Rant

I posted this a while ago on GMG forums. It may be interesting:

Are you for or against copycat games? As in clones, fangames & derivatives.

There are some exceptions, but they are too few to even start considering. Most games that mimic and recreate poorer versions of Nintendo classics often end up dull, uninteresting and recently, as a nuisance to look at. Many are not tributes for those classics, but more of insults.

Being highly specialized in Game Design (though I'm still an amateur, and have a lot to learn), seeing so much lack of conceptual creativity is really bothering me. Do I hold standards that are unrealistic in this community, or is it that a large part of the community itself is pathetic in terms of coming up with their own ideas?

Ah well, pff. I almost forgot that the majority of members here are barely adolescents who aren't even interested in pursuing game development as a career. I have a bad habit of expecting too much from communities (be it online or in a club) sometimes.

To which, Mostis replied:

Fangames are good game-making practice for the creatively challenged. They can't come up with an original idea, so they have to copy something else. Well, if they didn't do that, they wouldn't have any games to make. It's also a good thing because you can find sprites (both ripped and custom) of almost any major video game character, and this saves the work of having to make your own sprites. Fangames usually are made faster than other games because of this.

Then I answered:

A wonderful point. That's right… many people here aren't interested in game "design", but are focusing on game "programming". Very understandable. I have to change my outlook.

If that's the case, however, why not form a team with someone who is very creative, but instead lacks programming skills? Of course, it isn't easy, but the end product will be received with greater respect and recognition from veterans and newbies alike. Working in a team is also more fun and challenging, not to mention that the experience is very important in the professional world.

Mooseyfates then added:

I will play any game as long as its fun. I don't particualarly care if it is original or not.

To which, I said:

Many people say this, because, indeed, "originality" is only one of many factors that make a good game. However, all of those factors do not add upon other factors mathematically. The reason why a considerable number of Devil May Cry fans like the first in the series the most, despite the fact that later ones are better in all aspects, is because it is a "sequel", which automatically dampens originality.

In other words, each and every component of a game are interconnected. Separating one may most likely cause the other to collapse.

Unlike SqueakyReaper though, I'm not taking this from a moral standpoint, but a design standpoint. Originality is certainly not the most important factor of making a good game, as commercial games already demonstrate, but in this community, I personally feel that it is neglected too much.

Of course, again, Mostis's point is a good one.

EDIT: A thing about Super Mario. It is brilliant game that is revolutionary in its design. How? Each Super Mario game treats its levels as a "musical experience", actually applying music theory in game design. It goes pretty deep when you analyze it. And yet, all these newbies, not realizing the depth of its levels, are fooling themselves into believing that they understand a slice of the intricacies of Super Mario. Super Mario isn't just about jumping around, stepping on enemies and collecting coins. It's about the highs and lows of a magical roller-coaster experience that flows along with the music.

It's… mildy upsetting to see all these poorly-made fangames actually doing what fans shouldn't do. Of course, there are a few well-made exceptions that can truly be called "tributes". Very rare though.

---

Philosophy

I talked to my friends about my views on the meaning of life. They asked me why it is important to care for others equally as you care for yourself. Some of them believe in the existentialist belief that life has no purpose, but I disagree on that.

I'm sure that my earlier words on this subject confused many of you, so lemme approach it a little more scientifically this time.

Let's take a look at psychological theory. According to it, we are who we are due to nature and nurture. It's about a 50/50 split. And since nurture is from external sources - other people who care about us - half of us is actually the people around us. In other words, half of our existence - our fate - is the one and the same as the people around us. That is why we really need no fancy reason to try to improve and contribute to mankind. It simply is because, half of us is half of another person, and vice versa. Every, single human on Earth is interconnected in a web of ever-changing fates. Thus, to help others means to help ourselves.

That is why the Buddhist philosophy rings true - where we should take the "middle path", always compromise and be 50/50 selfish & selfless.

By not helping others, by living only for yourself, you are actually betraying half of your self, both psychologically and spiritually, even if you do not realize so.

Of course, the other extreme is equally unjust. Neglecting yourself and living your life for others alone is just as bad. Always remember to compromise - to take the "middle path".

---

Psychology

Is it just me, or do I see a negative trend among the so-called "smartest" intellectuals? The more intelligent a person becomes, the more likely they are to refuse another person's viewpoint, even if it is every bit as valid. Does greater intelligence spawn greater arrogance and ignorance? I believe so.

That is why wisdom and intelligence are entirely separate qualities. Someone may know everything there is to know about the world, but that infinite knowledge may also make that person overly cynical about the flaws of reality. That is where experience and intuition comes in.

Take my parents for example. My dad is highly intelligent. He has a doctor's degree in international relations (political science). My mom, on the other hand, only finished high school. However, when it comes to everyday problems, it is almost always my mom that solves them. On global issues, my mom has a good sense of how a conflict will turn out, using her intuition alone. In other words, it is almost the case that common wisdom is inversely porportional to academic intelligence.

At first, I thought that this is a special case, but I've witnessed it time and time again. I'm sure that you know someone who is "so smart that he is stupid". That person whose great intelligence becomes a liability than an asset. Or someone who values his or her intelligence so much that he or she ignores words of wisdom from others. On the other hand, another person may be struggling at school, but is actually "street smart".

I've always believed that people are equally intelligent, but not on the same terms. Some function better academically, while others have a broader knowledge of the world. Some may be great artistically, while others may understand the complex strategies involved in sports.

Unfortunately, academic intelligence is overrated, nowadays. It promotes unecessary pride, which leads to unproductivity and elitism.