So, let's go over what he said in a rough sequence. The following are approximations of his points, and I'm honestly trying to be as neutral as possible. I'll say up-front that I don't agree with this guy, but I will try and be as objective as I can. Yes, he might be trying to be funny, but he also believes what he says, so it's valid.
1) All of you here today are liars, or lazy.
2) Unless you yourself have made a video game, regardless of quality, I have no responsibility to listen to your opinion. As soon as you have made a video game, I must listen to and apologize to you.
3) People get into gaming when everything in their life is done for them by someone else, when they have plenty of time and patience for it (note that he's talking about PLAYING video games, not making them). This is the Golden Age, when you gain an appreciation of gaming and your preference about gaming.
4) Any games you play outside of that golden age you automatically consider rubbish, because you think they are derivative.
5) Young people won't be able to relate to the games that inspired you to be a designer.
6) Your boss will always have been inspired by games outside of your golden age, or games that made the most money.
7) Making a game is like being in love, with all the implications that implies. Mainly, love fuels desire.
8) People express themselves when viewing art in a similar way to expressing themselves in a pub. The artist is the past could not hear what was said when they were not around in the past, in modern times everything is recorded, every piece of criticism is held in stasis indefinitely.
9) Artists are fragile creatures, and fans give them mostly negative feedback on their games.
10) Being hardened against fan feedback is a vital skill, because now you have to listen to it.
11) Outside perspectives about EA (or a country) are invalid becuase they are different from the truth. America isn't warmongering because I haven't seen people like this.
12) Fans commenting online are like drunk people talking in a pub.
13) Talks a bit about iPad games being adapted to show to journalists.
First and foremost, I design videogames. I haven't gotten to the production point, but I'm close. And my video game is not derivative of any game I played during my "golden age" of 8 to 16. It is entirely new and innovative, building mainly on games released AFTER that "golden period" (16-21). I find his insinuation that game designers seek to replicate past nostalgia exclusively an insulting remark.
Second, I think a lot of his analogies are pretty silly. Final Fantasy was a marketed FAILURE, implying that future game designers will want to base their game on its mechanics is stupid, plain and simple. Any prospective game designer worth their salt will research the games upon whose mechanics or themes they wish to draw upon, and draw mainly from successful games.
I think desire is part of making games, but I think there's lots of people that make games that don't have a burning passion for playing games. There's a woman (I forget her name) that works at Bioware for goodness sake who would prefer to skip the combat of Mass Effect 3 and focus on the story.
I think that he doesn't realize that gaming is ENTERTAINMENT. That's why people play it. It's a basic premise that he seems to ignore.
I could write more but...
TL,DR: Paul Barnett's arguments and views are very narrow, unaccommodating, and flawed. He may be a wonderful game designer, but his reasoning and positions are jaded and more than a little insulting.
1) All of you here today are liars, or lazy.
2) Unless you yourself have made a video game, regardless of quality, I have no responsibility to listen to your opinion. As soon as you have made a video game, I must listen to and apologize to you.
3) People get into gaming when everything in their life is done for them by someone else, when they have plenty of time and patience for it (note that he's talking about PLAYING video games, not making them). This is the Golden Age, when you gain an appreciation of gaming and your preference about gaming.
4) Any games you play outside of that golden age you automatically consider rubbish, because you think they are derivative.
5) Young people won't be able to relate to the games that inspired you to be a designer.
6) Your boss will always have been inspired by games outside of your golden age, or games that made the most money.
7) Making a game is like being in love, with all the implications that implies. Mainly, love fuels desire.
8) People express themselves when viewing art in a similar way to expressing themselves in a pub. The artist is the past could not hear what was said when they were not around in the past, in modern times everything is recorded, every piece of criticism is held in stasis indefinitely.
9) Artists are fragile creatures, and fans give them mostly negative feedback on their games.
10) Being hardened against fan feedback is a vital skill, because now you have to listen to it.
11) Outside perspectives about EA (or a country) are invalid becuase they are different from the truth. America isn't warmongering because I haven't seen people like this.
12) Fans commenting online are like drunk people talking in a pub.
13) Talks a bit about iPad games being adapted to show to journalists.
First and foremost, I design videogames. I haven't gotten to the production point, but I'm close. And my video game is not derivative of any game I played during my "golden age" of 8 to 16. It is entirely new and innovative, building mainly on games released AFTER that "golden period" (16-21). I find his insinuation that game designers seek to replicate past nostalgia exclusively an insulting remark.
Second, I think a lot of his analogies are pretty silly. Final Fantasy was a marketed FAILURE, implying that future game designers will want to base their game on its mechanics is stupid, plain and simple. Any prospective game designer worth their salt will research the games upon whose mechanics or themes they wish to draw upon, and draw mainly from successful games.
I think desire is part of making games, but I think there's lots of people that make games that don't have a burning passion for playing games. There's a woman (I forget her name) that works at Bioware for goodness sake who would prefer to skip the combat of Mass Effect 3 and focus on the story.
I think that he doesn't realize that gaming is ENTERTAINMENT. That's why people play it. It's a basic premise that he seems to ignore.
I could write more but...
TL,DR: Paul Barnett's arguments and views are very narrow, unaccommodating, and flawed. He may be a wonderful game designer, but his reasoning and positions are jaded and more than a little insulting.
