raise the value of art to a higher, unique level, in reality it reduces art to a consumable, isolated from the remaining parts of our lives. But art is something that shapes, defines and, in a way, educates us, and it deserves to be treated as such.
author=Max McGee
I'm going to paraphrase Stephen King from On Writing here:
If you identify a theme that emerges from the text of your work organically and enhance it knowingly once the text is mostly completed, that's aces.
If you create the text of the work from the ground up with a message or theme in mind, that's propaganda, or AT BEST a fucking PSA, and thou hath failed.
I don't like Stephen King much and don't really accept him as an authority on this field, but I partially agree with this. There is an important difference between good art and propaganda, and suzy already made some good statements about this. Basically, the goal of propaganda is to screw with your head and trick you into thinking certain beliefs are absolute and indisputable. Propaganda is one-sided and does not try to convince you, it tries to indoctrinate you.
Meaningful art, on the other hand, gives you the chance to experience and consider new perspectives and beliefs. It offers you the opportunity to learn and broaden your horizon while experiencing the pleasure of beautiful art. In short, propaganda tells you to believe something, meaningful art invites you to rethink your beliefs.
(Of course, since we all tend to be more receptive to different opinions and forms of art, it is not always easy to draw the line.)
This also ties in with what LockeZ and Liberty said: If you start seeing art only as a mere vessel to convey your messages and nothing more, you're on the path to producing propaganda (or just bad art). That's the opposite extreme to l'art pour l'art. I believe before starting a serious project, you should have a broad and well thought out idea in mind of what you want to do. And this should include things like basic story or theme, wrting style, main gameplay elements, your message or motivation etc. But they all need to come naturally and complement each other. If you just start with one aspect alone and mold the others to fit, the experience will feel cheap and artificial.
This should always be kept in mind, too:
author=LockeZ
Games are an interactive medium!
Of course, like you pointed out, there are thousands of ways to mess up when writing with a specific message or thought in mind. Which is why these things need to be given serious consideration and time to discover flaws in your own approach. But that is true for every aspect of game-making, or art in general.
P.S.:
author=Link_2112
My purpose of making games has never been to convey a message. I focus on gameplay, visuals, sound. The technical aspects. I usually put something together, debug it forever, make a few maps with it, and then stop :/ I have yet to get to the point where I insert a story.
No offense, but maybe that's the problem? How do you want to be able to express yourself if you have nothing to say?
Of course, making cool technical stuff can be fulfilling and enjoyable for your players, too. But I imagine it must be quite difficult to stay motivated after the initial creative ecstasy has passed if your work does not feel relevant and meaningful, not even to yourself.
Housekeeping
3571
We should probably make a distinction between themes and messages. I like media that deals with tricky subjects, but I don't like media that pretends to have an answer to those subjects, and I think that's what King's getting at, to a degree, as that's where propaganda comes in. I like to come to the paper with questions, not answers.
author=Housekeeping
We should probably make a distinction between themes and messages. I like media that deals with tricky subjects, but I don't like media that pretends to have an answer to those subjects, and I think that's what King's getting at, to a degree, as that's where propaganda comes in.
I was thinking the same thing. It's one thing to focus on a theme, and quite another to use your game to try to tell your own version of an Aesop's fable or convert someone to your way of thinking. People will often ask writers, "Did you write (Element X or Y) as a reaction or condemnation to (current world event or political topic)?" If we're talking about that sort of thing, I never write with that in mind. I'm writing to tell a story, not to make sweeping statements on the current affairs of the world.
On the other hand, an underlying theme that ties your narrative together can be very powerful if done right. I admit that I'm no expert at doing so, but I don't think having a theme in mind from the get-go should automatically lump anything together with propaganda.
EDIT:
author=Housekeeping
I like to come to the paper with questions, not answers.
This is a really great mindset to have when writing! I'm going to have to remember this quote ^_^
author=suzycheese
Yes, issues like that would arise whenever you use sensitive topics in your game, like any criticism Bioshock Infinite attracted for what some people perceived to be glaring racist overtones.
Anyone who thought Bioshock Infinite was a racist text is an idiot who ought to be euthanized.
author=NeverSilent
No. I disagree entirely. Entertainment is definitely an important aspect of art (in fact, I believe art that fails to entertain or fascinate fails in its entirety), but it is not the one and only main goal.
When you jump from "first and foremost" to "one and only" you are NOT in fact disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with an argument I did not make.
Because "first and foremost" != "one and only". I didn't argue that "art should be restricted to entertainment", that is a repulsive argument and I don't think anyone is making it.
I said "the artist's first and most important job is to entertain".
author=NeverSilent
in fact, I believe art that fails to entertain fails in its entirety
If you believe this, you literally do not disagree with what I said. Because if failing at entertaining automatically means that art has failed, then entertaining is the most important function of art.
author=NeverSilent
This is why I am also strongly opposed to the principle of l'art pour l'art. While on the surface, this concept seems to raise the value of art to a higher, unique level, in reality it reduces art to a consumable, isolated from the remaining parts of our lives.
I think you completely misunderstand what this phrase means. L'art pour l'art (English: Art for Art's Sake) is quite the opposite of the idea of 'art as consumable entertainment'.
author=NeverSilent
I don't like Stephen King much and don't really accept him as an authority on this field, but I partially agree with this
Ok, be honest, how much King have you actually read, and which?
Because this strikes me not so much as a matter of taste as a LUDICROUSLY ASININE STATEMENT. Generally speaking people who say things like "Stephen King is not a great writer" are woefully underinformed or willfully wrong due to the agenda they're humping. Because you're not an octogenarian professional litsnob, I'm guessing it's the former.
Important Context: I absolutely incorporate the ever lowering bar of mass market fiction quality that I've sadly seen in my lifetime into my ongoing evaluation of Mr. King's work and it's artistic merit. It's not the only factor certainly but it is a factor.
author=Unity
On the other hand, an underlying theme that ties your narrative together can be very powerful if done right. I admit that I'm no expert at doing so, but I don't think having a theme should automatically lump anything together with propaganda.
King was talking about theme, not about message. And he was saying if you come up with a theme beforehand and write around it, rather than allowing the theme to arise organically from the story and enhancing it, what you write will be shit.
I bent his point a little bit in my paraphrasing when I included the idea of 'message' and a comparison to propaganda and PSAs.
author=Max McGee
Ok, be honest, how much King have you actually read, and which?
Because this strikes me not so much as a matter of taste as a LUDICROUSLY ASININE STATEMENT. Generally speaking people who say things like "Stephen King is not a great writer" are woefully underinformed or willfully wrong due to the agenda they're humping.
Important Context: I absolutely incorporate the ever lowering bar of mass market fiction quality that I've sadly seen in my lifetime into my ongoing evaluation of Mr. King's work and it's artistic merit. It's not the only factor certainly but it is a factor.
The problem with asking someone "How much King have you read?" when they have just stated that they don't like the author is that, if they read one King book and didn't like it, what motivation do they have to read another?
I think Stephen King's pretty awesome myself, but that doesn't mean that other people don't have the right to think he's not the best in his field, and this is true for any professional in any medium. No matter how absolutely skilled you think any well-respected artist, writer, etc is, you're always going to find people who don't click with them.
It's not anyone's fault, it's just how taste works. The opposite is also true. It can be really annoying when you have legitimate reasons that you don't think an author is as wonderful as most people do, but they shut you down because "Obviously X is a genius. I won't hear you talking down about such a masterful writer."
Though, unless we want to shift to a big Stephen King discussion, this is all pretty moot, because his quote was the relevant part of the discussion, not his writing in general XD
Well, this is largely a matter of nuance.
They have no obligation to read another Stephen King book, unless they want to make an evaluation of the author with wider reaching ramifications than "I read one Stephen King book, once, and I didn't like it." Unfortunately, "I don't accept Stephen King as an authority on the field of writing" is just such an evaluation.
To get the obvious flippancy out of the way, yes, I fully agree that everyone has the right to be wrong XD.
With that said, "I don't like Stephen King" is an unassailable statement because it's pure opinion. "I don't think Stephen King is the best writer in the history of writing" is an unassailable statement because it's undeniably an obvious truism.
But "I don't think Stephen King is a great writer" or ESPECIALLY AS in this case "I don't think Stephen King is an authority on writing" is a statement that is absolutely assailable, because it touches on facts.
Facts like these:
Which beg the question, if Stephen King is not an authority on writing, who the hell is?
Well actually I'm actively inviting him to share more on why he thinks Stephen King is not an authority on writing rather than going nuh-uh, shuh up. But I fully agree this is dragging the thread off topic. Then again, I'd be surprised if we didn't come back around to the topic of themes and messages organically from wherever we wind up. : )
author=unity
The problem with asking someone "How much King have you read?" when they have just stated that they don't like the author is that, if they read one King book and didn't like it, what motivation do they have to read another?
They have no obligation to read another Stephen King book, unless they want to make an evaluation of the author with wider reaching ramifications than "I read one Stephen King book, once, and I didn't like it." Unfortunately, "I don't accept Stephen King as an authority on the field of writing" is just such an evaluation.
author=unity
I think Stephen King's pretty awesome myself, but that doesn't mean that other people don't have the right to think he's not the best in his field, and this is true for any professional in any medium. No matter how absolutely skilled you think any well-respected artist, writer, etc is, you're always going to find people who don't click with them.
To get the obvious flippancy out of the way, yes, I fully agree that everyone has the right to be wrong XD.
With that said, "I don't like Stephen King" is an unassailable statement because it's pure opinion. "I don't think Stephen King is the best writer in the history of writing" is an unassailable statement because it's undeniably an obvious truism.
But "I don't think Stephen King is a great writer" or ESPECIALLY AS in this case "I don't think Stephen King is an authority on writing" is a statement that is absolutely assailable, because it touches on facts.
Facts like these:
Stephen Edwin King (born September 21, 1947) is an American author of contemporary horror, suspense, science fiction, and fantasy. His books have sold more than 350 million copies, and many of them have been adapted into feature films, television movies and comic books. King has published fifty-five novels, including seven under the pen name Richard Bachman, and six non-fiction books. He has written nearly two hundred short stories, most of which have been collected in book collections. Many of his stories are set in his home state of Maine.
King has received Bram Stoker Awards, World Fantasy Awards, and British Fantasy Society Awards. His novella The Way Station was a Nebula Award novelette nominee, and his short story "The Man in the Black Suit" received the O. Henry Award. In 2003, the National Book Foundation awarded him the Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters. He has also received awards for his contribution to literature for his entire oeuvre, such as the World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement (2004), the Canadian Booksellers Association Lifetime Achievement Award (2007) and the Grand Master Award from the Mystery Writers of America (2007).
Which beg the question, if Stephen King is not an authority on writing, who the hell is?
author=unity
The opposite is also true. It can be really annoying when you have legitimate reasons that you don't think an author is as wonderful as most people do, but they shut you down because "Obviously X is a genius. I won't hear you talking down about such a masterful writer."
Well actually I'm actively inviting him to share more on why he thinks Stephen King is not an authority on writing rather than going nuh-uh, shuh up. But I fully agree this is dragging the thread off topic. Then again, I'd be surprised if we didn't come back around to the topic of themes and messages organically from wherever we wind up. : )
Housekeeping
3571
King loves J.K. Rowling, Max.
I think King is either a really shitty writer or a really great writer depending on the piece. The guy's all over the map, but when he's on, he's excellent.
I think King is either a really shitty writer or a really great writer depending on the piece. The guy's all over the map, but when he's on, he's excellent.
author=Max McGee
Well, this is largely a matter of nuance.
...
author=unity
The opposite is also true. It can be really annoying when you have legitimate reasons that you don't think an author is as wonderful as most people do, but they shut you down because "Obviously X is a genius. I won't hear you talking down about such a masterful writer."
Well actually I'm actively inviting him to share more on why he thinks Stephen King is not an authority on writing rather than going nuh-uh, shuh up. But I fully agree this is dragging the thread off topic. Then again, I'd be surprised if we didn't come back around to the topic of themes and messages organically from wherever we wind up. : )
Fair enough ^_^
author=Max McGeeauthor=Unity
On the other hand, an underlying theme that ties your narrative together can be very powerful if done right. I admit that I'm no expert at doing so, but I don't think having a theme should automatically lump anything together with propaganda.
King was talking about theme, not about message. And he was saying if you come up with a theme beforehand and write around it, rather than allowing the theme to arise organically from the story and enhancing it, what you write will be shit.
I bent his point a little bit in my paraphrasing when I included the idea of 'message' and a comparison to propaganda and PSAs.
I'm not sure I understand. If I start a game or book with the idea that "I want isolation and its effects on people in various situations" to be the theme of the work, is it doomed to failure because I went into it with that idea? And on the opposite point, if you're never consciously injecting your theme into the work and it has to rise organically from the writing process, is it up to just random luck that a theme might arise, and then you're set? Or are you somehow subconsciously constructing a theme? Or maybe I'm using the wrong definition or interpretation of what is meant by theme here?
I'm not sure I understand. If I start a game or book with the idea that "I want isolation and its effects on people in various situations" to be the theme of the work, is it doomed to failure because I went into it with that idea? And on the opposite point, if you're never consciously injecting your theme into the work and it has to rise organically from the writing process, is it up to just random luck that a theme might arise, and then you're set? Or are you somehow subconsciously constructing a theme? Or maybe I'm using the wrong definition or interpretation of what is meant by theme here?
Well this is an area where I don't 100% agree with King. But King would say you're supposed to start with setting and characters--mainly characters--figure out what those characters' motivations are, have those characters do what they would do (act-in-character), and let everything else--plot, theme, etc.--arise organically.
King loves J.K. Rowling, Max.
Man, I know and it drives me NUCKING FUTS. Rowling is such trash.
I think King is either a really shitty writer or a really great writer depending on the piece. The guy's all over the map, but when he's on, he's excellent.
Yeah, that's also kinda why I asked what NeverSilent had read. As a rule, I actually respect "Richard Bachman" a fair sight more than "Stephen King".
@Housekeeping and unity
I agree with you both in principle. And though I believe the two often go hand in hand, my distinction between themes and messages was not as clear as it probably should have been.
Two points I'd like to briefly address, though:
Even if it's done subconsciously, people often present their perspective when creating art. You probably didn't create Luxaren Allure just to make a statement about homosexuality, but it definitely does contain statements about it, right? And there's nothing wrong with that at all.
@Max McGee:
I honestly don't know why you seem to default to this rather aggressive tone, but be sure I never intended to attack you. I may not agree with everything you say, but I do respect you as a dialogue partner. Let's try and keep this constructive, okay?
Anyway, when I said one and only I was trying to establish a point and probably didn't do well. You're obviously right when you say "first and foremost" != "one and only". But I still don't agree with your original point. I think art has multiple functions and purposes, and entertainment is an indispensable part of it. But I don't think it should be placed on top of a "heirarchy". Just because I believe art fails if it fails to entertain it doesn't mean art can't fail in other ways. If you take one vital part away, the whole collapses. And entertainment is one of multiple vital parts of art.
Also, yes, I know what l'art pour l'art means. It is based on the principle that art is its own goal and should not serve any other purpose than itself. Which I believe to be counterproductive, because it implies good art is not supposed to interact with other aspects of life and is an isolated entity. But art often does and is allowed to have a meaning for the "real" world, which is why I believe it should not be restricted like that.
Now, concerning the Stephen King matter: This is my fault. Just to make one thing clear: I never said that "Stephen King is not a great writer" or anything like that. I simply don't like what he does. And this is why I'm not likely to accept him as a role model.
I haven't read much that King wrote and I'm indeed not likely to read any more of his works. But I made a statement about him that had no real value for the discussion and was an entirely personal opinion. I will never try to tell people they are not allowed to like Stephen King or see him as an authority on the field of writing. I don't really want to take advice from him simply because I don't want to write like him. But this information, which I put in my original post, was entirely unimportant for anyone but myself and I should not even have brought it up. And I don't want to be responsible for derailing the topic any further, which is why I apologize to you all.
Edit: by the way, I'm sorry for taking so long to respond. English is not my native language, so it usually takes me a little longer to put my thoughts into actual words.
I agree with you both in principle. And though I believe the two often go hand in hand, my distinction between themes and messages was not as clear as it probably should have been.
Two points I'd like to briefly address, though:
author=HousekeepingThe way I'd rather put it is "I don't like media that pretends to have the one and only answer to those subjects." I don't see what's inherently wrong with presenting your own ideas about how a certain subject should be tackled in reality. What definitely is wrong is aggressively dismissing any other possibilities and demozing anything that doesn't fit your views. But there is a large space between trying to convince readers/viewers/players etc. and being a propagandist.
I like media that deals with tricky subjects, but I don't like media that pretends to have an answer to those subjects
author=unityWhy not? Of course, it shouldn't be your only motivation when creating art, just one of many. But if someone wants to express their thoughts about a certain relevant subject through art, what's wrong with that? If done well, it only enriches the discourse surrounding that particular subject.
People will often ask writers, "Did you write (Element X or Y) as a reaction or condemnation to (current world event or political topic)?" If we're talking about that sort of thing, I never write with that in mind. I'm writing to tell a story, not to make sweeping statements on the current affairs of the world.
Even if it's done subconsciously, people often present their perspective when creating art. You probably didn't create Luxaren Allure just to make a statement about homosexuality, but it definitely does contain statements about it, right? And there's nothing wrong with that at all.
@Max McGee:
I honestly don't know why you seem to default to this rather aggressive tone, but be sure I never intended to attack you. I may not agree with everything you say, but I do respect you as a dialogue partner. Let's try and keep this constructive, okay?
Anyway, when I said one and only I was trying to establish a point and probably didn't do well. You're obviously right when you say "first and foremost" != "one and only". But I still don't agree with your original point. I think art has multiple functions and purposes, and entertainment is an indispensable part of it. But I don't think it should be placed on top of a "heirarchy". Just because I believe art fails if it fails to entertain it doesn't mean art can't fail in other ways. If you take one vital part away, the whole collapses. And entertainment is one of multiple vital parts of art.
Also, yes, I know what l'art pour l'art means. It is based on the principle that art is its own goal and should not serve any other purpose than itself. Which I believe to be counterproductive, because it implies good art is not supposed to interact with other aspects of life and is an isolated entity. But art often does and is allowed to have a meaning for the "real" world, which is why I believe it should not be restricted like that.
Now, concerning the Stephen King matter: This is my fault. Just to make one thing clear: I never said that "Stephen King is not a great writer" or anything like that. I simply don't like what he does. And this is why I'm not likely to accept him as a role model.
I haven't read much that King wrote and I'm indeed not likely to read any more of his works. But I made a statement about him that had no real value for the discussion and was an entirely personal opinion. I will never try to tell people they are not allowed to like Stephen King or see him as an authority on the field of writing. I don't really want to take advice from him simply because I don't want to write like him. But this information, which I put in my original post, was entirely unimportant for anyone but myself and I should not even have brought it up. And I don't want to be responsible for derailing the topic any further, which is why I apologize to you all.
Edit: by the way, I'm sorry for taking so long to respond. English is not my native language, so it usually takes me a little longer to put my thoughts into actual words.
@Max McGee: I honestly don't know why you seem to default to this rather aggressive tone, but be sure I never intended to attack you. I may not agree with everything you say, but I do respect you as a dialogue partner. Let's try and keep this constructive, okay?
Sorry m8. I didn't mean to even 'toggle' to an aggressive tone, let alone default to one. I tend to word things rather strongly on the internet but it's only very rarely intended as an attack, in fact almost never. I do tend to get a bit peeved when I feel like what I said is being misinterpreted or misconstrued, as I felt was happening here, but this was not an example of me flying into a Legion-Rage. Sorry if it came off that way.
Now that you clarified some more, I don't actually take issue with anything you just said about art, so moving on to Stephen king.
Now, concerning the Stephen King matter: This is my fault. Just to make one thing clear: I never said that "Stephen King is not a great writer" or anything like that. I simply don't like what he does. And this is why I'm not likely to accept him as a role model.
Obviously I respect your right to not like Stephen King but I am just really curious how THIS
I haven't read much that King wrote
informs and interacts with THIS
I simply don't like what he does.
Because he has actually done a lot of different stuff and honestly some of it straight up does not seem like it even came from the same writer as some of the rest of it, because his body of work is so insanely massive and varied. So I'm still really curious why you don't like Stephen King. We can take it to PM if you want to avoid derailing the thread further.
author=Max McGeeI'm not sure I understand. If I start a game or book with the idea that "I want isolation and its effects on people in various situations" to be the theme of the work, is it doomed to failure because I went into it with that idea? And on the opposite point, if you're never consciously injecting your theme into the work and it has to rise organically from the writing process, is it up to just random luck that a theme might arise, and then you're set? Or are you somehow subconsciously constructing a theme? Or maybe I'm using the wrong definition or interpretation of what is meant by theme here?Well this is an area where I don't 100% agree with King. But King would say you're supposed to start with setting and characters--mainly characters--figure out what those characters' motivations are, have those characters do what they would do (act-in-character), and let everything else--plot, theme, etc.--arise organically.
Okay, that makes more sense. Given my love of characters, I've done that (started with the characters and what they do first, and let that inform the plot) on more than one occasion :D Though, yeah, not sure if I'm 100% in agreement that if you don't do it in that order (and you start with a theme in mind) that you won't make anything good.
author=NeverSilentauthor=unityWhy not? Of course, it shouldn't be your only motivation when creating art, just one of many. But if someone wants to express their thoughts about a certain relevant subject through art, what's wrong with that? If done well, it only enriches the discourse surrounding that particular subject.
People will often ask writers, "Did you write (Element X or Y) as a reaction or condemnation to (current world event or political topic)?" If we're talking about that sort of thing, I never write with that in mind. I'm writing to tell a story, not to make sweeping statements on the current affairs of the world.
Even if it's done subconsciously, people often present their perspective when creating art. You probably didn't create Luxaren Allure just to make a statement about homosexuality, but it definitely does contain statements about it, right? And there's nothing wrong with that at all.
Good point. I guess what I was trying to get at, if, for example, I had gone into Luxaren Allure purposely trying to make a statement and trying to change people's minds, that the game would have suffered for it. I suppose if someone else wanted to go about making a game that way and did it skillfully, that they could make a compelling case while hopefully still making a good game.
But I don't think I could approach it that way, as I want what I make to primarily stand out on its own, rather than a reaction to something else. But I definitely would like to create projects that make people ask questions, so maybe I just need to grow as a writer.
author=Max McGeeHey, that's alright. It's just that I'm a very "harmony-oriented" person and I didn't want to risk having an insightful discussion turn into an argument. But it's not a big deal, I even considered editing out what I said, because your second and third post were very constructive.
I tend to word things rather strongly on the internet but it's only very rarely intended as an attack, in fact almost never.
author=Max McGeeCool. Thank you. I'm glad we can agree to agree for once, then, haha.
Now that you clarified some more, I don't actually take issue with anything you just said about art
I don't have a lot to say about King any more, except that I think this is a good point I had not considered:
author=Max McGeeAt this point, it's probably time for me to swallow some of my words and admit that having experienced some of King's work I disliked may have unfairly prejudiced me against him and his entire body of writing. It's good that you all made me aware of this. Perhaps I should take the time to do some more researching and reading before drawing possibly premature conclusions next time. For now, just pretend I never brought King up in the first place. :)
Because he has actually done a lot of different stuff and honestly some of it straight up does not seem like it even came from the same writer as some of the rest of it, because his body of work is so insanely massive and varied.
Edit: @unity:
There's nothing I could add to that. I agree with everything you said.
I agree that Stephen King is a great write with a lot of variety and a broad spectrum.
Yet while I've read quite a few books (due to my siblings being fans), I can't consider me a fan. While the imagery and the metaphors used are splendid - the works usually lack any impact or message (imho). They feel more like flavor than anything else.
But on topic:
I don't think all games need to be fun. Although surely the majority should.
Reminds me of Texhnolyze (an anime, but still) - watching it was at times exhausting and .. not fun. Yet it's an anime I cherish, an anime which has touched me deeply and had delivered such strong messages and points on humanity in there. I consider it a great piece.
There are a few games which delivered great messages .. but they make but a small portion of what I've played.
I suppose Persona 4 is most striking for me due to the circumstances I was in when I played it. Dealing with oneself. It uses such great accurate metaphors for the issues raised.
Majoras Mask is a great metaphor on coping with death.
Digital Devil Saga also had some great themes.
And here on RMN I could name "This is Where I want to Die" as a prime example.
As for games that failed to deliver a message ... looking back at the reviews, quite a lot of games fail at doing so.
I see it less often in commercial games, but they usually don't try to deliver strong messages to begin with. And those clichéd ones (like friendship conquers all, love conquers all, be a force for good, X is evil) are empty parts.
I don't think it's wrong to work with a theme or a message in mind .. but if that's all your game has, then you're thinking on the wrong ends.
Yet while I've read quite a few books (due to my siblings being fans), I can't consider me a fan. While the imagery and the metaphors used are splendid - the works usually lack any impact or message (imho). They feel more like flavor than anything else.
But on topic:
Are you content with the concept of creating "fun"? There are games that ditch it altogether in favor of another message. Can you remember games which had meaningful messages to you? Can you remember games that failed in carrying those? "
I don't think all games need to be fun. Although surely the majority should.
Reminds me of Texhnolyze (an anime, but still) - watching it was at times exhausting and .. not fun. Yet it's an anime I cherish, an anime which has touched me deeply and had delivered such strong messages and points on humanity in there. I consider it a great piece.
There are a few games which delivered great messages .. but they make but a small portion of what I've played.
I suppose Persona 4 is most striking for me due to the circumstances I was in when I played it. Dealing with oneself. It uses such great accurate metaphors for the issues raised.
Majoras Mask is a great metaphor on coping with death.
Digital Devil Saga also had some great themes.
And here on RMN I could name "This is Where I want to Die" as a prime example.
As for games that failed to deliver a message ... looking back at the reviews, quite a lot of games fail at doing so.
I see it less often in commercial games, but they usually don't try to deliver strong messages to begin with. And those clichéd ones (like friendship conquers all, love conquers all, be a force for good, X is evil) are empty parts.
I don't think it's wrong to work with a theme or a message in mind .. but if that's all your game has, then you're thinking on the wrong ends.
author=Kylaila
I don't think it's wrong to work with a theme or a message in mind .. but if that's all your game has, then you're thinking on the wrong ends.
This is the best sentence posted in this thread so far!
Actually, Rowling's great. You do have a point about the other two. Also, there's a difference in audience between King and Rowling. Rowling aimed more for kids but kept the story serious (in parts) while King aims more for the adult audience. Neither is bad, just different.
Also, Rowling's adult books are just as fun to read as the Harry Potter series. And having a book be fun is not a bad thing at all. Better than a plodding read of boring. (Not saying that King is boring or plodding. I've not read enough of his works, though I have plans for his Tower series and I to meet in the near future~)
Themes are good and usually are overlaid in a story subtly - you can read a story and figure out the theme, but it's not ever-present in your mind when reading. Messages should be carefully monitored as they have a habit of feeling as though they're being shoved down your throat and can ruin the immersion in the story with how prevalent they are.
That said, they can both be used effectively, you just have to take care with them - as with every other part of a game.
Also, Rowling's adult books are just as fun to read as the Harry Potter series. And having a book be fun is not a bad thing at all. Better than a plodding read of boring. (Not saying that King is boring or plodding. I've not read enough of his works, though I have plans for his Tower series and I to meet in the near future~)
Themes are good and usually are overlaid in a story subtly - you can read a story and figure out the theme, but it's not ever-present in your mind when reading. Messages should be carefully monitored as they have a habit of feeling as though they're being shoved down your throat and can ruin the immersion in the story with how prevalent they are.
That said, they can both be used effectively, you just have to take care with them - as with every other part of a game.
author=Liberty
Actually, Rowling's great. You do have a point about the other two. Also, there's a difference in audience between King and Rowling. Rowling aimed more for kids but kept the story serious (in parts) while King aims more for the adult audience. Neither is bad, just different.
Also, Rowling's adult books are just as fun to read as the Harry Potter series. And having a book be fun is not a bad thing at all. Better than a plodding read of boring. (Not saying that King is boring or plodding. I've not read enough of his works, though I have plans for his Tower series and I to meet in the near future~)
I'm sorry, but J.K. Rowling is an utterly terrible writer, an incompetent no-talent hack, and a stepping stone on the slippery slope to 50 Shades of The End Of The Western Literary Tradition. You have to know a bit about writing to realize that Rowling is crap, but really not that much. Unfortunately, the hacks that came after her have made her wretched trash seem more acceptable. And unfortunately, a lot of people who know a bit about writing are uncritical of Rowling's garbage for sentimental reasons. Gah, her naming conventions alone are teeth-grittingly awful in their exaggerated obviousness. And personally, I don't think that it being for children is any excuse. Children != stupid, and I think that writing down to children is just the height of condescension and all of my favorite young adult and children's books growing up refused to engage in that kind of condescension or to be awful and use being children's lit as an excuse for that awfulness.
I understand that a lot of people in your generation are really, really big Harry Potter fans. (I say 'your generation' but honestly like...I am not entirely sure if age is a factor in why I missed the Harry Potter craze. It feels like it is, but I do know big fans of it who are my age or a bit older. Heck you might be older than me. It just feels like most of the really big Potter fans are generally speaking just like, one or two years younger than me. Which shouldn't be a generational difference but feels like one.) Like, generally speaking, pretty much all of my peers and friends like Harry Potter. My girlfriend (actually let me add to that that: also every other girlfriend or potential girlfriend I have ever had) and everyone she grew up with is a Potter fanatic. So I am used to being in the minority here.
I mean even Stephen King likes J.K. Rowling and thinks she is a competent writer so obviously I FEEL VERY ALONE HERE lol. But yeah I mean this being a topic I disagree with just about everyone but Harold Bloom about has not changed my opinion over the years.
/grumpy
You should read The Dark Tower. It is probably my favorite book series. XD
/tangent
Frankly, if people who know writing are saying she's a decent writer then perhaps it's not them who is wrong? It may just be that you, personally, don't like her style of writing - not that there's something bad about her writing.
I never had issue with the way she writes - it's simple, effective and while she does use certain tropes, she uses them well and makes them work. She's a good writer with a fluent style that engages her readers no matter their age. It's the mark of a good writer to be able to do so. I've done more than enough studies and learned more than enough about writing to see that. (I'd say over 7 years of concentrated studies on writing, editing and the like would be enough experience to tell if someone is a good writer or not.)
Your own taste may not like her but that doesn't make her bad. Besides, aren't we the same age? (I can't remember everyone's ages >.<; )
I never had issue with the way she writes - it's simple, effective and while she does use certain tropes, she uses them well and makes them work. She's a good writer with a fluent style that engages her readers no matter their age. It's the mark of a good writer to be able to do so. I've done more than enough studies and learned more than enough about writing to see that. (I'd say over 7 years of concentrated studies on writing, editing and the like would be enough experience to tell if someone is a good writer or not.)
Your own taste may not like her but that doesn't make her bad. Besides, aren't we the same age? (I can't remember everyone's ages >.<; )
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
There's a certain charming innocence and straightforwardness to Rowling's writing that, when combined with the mesmerizing setting and goofy characters, although definitely lacking in sophistication and technical ability, creates something really fun to read.
I would say it's actually probably the opposite of what you're saying, Liberty. It's objectively not very good, but tons of people can't help but love it anyway. Frankly I could say the same thing about a lot of the greatest RPGs! FF7 is a stupid, terrible story! Have you actually bothered to read it? It's confusing, it meanders, it doesn't know what it wants to do with its setting, the key themes are beaten like dead horses, and the translation from Japanese of some very key ideas is bordering on nonsensical. But people love it. I love it! Stuff speaks to us, in fact it enthralls us sometimes, even when it's not made that great, because there's some aspect of it that really makes it connect with us in a way that other stories don't.
I would say it's actually probably the opposite of what you're saying, Liberty. It's objectively not very good, but tons of people can't help but love it anyway. Frankly I could say the same thing about a lot of the greatest RPGs! FF7 is a stupid, terrible story! Have you actually bothered to read it? It's confusing, it meanders, it doesn't know what it wants to do with its setting, the key themes are beaten like dead horses, and the translation from Japanese of some very key ideas is bordering on nonsensical. But people love it. I love it! Stuff speaks to us, in fact it enthralls us sometimes, even when it's not made that great, because there's some aspect of it that really makes it connect with us in a way that other stories don't.
author=LockeZ
I would say it's actually probably the opposite of what you're saying, Liberty. It's objectively not very good, but tons of people can't help but love it anyway.
Yeah, this. I have spent hours and hours and hours of my life arguing all of the numerous factual points that actually prove Harry Potter is objectively crap and JK Rowling can't write her way out of a paper bag. But I'm not going to spend another minute on it here. People love it, and no one is going to accept that it's terrible even when I present factual evidence. Backfire effect.
You may be right about FF7--although I'd still argue it's objectively better than Harry Potter--I've never really looked at it with a critical eye. I really liked it when I was a teenager and well...now nostalgia really clouds me from being critical of it. I don't think it's wholly terrible but I think it is pretty padded. I still think the central Cloud-Tifa-Aerith-Sephiroth-Jenova-Lifestream-Planet stuff is pretty compelling and I even like *some* of the side characters.
