Bons Baisers d'un Forum

Dans ce post, Jim Sterling défend ce qui, a mon sens, est une absurdité absolue : l'innovation n'est pas bonne parce qu'elle n'est pas amusante (en gros, je vous laisserai juge). Ce qui a entraîné une forte réaction de ma part (toujours en anglais). Peut être si le sujet vous intéresse mais que vous n'avez pas le temps, en ferais-je une traduction.

«No. Art games aren\'t innovative and innovation isn\'t good.»
And you\'re an imbecil. Yes, that is, as your sentence is, an exaggeration based solely on a few words out of an article several hundreds words long.

You base your affirmations on a few examples and dare employ the term fallacy ? One of the main fallacious arguments is taking a general truth out of an example. And it\'s exactly what you are doing. Saying that:
«I wouldn\'t even call Halo creatively bankrupt, and that game is a landmark in the \"FPS space marine\" genre, henceforth regarded as the most over-saturated genre of them all. I don\'t personally like Halo, but it told an original tale and featured a rich universe full of history that a lot of fans really got into. I think that\'s more clever than a game with no backbone to its premise whatsoever.»
Is just absurd… Would you dare compare using a poor scenario, constructed out of pieces pre-existing the game by decades (« original tale and featured a rich universe full of history») made of cliches and awaited u-turns in the story, you dare compare this says I with a game like Braid ? With a game like Gravitation ? It is literally absurd ! (contrary to you, I like Halo very much but nonetheless can clearly see how it is a creative failure as it just makes old into new with better graphics).
Over that, you use arguments that are demagogical to an astounding point: the quality of a product is not, ever, in any form of reflexion, to be judged by it\'s success. Rather, success can qualify the interest of people towards that object but in no way be a argument. For instance, tobacco is a very successful product, World of Warcraft is a very successful product, does that make those \"good\" ? No. Junk food is also very successful, would you, as you apply that reflexion to games, call those great products ? Not ever! They are bad products, swimming in our primal instincts and needs to hook us up into consumption, they do not open our mind, participate in our intelligent development (nor do some (or most if you\'d prefer) art games, that\'s a given, but one\'s got to have some credit for trying).

Now on the innovation is not good, well my good sir, you have, again, not a single shred of arguments, as:
«You can\'t say innovation is good because plenty of innovative games have failed, either tied up and lost in their own ambition or placed in the hands of developers not skilled enough to do the unique idea justice.»
Innovation, no matter what, is always good. That does not involve the product that inducts it, it\'s just good. Yes, you can be perfectly right, sometimes, innovation will not be put to good use, but it is good. Would you say inventing the knife was not good nor bad because it allowed us to make evil things ? That would be denying the entire human history. Knives are good for they allowed us to evolve through time, they killed, they lacerated and hurt people but in the end, knives made us move forward.

Games can be crap, utterly and irrevocably bad but who cares ? Someone else will come and make those innovations into something else, into another game. Innovation, in and out of itself is awesome. Purely and simply essential to us and the only way of denying that is shutting down internet right now and going out in the street naked shouting \"forget all you learned\".

Thanks for reading.