What I sought, as I explained in that other post, was to create a game whose main objective is not to rack up points, but to create a visual composition. This is a game about creativity, indeed; a subset of games that, I have found, is not very largely represented.¹ Kenichi Nishi said something in an interview that I quote here because I consider to be extremely significant:

Recently, games have been ‘passively interactive.’ Users do not really have to think about what to do; they are guided around until they reach the end of the level. These types of games do not rely on the creativity of the users.

This is why I started to consider my idea more important than at first. Although there have been games like Mario Paint, that are like tools that are given a context of fun, I wanted to make something simpler, something abstract and more concentrated. There was also the question about how this would work as a game; I didn’t want it to become a color-matching, chain-making fest, so how to evaluate what was being made for its own sake? It didn’t need to be competitive, but it also needed a purpose, a raison d’être. There was the possibility of it being multiplayer, and people judging each-others compositions, much like the abovementioned Nishi’s own game, Archime-DS (or LOL, as it’s being brought over to this half of the world). I took a bit of that idea, as I will explain later, but I deliberated some more until I came to the conclusion that the best would be not to judge quality, but to evaluate compositive characteristics, or parameters, as I’ve grown used to calling them. The point being that every visual composition can be evaluated in terms of different characteristics, like how symmetric it is, whether it uses warm or cool colors, whether it is rhythmic or not (presence of visual patterns), etc. We can use these parameters to objectively determine if a composition is harmonic and pleasing to the eye, if it is foreboding, if it is unsettling, etc.

Personally, I am more of a supporter of holistic rather than reductionist approaches to analysis, but in this particular case (and in many others) it is much simpler to compartmentalize the data—especially given that I am hardly a mathematician, or even a programmer, so it simply made my work a lot easier. I realize that to this point I’m still talking abstractly, so let me show you the game proper.

That is what it currently looks like. In the center, but leaning toward the top and left, is the canvas: a grid where the player creates his composition. To the right is the carousel; sort of a conveyor belt of colored groups of circles, that the player can grab at any time and drop on the canvas. In a bar at the bottom there are a series of pictograms of differing sizes: they are actually dynamic, and change depending on the current characteristics of the composition, as perceived by the game (right now the algorithms that calculate this are not very finely tuned). Each pictogram changes to either a neutral, high or low graphic depending on the value: For instance, the fire icon indicates that the colors are mostly warm, and it would change to a snowflake if it was the opposite. Its comparatively small size means that it is not leaning that much toward warmth. The pictograms still need some work for them to be easier to understand, since, as I said in that previous post of mine, this game will use no words, so they need to be self-sufficient. Finally, in the bottom right is the time counter, which, when depleted, will prompt the game to show a results screen, which is pictured below.

Other than removing elements that are not needed anymore, one of the things that has changed here is that the pictograms got a line drawn around them. A full circle means a full mark; the third pictogram, indicating asymmetry, has a top value, so that shining effect is drawn to bring attention to it. The meaning behind this is an attempt to cue the player into noticing what his composition is best described as: in this case, as asymmetric. Had it been completely symmetric (i.e. the opposite of the current value), the visual result would have been the same. I based this idea around the famous expressionistic adage, best described by Gaugin’s own words:

How do you see this tree? Is it really green? Use green, then, the most beautiful green on your palette. And that shadow, rather blue? Don’t be afraid to paint it as blue as possible.

Meaning that the more exaggerated a feature is, the purer, the more aesthetically relevant it becomes.

But anyway, what do these scores mean, ultimately? They are not supposed to be a reward in themselves. For any creation application, there should be a way to record what was achieved, and in the case of my game, something in that vein is planned. Specifically, there will be an online gallery where compositions made by everyone who has played the game are uploaded to, and where they are sorted visually, like a spectrum, according to the values of their parameters. What this allows is for instant comparison. If the player does not understand what a specific pictogram stands for, maybe they will come to understand it after seeing both ends of the spectrum of its parameter. They might learn what each parameter does to their own perception of the aesthetic characteristics of a composition, and put that knowledge to use in their future compositions. Though I don’t make any claims that this is a proper educational game, as that carries a heavier load, the player should hopefully learn —through iteration and comparison, and bit by bit— something about visual composition and aesthetics. But if that doesn’t happen, I will be happy enough to know that people are exercising their creativity.

Another aspect of this game, related both to helping spread the word about the game and to its enjoyment, is a social factor. As there is already a (planned) gallery system, the player will be able to also choose to record their creations to their name. By doing this, they will have access to a personal gallery of their works, which they can then, for instance, display in their blog using a ‘widget’, use as an avatar in a forum, and other such uses; these stem from the very natural human need for expression and communication.

That is the current state, and the future, of my game. Other planned features include:

• A name!
• Audio.
• More parameters.
• Indications overlaid on the composition for each parameter, during the results screen. For instance, if the composition was found to be symmetric, hovering over that pictogram will show, on top of the canvas, what the axis (or axes) of symmetry is/are.

Remember that you can play the game in its current state if you wish. I’d be grateful for any comments you may have on it.

I’m completely aware that videogames are mostly useless. Games do need to get smarter, like movies have over the decades; they need to make the player think, much like a good novel would. Videogames just pale if compared with most other entertainment media, because they are all designed to move as many units in as short a time span as possible; we know that best sellers are not the smartest, best examples in other media, and videogames seem to be comprised of only this subset.

there are games in which we act in predetermined ways, and are judged binarily, and those in which we actually make things, while acting creatively. The second group, in comparison with the first, is barely even represented; I had trouble thinking of even a few that would fit the criteria. Make a list yourself, so you can see my point; shelves are populated with games that demand little or no creative input from the player. Sure, there’s nothing wrong in some game that will exercise our fine motor skills, our concentration abilities, our memory, etcetera. But why are there so few games that will help us exercise our creativity?

Bah, creativity, ‘big deal.’ It is a big deal, but that’s not even the point: this is just an example that illustrates the state of the industry as a whole. The big majority in it is pushing in the exact same direction, and this is evident when examining the variety of their output, which mostly caters to a massive audience’s cravings for meaningless reward and pleasure, and everything that is not instinctively accepted by their members is instantly disregarded as unmarketable. Even the indie scene largely follows the same paradigms. Every entertainment industry (cinema, literature) has big blockbusters/best-sellers beside more subtle, culturally-relevant pieces that highlight the medium’s worth as more than just wasting one’s time; why does the videogame industry insist in giving us junk food for every meal?

The [videogames industry] was kick-started only about 35 years ago, and even though it is today shifting a lot of money, it’s clearly immature and in its crawling age. Shouldn’t more people attempt to tear through the smoke screen of vain success that is our current paradigm, to allow the medium to get off the floor?

[I do not believe] that games should strive to be fun as their main, mandatory goal. Satisfying the senses should not be the main concern, else we’re talking about porn for the mind. The main concern should be what is gained; having fun should not be the goal of the game, but a by-product. Today, games at large offer but empty, content-less instinctual gratification, much like the lower forms of other expressive media. (…) Good literature is intellectually stimulating; can games get away with ‘exercising reflexes’?

The fact is that the medium has a huge potential. How often have we learned something of value for life from a game? We learn things all the time from more linear media, as those tell stories with which we could relate to and learn from vicariously. But in games we are in control, we experience things ourselves; we could be faced with difficult conundrums, philosophical questions that put our beliefs in doubt, and which we have to confront on our own… But to this day we mostly have to use our reflexes, or simply identify patterns, in order to beat the game.

There are a few games out there that transcend this fate, but (…) the medium is largely irrelevant, and at times even nocive, in its current form.