Comments on: Game Design Aphorisms

By: me

me — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:56:22 +0000

You shifty dog you.

By: Jonas

Jonas — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:43:11 +0000

I admit no such error. Contradiction is necessary to artistic progress.

It does say Aphorisms, not Commandments.

By: me

me — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:05:33 +0000

Most assuredly it still can, that was my entire point after all. I was refuting this point of yours:

“Meaningful art is enjoyable. An unpleasant game is not deep, it is unpleasant.”

I think that what you say here and what you say in the comments is plainly a contradiction. Which makes sense if you’re admitting an error in your initial reasoning.

By: Offendi

Offendi — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:27:45 +0000

Naturally, art encompasses both pleasantness and unpleasantness, and transcends both. Its enjoyability is in its beauty, which is expressed equally well in pain and pleasure.

This is a good Preface to Dorian Grey for game art. When are you making the game equivalent? =P

(Not the game adaptation of the book. That’ll probably not be a success.)

By: Jonas

Jonas — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:16:15 +0000

That may well be true. Can it still be art? Of course it can!

By: me

me — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:58:59 +0000

Unsettling is not the same as enjoyable. Regardless, I assert that brain damage is not unsettling, but unpleasant.

By: Jonas

Jonas — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:03:41 +0000

Unsettling is not the same as unpleasant.

By: me

me — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:56:04 +0000

No, it is not the case that all meaningful art is enjoyable. There are unpleasant games that are art. The best example that comes to mind is increpare’s brain damage, which is perhaps the most unpleasant game I’ve ever played. The la la land series is also an example of games that are not pleasant that are art, with the first in the series being particularly unsettling.