Yeah, I’m fine with leaving the difficulty subject alone; as you said, it becomes pretty polarizing.
What you describe about a more individual, self-owned experience is often what makes novels/writing so compelling to people, since they generally come from one crazy mind, undoctored. Even then, you might be surprised how many different professional editing roles tend to go into a very refined book.
Movies and games tend to involve an order of magnitude more people, not all of them holding the title of “Game Designer” but all having a very important form of input to the end product, both for effort and for decisionmaking. If the studio’s lawyer takes a look at a virtual vending machine’s set of drinks and says “No, change those two, they run a risk of lawsuits from Pepsi”, is that “outside censorship”, or does the lawyer count as “part of the studio” because he’s at the same risk of publisher layoff as everyone else?
The hazy answers to that question, in my mind, are part of the reasons I don’t find the “Author vision, unfiltered” argument so compelling, especially as games involve larger studios. I think you’re right at least that it does create something more unique when a smaller, talented team is given reigns, eg Half-Life 2 or Expedition 33.
With big projects it’s definitely not a single person’s pure vision, but for me the important difference is between letting the creative be dictated by people’s ideas versus designing around what the suits think will sell (or avoid lawsuits, or other uninteresting choices). And for me it’s all about interesting choices - I could care less if something was done perfectly, if the idea itself is boring. What excites me about any art is always the thinking behind creative choices, which are a lot harder to spot when there’s a lot of ulterior motives affecting the creative. I keep circling around an apprehension that all art is the study of choice, and the choice to sell well is always the most boring of impulses.
Yeah, I’m fine with leaving the difficulty subject alone; as you said, it becomes pretty polarizing.
What you describe about a more individual, self-owned experience is often what makes novels/writing so compelling to people, since they generally come from one crazy mind, undoctored. Even then, you might be surprised how many different professional editing roles tend to go into a very refined book.
Movies and games tend to involve an order of magnitude more people, not all of them holding the title of “Game Designer” but all having a very important form of input to the end product, both for effort and for decisionmaking. If the studio’s lawyer takes a look at a virtual vending machine’s set of drinks and says “No, change those two, they run a risk of lawsuits from Pepsi”, is that “outside censorship”, or does the lawyer count as “part of the studio” because he’s at the same risk of publisher layoff as everyone else?
The hazy answers to that question, in my mind, are part of the reasons I don’t find the “Author vision, unfiltered” argument so compelling, especially as games involve larger studios. I think you’re right at least that it does create something more unique when a smaller, talented team is given reigns, eg Half-Life 2 or Expedition 33.
With big projects it’s definitely not a single person’s pure vision, but for me the important difference is between letting the creative be dictated by people’s ideas versus designing around what the suits think will sell (or avoid lawsuits, or other uninteresting choices). And for me it’s all about interesting choices - I could care less if something was done perfectly, if the idea itself is boring. What excites me about any art is always the thinking behind creative choices, which are a lot harder to spot when there’s a lot of ulterior motives affecting the creative. I keep circling around an apprehension that all art is the study of choice, and the choice to sell well is always the most boring of impulses.