Because I am suffocated in a white guilt shithole every day, I don't need it online.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I like art that shows evidence of a struggle or a process, and I feel less of an impulse to make work that’s very clean or very neat and tidy. I like things that show a little bit of process behind them, or almost look like they’ve been revised in the process. I think you see that in Rembrandt, he’s scratching things out, it seems tumultuous the way things came together. And I think you can see that in Braid, it was something I tried to do with the particle objects, make it look like the picture was being created – you wrote in your review something to that effect, and that felt really good to me because that’s sort of what I was thinking: the idea that it was being created as you were watching, or that its reality was somehow fluid or shifting in a way. I read an essay on Cézanne landscapes… I think it might have been a Merleau-Ponty essay, Eye and Mind. There was a great passage there where it describes his work with landscapes as “seeming to show a world in the first moments of its existence”. You’re looking at this thing that has just come into being… that made sense to me at the time.
...when I first played the ending – which was a much earlier version of the game, of course, without the art that’s in there now, but it was pretty much the same – I thought: this game is really doing something interesting with embodying its themes through the gameplay. I mean, all games embody their themes through the gameplay on some level, but this was purposefully. It wasn’t starting from something we’re used to experiencing in a game or expressing through game mechanics like “exhilaration” or “conflict”. It was something about reversal and about relating to people. And just by putting in these figures, using characters – the princess, Tim – just that little bit of window dressing is enough to set your mind on interpreting these mechanics as expressive. If you replaced Tim and the princess with blocks or something, I think a large part of the game’s meaning would still be intact, but people probably wouldn’t be inclined to look for that meaning because they’d just see it as a game mechanic.
I have no idea what’s going on inside of companies. I think that it’s a mistake to point at the fat cats at the top and just assume that they’re crushing all the goodness out of things. I mean, people make things that are like what they like. You can tell a lot of people making videogames love the games they played a few years ago or they’re playing now, and they want to make something like that but just add their stamp to it. That’s fine, I just think maybe that’s some of the sameness.
what a guy... he's so dreamy
