Really awful. Apparently we failed our apartment inspection because my room is an awful mess that the health department threatened to close down the entire apartment - I have to clean it in two weeks, but that's not a big deal, my mom offered to help me, we could do it in a day.
What is a big deal is that we failed our inspection because of...Sullivan, my guinea pig. We have to get rid of him in 14 days, and I have no idea what to do with him. He's 3 years old, so all the stores and shelters here would just put him down, and I cannot live with myself if that happens. I need to find a home for him that's local, so I'm in trouble, and so is he. God, why does our society have to murder animals like they're property to be tossed away? You wouldn't euthanize an old person because nobody wants one, that would be cruel. But that's how things work, and now he needs a place to live. He's well-tempered but has never had a cage-mate, or at least, not since he was 4 weeks old, so his chances are not good. (They get nervous around other guinea pigs when they get older and used to their own space.) I cannot imagine this house without him squeaking every time someone opens the fridge or if he hears my cousin's loud-ass music outside and thinks he's coming upstairs. And to top it off, I am not social, I barely know anyone, and I doubt they'd be interested in a pet, especially since he isn't exactly low-maintenance. (They need people to interact with them, they're very social.) I'd be more content to give him away if I knew he'd be cared for and not killed.
The other thing is that, according to the rules of our lease, it's questionable whether you can go to college and live out here at the same time, I don't know what we're going to do if we have to move, we've lived out here for over a decade. This is an uncertainty, not an absolution, but my mother was so excited about college and finally completing her mastery and she might have to give that up because of some stupid rules. This is America, when has it ever been acceptable for a person to be denied education for any goddamn reason? And what am I supposed to do? Now I might not even be able to correct my Fs next semester. On the up-side, if we have to move, maybe we can keep Sully, but that would be short notice. We've never been evicted from any place we've lived before, and now both our lives have turned into a nightmare.
It doesn't even matter what I think of this, in the next two weeks, everything will be decided for me. I'm just hoping I can change that for the better, this is as real as shit's ever gotten for me.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Punching Trees
The more I think about it, the more I realize that Minecraft is a lot like my current life experience. Minecraft seems to represent life pretty accurately for me, they both seem to start out the same way. In Minecraft, you begin with nothing. You have to punch trees and gather resources to survive and improve your life. At the beginning, your goal is clear; build sufficient housing and a stable way of life where all your basic needs are always met.
Life isn't much different. We all come into the world with nothing; no possessions, no identity, no knowledge of our universe. We develop these things as we grow and we are all given a simple goal to work toward when we are kids; to graduate highschool. In my case, that was the goal I worked toward throughout my childhood, it was the light at the end of my tunnel.
Minecraft's relation to my life is that you can toil day and night in Minecraft, working to secure your survival. You can take things day-by-day and try to achieve little things in one day that will help you achieve that big thing. My life has been the same way; when I was a kid, I looked toward the day when school would be behind me, and even when I was a depressed, hopeless wreck, I rolled out of bed every day and I made it a point to just live through that day and take it one day at a time.
However, I'm starting to realize that the same thing that stops me from evolving into the next stage of Minecraft is the same thing that's stopped me in my life.
In Minecraft, my goal is simple: Build a comfortable life, and my method is largely the same on every map, but once I have that stable experience, a steady food supply, more materials than Iknow what to do with, then I become lost. The same is true for my life. Once I graduated highschool, a big reality hit me: Where am I going to go now?
In Minecraft, you can go anywhere from that point. You could set off and look for a place to build a castle or you could plow to the center of the world and continue to expand your mines. You could even aspire to create a giant Redstone-powered mechanism or make an attempt to live in the Nether, but I always find this freedom to be overwhelming, and my freedom in my life is overwhelming right now.
It's no longer about punching trees and digging out a life block by block. Now it's about making choices that are too daunting to make, committing myself in ways I've never imagined before, and create my own future, and it's so confusing.
I wish I knew why it was so hard to do this for myself. I thought originally that I had too much freedom, so I tried taking that freedom away from me by enrolling in college and giving myself new trees to punch, but all that did for me was leave me frustrated and even more confused. Then I thought I just needed to focus on one goal and that having someone to help me along would fix everything. Well, now I have that, and I greatly appreciate it, but I still feel lost even when I'm given a specific thing to work on. I've even tried giving myself multiple things to work on at once, but dividing my focus has only made it lessen and not added the variety I thought I needed.
In Minecraft, I end up wondering around aimlessly even when I give myself a project. I just seem to lose that fire that drives me at the start, just like how the fire is gone from me now as opposed to when I was younger. I think of my goals and my dreams but they don't drive me in the same way. Maybe it's because I don't have set dates for when things will happen and not when they might happen, or maybe it's because the things I want to do are so much larger than anything I've ever done before.
Usually in Minecraft, I'll burn myself out trying to focus on one end goal. I'll imagine the result but I'll be incapable of completely executing it. I run into the same problem with all of my art and everything I attempt.
I thought the point of punching away at trees with a single goal in mind would keep my fire lit, but the opposite keeps happening. I'm positive that it works differently for others, that they keep their eyes on the prize and persevere, but I just seem to crumble no matter how clear the goal is, and now, I'm just as confused and frustrated with all this as I was when I left highschool.
Life isn't much different. We all come into the world with nothing; no possessions, no identity, no knowledge of our universe. We develop these things as we grow and we are all given a simple goal to work toward when we are kids; to graduate highschool. In my case, that was the goal I worked toward throughout my childhood, it was the light at the end of my tunnel.
Minecraft's relation to my life is that you can toil day and night in Minecraft, working to secure your survival. You can take things day-by-day and try to achieve little things in one day that will help you achieve that big thing. My life has been the same way; when I was a kid, I looked toward the day when school would be behind me, and even when I was a depressed, hopeless wreck, I rolled out of bed every day and I made it a point to just live through that day and take it one day at a time.
However, I'm starting to realize that the same thing that stops me from evolving into the next stage of Minecraft is the same thing that's stopped me in my life.
In Minecraft, my goal is simple: Build a comfortable life, and my method is largely the same on every map, but once I have that stable experience, a steady food supply, more materials than Iknow what to do with, then I become lost. The same is true for my life. Once I graduated highschool, a big reality hit me: Where am I going to go now?
In Minecraft, you can go anywhere from that point. You could set off and look for a place to build a castle or you could plow to the center of the world and continue to expand your mines. You could even aspire to create a giant Redstone-powered mechanism or make an attempt to live in the Nether, but I always find this freedom to be overwhelming, and my freedom in my life is overwhelming right now.
It's no longer about punching trees and digging out a life block by block. Now it's about making choices that are too daunting to make, committing myself in ways I've never imagined before, and create my own future, and it's so confusing.
I wish I knew why it was so hard to do this for myself. I thought originally that I had too much freedom, so I tried taking that freedom away from me by enrolling in college and giving myself new trees to punch, but all that did for me was leave me frustrated and even more confused. Then I thought I just needed to focus on one goal and that having someone to help me along would fix everything. Well, now I have that, and I greatly appreciate it, but I still feel lost even when I'm given a specific thing to work on. I've even tried giving myself multiple things to work on at once, but dividing my focus has only made it lessen and not added the variety I thought I needed.
In Minecraft, I end up wondering around aimlessly even when I give myself a project. I just seem to lose that fire that drives me at the start, just like how the fire is gone from me now as opposed to when I was younger. I think of my goals and my dreams but they don't drive me in the same way. Maybe it's because I don't have set dates for when things will happen and not when they might happen, or maybe it's because the things I want to do are so much larger than anything I've ever done before.
Usually in Minecraft, I'll burn myself out trying to focus on one end goal. I'll imagine the result but I'll be incapable of completely executing it. I run into the same problem with all of my art and everything I attempt.
I thought the point of punching away at trees with a single goal in mind would keep my fire lit, but the opposite keeps happening. I'm positive that it works differently for others, that they keep their eyes on the prize and persevere, but I just seem to crumble no matter how clear the goal is, and now, I'm just as confused and frustrated with all this as I was when I left highschool.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Story By Heart
Tell me a story by heart
Of peoples and kingdoms torn apart
Of lovers torn,
Of legends reborn,
Using our modern arts
Weave me a tale from the soul
Of struggle, of triumph, of hope
Through which we endure
Deception and war
Depicted through arts that we hold
Bring all your worlds to life
Show their beauty and strife
Put meaning to skill
And let your heart will
What paints on your canvas be right
---
It's not the most creative thing in the world but it came to me. It really shakes me up when people demand cartoons and video games not be considered art, and therefore, not considered sources of communicating deep and weighty subjects. There is absolutely no reason why they can't be, I think some people would just rather they not be. I wrote an entire blog entry about how disgusted I am with people's lack of want to take anything seriously, it seems like art of all kinds is just their way of goofing off. Obviously, there are people who put some soul into their work, but they seem few and far between. It seems that taking yourself and your art, no matter what kind it is (Yes video games are art), seriously has become taboo because it would do something scary like enrich our culture. Can't have that, can we?
The main reason I want to make games is because I want to make an interactive world where I can share some of my philosophical and ethical beliefs while at the same time creating scenarios in which they make sense. Despite my considerably vast vocabulary, I struggle with words, so I want to tell these stories through vision and sound; especially music, the most beautiful, the most diverse, the most effective method of sharing and experiencing emotions.
I will tell my stories by heart, and I will speak freely of my mind in them. I will also speak honestly; I will not deliberately lie to anyone experiencing the message, nor will I intend to push it, I want to make it as natural as human speech, for it to play on human nature, for it to be enjoyable yet thought-provoking, pleasant and relaxing yet clear of its intent. It will not be an attempt at propaganda, it will not be a preachy after school special of lofty and unrealistic ideals, it will be a piece of art that is crafted from my soul, with personal touches and a lot of consideration put into it, and it will not be meant to be some kind of religious text that is absolute and correct, it is merely meant to be a way for me to share my heart with others, my ideas, my experiences, and it is meant to be filtered and analyzed as any other piece of information in the world.
I don't want to write the Bible, I just want to create things with personal meaning, I want to make beautiful things that would make it easier to understand me, that would allow a player to explore portions of my soul, a method of deep communication where someone cannot merely look at a piece of art, but hear it, touch it, experience it, and enjoy it on a more personal, interactive level.
This is my ultimate dream, my long-term goal. It might be far off, but it's what I've always wanted to do, to reach out to people and, maybe one day, a sect of video game developers will create such things as well, where we can interact with their labors of the heart and communicate our experiences, emotions, and thoughts on an entirely unique and more effective manner.
There's nothing wrong with having big dreams.
Of peoples and kingdoms torn apart
Of lovers torn,
Of legends reborn,
Using our modern arts
Weave me a tale from the soul
Of struggle, of triumph, of hope
Through which we endure
Deception and war
Depicted through arts that we hold
Bring all your worlds to life
Show their beauty and strife
Put meaning to skill
And let your heart will
What paints on your canvas be right
---
It's not the most creative thing in the world but it came to me. It really shakes me up when people demand cartoons and video games not be considered art, and therefore, not considered sources of communicating deep and weighty subjects. There is absolutely no reason why they can't be, I think some people would just rather they not be. I wrote an entire blog entry about how disgusted I am with people's lack of want to take anything seriously, it seems like art of all kinds is just their way of goofing off. Obviously, there are people who put some soul into their work, but they seem few and far between. It seems that taking yourself and your art, no matter what kind it is (Yes video games are art), seriously has become taboo because it would do something scary like enrich our culture. Can't have that, can we?
The main reason I want to make games is because I want to make an interactive world where I can share some of my philosophical and ethical beliefs while at the same time creating scenarios in which they make sense. Despite my considerably vast vocabulary, I struggle with words, so I want to tell these stories through vision and sound; especially music, the most beautiful, the most diverse, the most effective method of sharing and experiencing emotions.
I will tell my stories by heart, and I will speak freely of my mind in them. I will also speak honestly; I will not deliberately lie to anyone experiencing the message, nor will I intend to push it, I want to make it as natural as human speech, for it to play on human nature, for it to be enjoyable yet thought-provoking, pleasant and relaxing yet clear of its intent. It will not be an attempt at propaganda, it will not be a preachy after school special of lofty and unrealistic ideals, it will be a piece of art that is crafted from my soul, with personal touches and a lot of consideration put into it, and it will not be meant to be some kind of religious text that is absolute and correct, it is merely meant to be a way for me to share my heart with others, my ideas, my experiences, and it is meant to be filtered and analyzed as any other piece of information in the world.
I don't want to write the Bible, I just want to create things with personal meaning, I want to make beautiful things that would make it easier to understand me, that would allow a player to explore portions of my soul, a method of deep communication where someone cannot merely look at a piece of art, but hear it, touch it, experience it, and enjoy it on a more personal, interactive level.
This is my ultimate dream, my long-term goal. It might be far off, but it's what I've always wanted to do, to reach out to people and, maybe one day, a sect of video game developers will create such things as well, where we can interact with their labors of the heart and communicate our experiences, emotions, and thoughts on an entirely unique and more effective manner.
There's nothing wrong with having big dreams.
Serious Nature
It seems to be a trend of some kind for people to refute every attempt made at a deep and serious conversation. Whenever someone is trying to have one, it seems that everyone is trying to "lighten the mood" as they call it, but what is really an attempt to distract the conversation back into lighthearted banter. That kind of thing isn't something I disapprove of, but it's not something I want all the time. Sometimes, I would like the opportunity to invest my deepest philosophies into a conversation that might make people understand me better, and, more importantly, make people understand, and possibly even agree with, my motivations.
I assume the trend started because people are afraid of weighty circumstances. I'm not sure where this developed, but it seems to me that people avoid such things whenever possible. I am certain that, most of the time, they intend no offense, but their evasive behavior on subjects of gravity is insulting to me and my very nature. I am a serious person, I take 95% of everything seriously. No, I don't take nearly everything literally, as that is not the same thing. I simply do not have nearly as great a need for humor or light moods that other people seem to have. I prefer grounded, down-to-earth interactions much more, but finding those is rare.
Let me be a little rude here; I feel like I'm surrounded by air-heads most of the time. Contemplative subjects put them to sleep, being analytical seems to offend most, and talking about grand aspirations of how you want to create things that mean something makes people call you pretentious. Excuse me, but if my desire to delve into the heavier subjects of my world make me pretentious, than your desire to avoid them makes you a putz.
A few people even have the nerve to think that I'm like this out of bitterness. You know what has given me a bitter side? The lack of people willing to be serious, the lack of people who weigh into things with their heart, the lack of people who are sincere in their dealings with others. If anything has contributed to me being bitter, it's the very people who think I'm bitter and "need to lighten up a little" because apparently, being a flighty putz solves all problems. Really, why do I need to lighten up? Because being honest and speaking freely of serious subjects makes you uncomfortable and ruins some endless party coaster you're trying to ride out for as long as you can? Because you're too jaded and cynical to believe even for a second that someone might mean the things they say and speak freely of their heart and soul? Because your definition of what "serious" actually is has been warped by our society's horrible opinion of serious?
And why is it that our society has such a low opinion of being serious? I'm not calling people putzes specifically to be mean, so let me elaborate on a theory I have; I think being serious scares people. I think they associate it too often with tragedy or bad points in their lives. I think to acknowledge someone like me, with my serious nature, is to face problems they avoid by always trying to maintain a light atmosphere. In other words, people are cowards.
That isn't my only theory. Another theory that I have is that people think being serious means they have to exercise some level of intellect. Now, while my opinion of the human race as a whole consists of an entire encyclopedia of demeaning phrases I could use to describe it, genuine stupidity isn't one of them. People do stupid things, but people are not stupid, and I will not allow anyone to attempt to declare themselves stupid just so they can be excused from showing intelligence. Someone like me makes people uncomfortable because not only are people lazy by nature (Don't deny it, even I'm lazy, we all are when we're allowed to be) but they are not typically known for their self confidence. Being around someone like me seems to give people test-anxiety of a sort, and that appalls me. Why should people feel that being serious means having encyclopedic knowledge of the subject at hand? Their attempts at making light of the subject indicates to me a lack of anything serious to say about it, but "serious" doesn't mean "intelligent," it doesn't even mean factual, it means you're approaching the subject in a sober manner or giving it a considerate amount of weight.
My final theory is that people are obsessed with having fun. This seems the most plausible, as people are always trying to goof off when they don't feel they are inhibited by restrictions, which sounds like something children would do, but then I have to wonder what defines a child and what differs in an adult, but questions of the abstract concept we call maturity are for a different entry. My observation on this subject is that someone like me saps the fun out of everything for people, making it dull and gay just because I wanted to analyze it. I am not sure why involved thoughts on a subject, especially a piece of fictional media, ruin it for some people. That gives me the impression that they do not like to think at all, that they'd just like one thing they don't have to think about, probably because they feel they have to think too much already, which I honestly can't imagine as a valid argument against my want to analyze everything because I never get tired of thinking. Maybe it is possible that some people have less cranial energy to spare on every subject, or maybe people feel that thinking about it ruins the whimsy in the same way that learning a skill disenchants its products. (Looking at a piece of art when you understand how to draw is significantly less magical when you have a technical knowledge of its composition, for example.) But I do not see why this would so ruin something for someone. If anything, considering the workings of a fictional universe makes it more enchanting for me, it makes it seem wider, it doesn't even have to be canon for me to enjoy my own theories about it.
A good example of me taking my entertainment seriously would be a time when a fellow Zelda fanatic and I tried to piece together the chronology. I am sure that some groans were audible at the last sentence and, yes, we did argue, we even nerd-raged once, but is that all people really look at when they see two nerds being serious about video games? Do they think it's all anger and hate? Because it isn't. Just because we argued doesn't mean we didn't enjoy it, even the arguments are fond memories of mine.
I bring this up for a reason. Do people view seriousness as the harbinger of conflict? Are people terrified of conflict, even the kind that can be fun? Is it because people are sensitive? Maybe so, it seems to add up.
In any case, I am extremely distraught with how my attempts at being serious are often met. It's in my nature to be this way, it's enjoyable for me to be this way, I do not see why it has to be treated as the affront that everyone makes it out to be, it's really quite disheartening. I wish I could talk more to people who did not simply throw up their hands and wish to make light of everything.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
For the "retro minimalists" out there.
In short: Fuck you.
For a lengthier explanation, read on.
I am tired of looking on gaming sites for indie game news ans seeing a repeated trend of people making games that supposedly have excellent gameplay and musical scores but have rectangles and default MS Paint colors for an art direction. While "some people" might find that to be acceptable, I am not "some people," my definition of "some people" being people that know absolute jack about what excellent art direction actually is.
And before someone leaps for the comments section bawling about how I don't respect pixel artists, about how I hate chiptunes, and how I have something against retro titles, I don't have a problem with any of the three.
I have a problem with people that do them BADLY.
Despite what I am led to believe is a common belief in the indie scene, it is not enough to draw pixel art and make some chiptune music in PXTone for your game to be considered a "retro" title. There are other things to consider, such as the limitations of the older systems and technology in general at the time. This is something that is frequently overlooked but is continuously grating on my nerves. Instead of so-called "retro" indies considering the available options of gaming platforms at the time and working within those limitations, they create limitations of their own and consider that to be "retro." (By the way, "create" isn't the same as "emulate," just so everyone is clear.)
And then they take it a step further by marketing their game as a "retro" title. I probably wouldn't have such a huge problem with "retro" if it weren't used as a buzzword to generate funds. Yes, I said "generate funds" as in "make money." What? You don't think indie devs are susceptible to the same evils that claim major corporations? If they weren't, they wouldn't follow trends to make money. Oh don't give me that look. If SEGA or Nintendo makes a retro title, it's considered milking the nostalgia crowd, but if an indie dev does it, it's considered homage to their childhood. Gimme a break, they're just as bad about it as triple-A companies. The indie label does not exempt them from the same criticism when they're doing the same damn thing.
If you want an example, look at Offspring Fling - it markets itself as an SNES title, has an interesting art direction, clearly has talented people behind it...but markets itself as a retro title. What makes it NOT a retro title? For one, the lighting. That could not be accomplished on an SNES. Not to mention (and this was pointed out to me by W.A.C. who also has a blog here) the game's resolution is too high for retro systems to achieve. (Their highest was 360p, the game is in 480p.) They were not mindful of the system limitations at all, there really was never a reason to market it as a retro title.
An example of a game that does Retro well would be Noitu Love 2, in fact, Konjack seems genuinely aware of the staples of the retro console, because everything he does is very reminiscent of SNES/Genesis games. (Apparently, I'm not the only one who's ever made a Gunstar Heroes comparison.) I'm throwing this in here to explain that I do think there are good retro titles - when people are doing them properly.
And as for pixel art? It suffers from surrealism-syndrome in that, while it is an accepted art form, it is often misused so that terrible artists can categorize their "art" as something other than unicorn shit* and pretend they know what they're doing.
*Unicorn shit: Art that is generally crap with no regard for color theory or excessive use of MS Paint's default colors. (See: Rage Comics and "retro" games)
But the marketing isn't the only thing that I find offensive. Look at Super retro Squad, or, hell, look at half the entries on the IndieGames blog, look at some of the games people sell on the App Store or XBLIG, look at some of the games featured on Desura, even. Many, many, many indie games have one sad, depressing, infuriating thing in common: They all have half-assed art. Sometimes it's classified as "retro" by the developers or sometimes the fans are defending the excessive use of bright colors and simple shapes as "retro" but whatever the source of the classification, it doesn't change one thing: They half-assed the art.
Why does this bother me so much? Maybe it's because I have a bias, being that drawing is one of the few things I'm proficient in, and maybe it's because I feel that it is a thorough insult to my craft, but for whatever reason, a good majority of indie devs do not seem to care one inkling for their art direction - or the potential livelihood they might be endorsing by giving a proper artist a place on the development of a game. Yes, I feel that this lack of concern for art in games is a direct blow to indie artists.
I have several theories about why this is so. The biggest one is that it's probably part of the "Gameplay, not graphics" attitude that has plagued gaming communities for years now. This trend came about because various triple-A titles were concerned with cutscenes, flashy effects and stunning visuals over properly tested and enjoyable gameplay. People felt that not enough time was spent on bug testing, building on core gameplay elements, or adjusting aspects of the game for the sake of balance (Or, in Sonic '06's case, all of the above) in favor of making SHINY-SHINY EPICNESS graphics that were pretty and larger-than-life and involving - until you glitched through them, that is.
And I'm not saying they're wrong, in fact, to an extent, I agree - or, I did, before the definition degraded into "OMG ART DOESNT MATTUR GAME DONT NEED ART" and now we have this lovely situation where artists are not being properly respected in the indie community.
The second theory, which I am not so certain of but which seems likely nonetheless, is that programmers, and many other people, believe that art is easy or doable by everyone. Think about it; art tools are readily available and every Windows OS comes with one pre-packaged. You can't say that about music composition software. I'm of the opinion that some people believe that all you need to make "proper" game graphics is to open up MS Paint and make some Microsoft Pixel Art* that you can then import to GameMaker or Multimedia Fusion 2 and say job well done.
*Microsoft Pixel Art: A genre of pixel art often created in MS Paint. See note at Unicorn Shit.
I'm not trying to say that all programmers are bereft of artistic sense but it's hard to believe the guys who made Thomas Was Alone had any. (Three people working on a game and not a single one could draw more than rectangles?) Or VVVVVV, for that matter. Even 1000 Amps tried harder. (It was made using vectors and Flash.) Excuse me, but you people wouldn't half-ass your music, yet it's respectable for you to half-ass your art?
There are good pixel artists in this world, you can find some of them on PixelJoint or Pixelation, and I have to wonder what they think of the unicorn shit trends in indie gaming lately. I know what I'd be thinking. "Why do we even have standards for good pixel art, or art in general, when this is perfectly acceptable?" It demeans the entire art community.
And one thing I have noticed is that an artist on an indie dev team is usually doing something else as well. They might also be the programmer, or the writer, or the guy who brings everyone coffee, you see what I'm getting at here? Is it unacceptable for a person on a dev team to be "the artist" without having some other special skillset? Do you also expect the musician to do trigonometry or your voice actors to do cartwheels while reading their lines? Yes, I'm being hyperbolic here, but I hope you see my point.
Or maybe part of the problem is the general art community (meaning, everyone on the internet who has ever had a dA account) in that there are some people who consider themselves artists, but are only capable of drawing Sonic recolors with crayons and no sense of anatomy. This behavior isn't inherent to CWC, it's existed for years and a large portion of the internet does it. Maybe it's these people who have given art a bad name; to be more specific, I'm not hating on fan artists, I'm hating on people who will not grow up, never try to improve, draw like 5 year old kids where the only thing separating their characters from stick figures is a set of badly-drawn quills or a fox tail, get pissy when you try to give them the slightest bit of advice, have no idea what shading or a lightsource actually is, trace screenshots of Naruto in MS Paint and call it art that somehow evades being torn down by the admins by some vile dark sorcery, need I go on?
And, unfortunately, many people like this also dream of making a game, and have been known to annoy the hell out of anyone with the slightest bit of ability with programming. This has probably given programmers the idea that artists are leeches that are only interested in making their fan character appear in a game, and while that is true for some people, I have to wonder if it's translated into "All artists are leeches, their job is easier than mine, why should I give someone a free ride?" That might seem far-fetched, and admittedly, I've never seen anyone outright say this (that wasn't met with instant and total resistance, anyway) but in certain programming communities, it seems as if there is an unspoken chillness toward artists.
Speaking from personal observation, a programmer with an engine lacking in assets will get a lot more notice than an artist who has drawn numerous detailed concepts. I'm not saying programming is easy, but neither is art, especially animation, so why is it that, in some instances, concepts for a game are usually met with something along the lines of "You want someone else to do the work for you?" That's what most of the rebuffs seem to translate as. Some quotes from what I've seen on forums are "Well, there's this guide that would be an excellent start for you!" "Your idea might be more believable if we could see a tech demo." "How much work has gone into the gameplay?"
So how does all that translate into minimalist tenancies? Well, it seems to me that even when someone needs an artist, they aren't willing to ask for one for whatever reason. I actually think that, part of the reason "retro" and "minimalist" are so big now is so that programmers can somehow justify their reluctance to work with an artist or their lack of art talent.
Which actually brings up another point: "Retro" seems to be an excuse for people to draw badly, but why can't they just admit that they can't draw? What would be wrong with that? If someone says they're terrible at math and programming, everyone acts like it's some achievement (Similar to how people brag about how many years they spent in prison) but if a programmer admits they can't draw, somehow, they believe this is taboo, and I even know some techy people who are completely ashamed of themselves for that lacking. You have nothing to be ashamed of if you're a one-man team making your first game and working with your limited skillset. You have a lot to be ashamed of if you're making excuses for yourself by calling your unicorn shit "retro" instead of just being honest and admitting "I draw unicorn shit" or actually asking for an artist to help you? Really, what would be so embarrassing about that? I code like shit, I can't do trig, I can barely multiply in my head above a hundred, but I don't act like I'm proud of it either, and make up some pretentious excuses about my ineptitude for math.
And don't shrug it off as a taste thing, that's complete bullshit and you know it. If I got my tone-deaf friend to make something in MarioPaint Composer and published it in a game, would that be a taste thing too? Maybe it would, but it would more likely be unanimously viewed as shit with no talent or skill put behind it. You know you wouldn't let a horrible composition slide by, so don't make excuses for the art.
Which is all the "retro" thing is anyway, a big fat shit bag of excuses. Well, excuses are like assholes; everybody has one and they all stink. Stop making the indie scene rancid with yours, I'm tired of breathing in the foul air.
For a lengthier explanation, read on.
I am tired of looking on gaming sites for indie game news ans seeing a repeated trend of people making games that supposedly have excellent gameplay and musical scores but have rectangles and default MS Paint colors for an art direction. While "some people" might find that to be acceptable, I am not "some people," my definition of "some people" being people that know absolute jack about what excellent art direction actually is.
And before someone leaps for the comments section bawling about how I don't respect pixel artists, about how I hate chiptunes, and how I have something against retro titles, I don't have a problem with any of the three.
I have a problem with people that do them BADLY.
Despite what I am led to believe is a common belief in the indie scene, it is not enough to draw pixel art and make some chiptune music in PXTone for your game to be considered a "retro" title. There are other things to consider, such as the limitations of the older systems and technology in general at the time. This is something that is frequently overlooked but is continuously grating on my nerves. Instead of so-called "retro" indies considering the available options of gaming platforms at the time and working within those limitations, they create limitations of their own and consider that to be "retro." (By the way, "create" isn't the same as "emulate," just so everyone is clear.)
And then they take it a step further by marketing their game as a "retro" title. I probably wouldn't have such a huge problem with "retro" if it weren't used as a buzzword to generate funds. Yes, I said "generate funds" as in "make money." What? You don't think indie devs are susceptible to the same evils that claim major corporations? If they weren't, they wouldn't follow trends to make money. Oh don't give me that look. If SEGA or Nintendo makes a retro title, it's considered milking the nostalgia crowd, but if an indie dev does it, it's considered homage to their childhood. Gimme a break, they're just as bad about it as triple-A companies. The indie label does not exempt them from the same criticism when they're doing the same damn thing.
If you want an example, look at Offspring Fling - it markets itself as an SNES title, has an interesting art direction, clearly has talented people behind it...but markets itself as a retro title. What makes it NOT a retro title? For one, the lighting. That could not be accomplished on an SNES. Not to mention (and this was pointed out to me by W.A.C. who also has a blog here) the game's resolution is too high for retro systems to achieve. (Their highest was 360p, the game is in 480p.) They were not mindful of the system limitations at all, there really was never a reason to market it as a retro title.
An example of a game that does Retro well would be Noitu Love 2, in fact, Konjack seems genuinely aware of the staples of the retro console, because everything he does is very reminiscent of SNES/Genesis games. (Apparently, I'm not the only one who's ever made a Gunstar Heroes comparison.) I'm throwing this in here to explain that I do think there are good retro titles - when people are doing them properly.
And as for pixel art? It suffers from surrealism-syndrome in that, while it is an accepted art form, it is often misused so that terrible artists can categorize their "art" as something other than unicorn shit* and pretend they know what they're doing.
*Unicorn shit: Art that is generally crap with no regard for color theory or excessive use of MS Paint's default colors. (See: Rage Comics and "retro" games)
But the marketing isn't the only thing that I find offensive. Look at Super retro Squad, or, hell, look at half the entries on the IndieGames blog, look at some of the games people sell on the App Store or XBLIG, look at some of the games featured on Desura, even. Many, many, many indie games have one sad, depressing, infuriating thing in common: They all have half-assed art. Sometimes it's classified as "retro" by the developers or sometimes the fans are defending the excessive use of bright colors and simple shapes as "retro" but whatever the source of the classification, it doesn't change one thing: They half-assed the art.
Why does this bother me so much? Maybe it's because I have a bias, being that drawing is one of the few things I'm proficient in, and maybe it's because I feel that it is a thorough insult to my craft, but for whatever reason, a good majority of indie devs do not seem to care one inkling for their art direction - or the potential livelihood they might be endorsing by giving a proper artist a place on the development of a game. Yes, I feel that this lack of concern for art in games is a direct blow to indie artists.
I have several theories about why this is so. The biggest one is that it's probably part of the "Gameplay, not graphics" attitude that has plagued gaming communities for years now. This trend came about because various triple-A titles were concerned with cutscenes, flashy effects and stunning visuals over properly tested and enjoyable gameplay. People felt that not enough time was spent on bug testing, building on core gameplay elements, or adjusting aspects of the game for the sake of balance (Or, in Sonic '06's case, all of the above) in favor of making SHINY-SHINY EPICNESS graphics that were pretty and larger-than-life and involving - until you glitched through them, that is.
And I'm not saying they're wrong, in fact, to an extent, I agree - or, I did, before the definition degraded into "OMG ART DOESNT MATTUR GAME DONT NEED ART" and now we have this lovely situation where artists are not being properly respected in the indie community.
The second theory, which I am not so certain of but which seems likely nonetheless, is that programmers, and many other people, believe that art is easy or doable by everyone. Think about it; art tools are readily available and every Windows OS comes with one pre-packaged. You can't say that about music composition software. I'm of the opinion that some people believe that all you need to make "proper" game graphics is to open up MS Paint and make some Microsoft Pixel Art* that you can then import to GameMaker or Multimedia Fusion 2 and say job well done.
*Microsoft Pixel Art: A genre of pixel art often created in MS Paint. See note at Unicorn Shit.
I'm not trying to say that all programmers are bereft of artistic sense but it's hard to believe the guys who made Thomas Was Alone had any. (Three people working on a game and not a single one could draw more than rectangles?) Or VVVVVV, for that matter. Even 1000 Amps tried harder. (It was made using vectors and Flash.) Excuse me, but you people wouldn't half-ass your music, yet it's respectable for you to half-ass your art?
There are good pixel artists in this world, you can find some of them on PixelJoint or Pixelation, and I have to wonder what they think of the unicorn shit trends in indie gaming lately. I know what I'd be thinking. "Why do we even have standards for good pixel art, or art in general, when this is perfectly acceptable?" It demeans the entire art community.
And one thing I have noticed is that an artist on an indie dev team is usually doing something else as well. They might also be the programmer, or the writer, or the guy who brings everyone coffee, you see what I'm getting at here? Is it unacceptable for a person on a dev team to be "the artist" without having some other special skillset? Do you also expect the musician to do trigonometry or your voice actors to do cartwheels while reading their lines? Yes, I'm being hyperbolic here, but I hope you see my point.
Or maybe part of the problem is the general art community (meaning, everyone on the internet who has ever had a dA account) in that there are some people who consider themselves artists, but are only capable of drawing Sonic recolors with crayons and no sense of anatomy. This behavior isn't inherent to CWC, it's existed for years and a large portion of the internet does it. Maybe it's these people who have given art a bad name; to be more specific, I'm not hating on fan artists, I'm hating on people who will not grow up, never try to improve, draw like 5 year old kids where the only thing separating their characters from stick figures is a set of badly-drawn quills or a fox tail, get pissy when you try to give them the slightest bit of advice, have no idea what shading or a lightsource actually is, trace screenshots of Naruto in MS Paint and call it art that somehow evades being torn down by the admins by some vile dark sorcery, need I go on?
And, unfortunately, many people like this also dream of making a game, and have been known to annoy the hell out of anyone with the slightest bit of ability with programming. This has probably given programmers the idea that artists are leeches that are only interested in making their fan character appear in a game, and while that is true for some people, I have to wonder if it's translated into "All artists are leeches, their job is easier than mine, why should I give someone a free ride?" That might seem far-fetched, and admittedly, I've never seen anyone outright say this (that wasn't met with instant and total resistance, anyway) but in certain programming communities, it seems as if there is an unspoken chillness toward artists.
Speaking from personal observation, a programmer with an engine lacking in assets will get a lot more notice than an artist who has drawn numerous detailed concepts. I'm not saying programming is easy, but neither is art, especially animation, so why is it that, in some instances, concepts for a game are usually met with something along the lines of "You want someone else to do the work for you?" That's what most of the rebuffs seem to translate as. Some quotes from what I've seen on forums are "Well, there's this guide that would be an excellent start for you!" "Your idea might be more believable if we could see a tech demo." "How much work has gone into the gameplay?"
So how does all that translate into minimalist tenancies? Well, it seems to me that even when someone needs an artist, they aren't willing to ask for one for whatever reason. I actually think that, part of the reason "retro" and "minimalist" are so big now is so that programmers can somehow justify their reluctance to work with an artist or their lack of art talent.
Which actually brings up another point: "Retro" seems to be an excuse for people to draw badly, but why can't they just admit that they can't draw? What would be wrong with that? If someone says they're terrible at math and programming, everyone acts like it's some achievement (Similar to how people brag about how many years they spent in prison) but if a programmer admits they can't draw, somehow, they believe this is taboo, and I even know some techy people who are completely ashamed of themselves for that lacking. You have nothing to be ashamed of if you're a one-man team making your first game and working with your limited skillset. You have a lot to be ashamed of if you're making excuses for yourself by calling your unicorn shit "retro" instead of just being honest and admitting "I draw unicorn shit" or actually asking for an artist to help you? Really, what would be so embarrassing about that? I code like shit, I can't do trig, I can barely multiply in my head above a hundred, but I don't act like I'm proud of it either, and make up some pretentious excuses about my ineptitude for math.
And don't shrug it off as a taste thing, that's complete bullshit and you know it. If I got my tone-deaf friend to make something in MarioPaint Composer and published it in a game, would that be a taste thing too? Maybe it would, but it would more likely be unanimously viewed as shit with no talent or skill put behind it. You know you wouldn't let a horrible composition slide by, so don't make excuses for the art.
Which is all the "retro" thing is anyway, a big fat shit bag of excuses. Well, excuses are like assholes; everybody has one and they all stink. Stop making the indie scene rancid with yours, I'm tired of breathing in the foul air.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Anonymity
I had to calm down to be able to make this entry. Some internet news pissed me off beyond belief, I've never felt so insulted.
First, let me link to a previous blog entry that will explain part of my point of view on this subject: http://lifeandtimesofaflyingfox.blogspot.com/2012/04/identity.html
And here's one of the links that is still open in my browser: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/randi-zuckerberg-anonymity-online_n_910892.html
I am offended to the most extreme by how pathetically idealistic this article is.
“People behave a lot better when they have their real names down. … I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors.” -Actual quote
Let me tell you something; in the mid-2000s, I was a subject of cyber-bullying. Someone even went so far as to hack my email in hopes of finding my real name; in fact, all of these people involved were open about their names, some had Myspace accounts and photos, and they demanded that I give them my personal info. Sometimes, they would pull stunts online to try and torment me into giving them mine. I am certain that it would have been much worse for me if I had, so she can fuck right the hell off with that bullshit.
First, let me link to a previous blog entry that will explain part of my point of view on this subject: http://lifeandtimesofaflyingfox.blogspot.com/2012/04/identity.html
And here's one of the links that is still open in my browser: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/randi-zuckerberg-anonymity-online_n_910892.html
I am offended to the most extreme by how pathetically idealistic this article is.
“People behave a lot better when they have their real names down. … I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors.” -Actual quote
Let me tell you something; in the mid-2000s, I was a subject of cyber-bullying. Someone even went so far as to hack my email in hopes of finding my real name; in fact, all of these people involved were open about their names, some had Myspace accounts and photos, and they demanded that I give them my personal info. Sometimes, they would pull stunts online to try and torment me into giving them mine. I am certain that it would have been much worse for me if I had, so she can fuck right the hell off with that bullshit.
“Many people believe that requiring real names will solve the problems of trolls and bad behavior, but they don’t -- and that policy can have negative consequences in terms of suppressing dialogue about important topics.”
Any anonymous source used by journalists will tell you the exact same thing. Anonymity, in and of itself, is not dangerous or used for malevolent ends; sometimes, people want to be anonymous because they want peace and quiet.
Oh, and by the way, since when is the last time our government was honest and transparent? Or, I dunno, Mark Zuckerberg?
Though pressed several times to name what new features Facebook will offer to better safeguard security on the social networking site, Zuckerberg declined to offer specific examples of forthcoming initiatives.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Re: An Oldfag Rant
This is intended as a response to a comment I received on a blog entry I did back in October about how much I can't stand the older generation of gamers and their constant bitching about new games and gamers. (Not ALL older gamers do this, I'm a prime example and so are several of my friends) I intended to reply to them directly, but my comment exceeded the character limit. Derp. :V
I don't really mind a game taking some cues from older generations, partly because the reality is that not everyone draws pixel art because it's nostalgic, some people make games full of pixel art because they don't have the ability to draw anything else. (Not all programmers are artists) Taking cues from earlier genres that are no longer produced also doesn't bother me, considering the vast majority of genres that I like (Metroidvania platformers, 3D mascot platformers) have been abandoned by the gaming industry or saturated with what big companies thinks sells. (See: Ratchet and Clank, full of guns and attitude.)
What I don't like is when people bitch about the gaming industry for no other reason than it's different from when they were a kid. If you browse Sonic Retro's forum for five minutes, you'll see everybody and their grandmother trying to reproduce an exact replica of Sonic 3's physics and gameplay while at the same time talking about how Sonic Adventure was a disappointment and the series died in 1994. Don't get me wrong, some people have legitimate reasons for their dislike of the later games, but most of the time, it's just people whining because they can't stand the idea of slow games because the games were originally really fast.
A perfect example of this was when someone tried to hack Sonic 2 and, instead of going from point A to point B to complete a level, the player had to find collectibles. EVERYBODY flipped their shit because "OMG 2 SLO!!111" and the creator ended up doing exactly what many mainstream companies do; he dumbed down the gameplay to suit their toddler-like impatience. He gave them a radar so they didn't have to explore the level, and when that didn't satisfy, he gave everyone a "classic" mode, with no collecting of items, and then everyone just played that. At that point, the poor guy was wondering why he should even bother if the only thing the majority of the community only wanted a fucking Sonic 2 ripoff.
This attitude is not limited to fangames either. If you've ever wonder why the past three major Sonic releases have been "hold forward to win" games where Sonic is the only playable character and the levels are all very linear, blame the fandom, especially Retro, because that shit is their fault. They bitched to SEGA about it nonstop, and so SEGA threw out the concept of making open-world games and cleaning up that mess they released in 2006 with a polished and proper iteration of their original intention to cater to the fanboy manchildren that are stuck in the 90s. And seeing as the fans are the only crowd that still clamors for Sonic games, SEGA is willing to suck their cock for money.
This kind of bullshit repeats itself in every Nintendo release in the past 5 years. Twilight Princess was a blatant callback to OoT (Although at least it improved on several aspects) and Skyward Sword was a callback to literally every previous Zelda game Nintendo could shoehorn in there (Even Phantom Hourglass, for some reason) and that ended up being a hot mess with no identity, not to mention all of its innovative traits were broken and it exhibited the same streamlining of recent Sonic games because everybody apparently hates open-world these days.
And look at Mario. Galaxy 1 and 2 were attempts to callback to Mario 64, a dated, half-broken N64 game by today's standards with a terrible camera and downsized levels because the N64 was barely capable of more, and Mario World, which everyone fondles like it's perfection. Seriously, Mario World is the Mario fandom's Link to the Past; oldfags cream themselves over it and jeer over 3D innovations such as expansive open worlds. Ask any Mario fan what was wrong with Mario Sunshine and they'll probably tell you something along the lines of "The water gimmick sucked!" "Well, WHY did it suck?" "Because it wasn't Mario!" Same story with Luigi's Mansion, fans hate it because it isn't a traditional Mario platformer. I have played Luigi's Mansion and it is not broken by any stretch of the word; it's a well-designed puzzle-adventure game, but it got panned in the media for "not being a platformer" which is stupid. This is coming from someone who LIKES platformers, by the way, but you don't see me giving a game the shaft because it isn't one.
Throwing in something I'm personally attached to, I love Spyro, I have a nostalgic attachment to the first three games, and I actually think the first game has some pretty creative level design, but that didn't stop me from enjoying the later games. Attack of the Rhyptocs for GBA's isometric view might not have been ideal but the rest of the game was cleverly designed with plenty of exploring, and despite the repetitive and generic gameplay, I loved the story to the LoS games. (The Spyro reboot Vivendi Universal orchestrated) And I am not afraid to admit that some things that give me a nostalgic handjob are horrible broken by today's standards (Looking at you, Rayman 2) or could be considered embarrassingly annoying by an adult (Spyro 3's music and VAs drive me insane) or have just plain been outdone by later releases. (Wind Waker was much more open and expansive than OoT, even if some people didn't like the sea travel) I don't know why some people are so dead-set on thinking anything after a certain date sucks but it really grinds on my nerves.
I don't really mind a game taking some cues from older generations, partly because the reality is that not everyone draws pixel art because it's nostalgic, some people make games full of pixel art because they don't have the ability to draw anything else. (Not all programmers are artists) Taking cues from earlier genres that are no longer produced also doesn't bother me, considering the vast majority of genres that I like (Metroidvania platformers, 3D mascot platformers) have been abandoned by the gaming industry or saturated with what big companies thinks sells. (See: Ratchet and Clank, full of guns and attitude.)
What I don't like is when people bitch about the gaming industry for no other reason than it's different from when they were a kid. If you browse Sonic Retro's forum for five minutes, you'll see everybody and their grandmother trying to reproduce an exact replica of Sonic 3's physics and gameplay while at the same time talking about how Sonic Adventure was a disappointment and the series died in 1994. Don't get me wrong, some people have legitimate reasons for their dislike of the later games, but most of the time, it's just people whining because they can't stand the idea of slow games because the games were originally really fast.
A perfect example of this was when someone tried to hack Sonic 2 and, instead of going from point A to point B to complete a level, the player had to find collectibles. EVERYBODY flipped their shit because "OMG 2 SLO!!111" and the creator ended up doing exactly what many mainstream companies do; he dumbed down the gameplay to suit their toddler-like impatience. He gave them a radar so they didn't have to explore the level, and when that didn't satisfy, he gave everyone a "classic" mode, with no collecting of items, and then everyone just played that. At that point, the poor guy was wondering why he should even bother if the only thing the majority of the community only wanted a fucking Sonic 2 ripoff.
This attitude is not limited to fangames either. If you've ever wonder why the past three major Sonic releases have been "hold forward to win" games where Sonic is the only playable character and the levels are all very linear, blame the fandom, especially Retro, because that shit is their fault. They bitched to SEGA about it nonstop, and so SEGA threw out the concept of making open-world games and cleaning up that mess they released in 2006 with a polished and proper iteration of their original intention to cater to the fanboy manchildren that are stuck in the 90s. And seeing as the fans are the only crowd that still clamors for Sonic games, SEGA is willing to suck their cock for money.
This kind of bullshit repeats itself in every Nintendo release in the past 5 years. Twilight Princess was a blatant callback to OoT (Although at least it improved on several aspects) and Skyward Sword was a callback to literally every previous Zelda game Nintendo could shoehorn in there (Even Phantom Hourglass, for some reason) and that ended up being a hot mess with no identity, not to mention all of its innovative traits were broken and it exhibited the same streamlining of recent Sonic games because everybody apparently hates open-world these days.
And look at Mario. Galaxy 1 and 2 were attempts to callback to Mario 64, a dated, half-broken N64 game by today's standards with a terrible camera and downsized levels because the N64 was barely capable of more, and Mario World, which everyone fondles like it's perfection. Seriously, Mario World is the Mario fandom's Link to the Past; oldfags cream themselves over it and jeer over 3D innovations such as expansive open worlds. Ask any Mario fan what was wrong with Mario Sunshine and they'll probably tell you something along the lines of "The water gimmick sucked!" "Well, WHY did it suck?" "Because it wasn't Mario!" Same story with Luigi's Mansion, fans hate it because it isn't a traditional Mario platformer. I have played Luigi's Mansion and it is not broken by any stretch of the word; it's a well-designed puzzle-adventure game, but it got panned in the media for "not being a platformer" which is stupid. This is coming from someone who LIKES platformers, by the way, but you don't see me giving a game the shaft because it isn't one.
Throwing in something I'm personally attached to, I love Spyro, I have a nostalgic attachment to the first three games, and I actually think the first game has some pretty creative level design, but that didn't stop me from enjoying the later games. Attack of the Rhyptocs for GBA's isometric view might not have been ideal but the rest of the game was cleverly designed with plenty of exploring, and despite the repetitive and generic gameplay, I loved the story to the LoS games. (The Spyro reboot Vivendi Universal orchestrated) And I am not afraid to admit that some things that give me a nostalgic handjob are horrible broken by today's standards (Looking at you, Rayman 2) or could be considered embarrassingly annoying by an adult (Spyro 3's music and VAs drive me insane) or have just plain been outdone by later releases. (Wind Waker was much more open and expansive than OoT, even if some people didn't like the sea travel) I don't know why some people are so dead-set on thinking anything after a certain date sucks but it really grinds on my nerves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)