18-07-2012 21:55
He traducido las dos primeras preguntas y la primera respuesta y media.
¿Cuál es el primer reto en hacer un videojuego divertido?
RG: Lo más complicado de hacer humor en los videojuegos es que no tienes control sobre el tempo. Tempo es algo que los comediantes o los guionistas de películas y televisón tienen perfectamente controlado. Pueden preparar un chiste y ejecutarlo cinco segundos más tarde en el momento justo. Con los juegos, apenas tenemos control sobre el tempo porque hemos dado ese control a los jugadores. Son libres de vagar todo lo que quiera. Cuando la gente pregunta, "Guau, me gustaría hacer cosas de juegos, etc." les hablo del tempo del humor en los videojuegos. Realmente necesitas contar chistes donde la última gracia pueda venir mucho, mucho, mucho más tarde que la preparación. Puedes preparar un chiste, y luego algunos jugadores descubrirán la línea 15 segundos más tarde, pero puede haber gente que no descubra la última gracía hasta dentro de 30 minutos, y tus chistes tienen que funcionar en esas condiciones. Eso creo que es lo más complicado del humor en los videojuegos.
En los juegos de aventuras, especialmente en las antiguas aventuras de apuntar y hacer click, tienes mucho más control sobre el tempo porque tienen un ritmo muy pausado. Rondas por el entorno, lo examinas, miras las cosas, intentas interactuar con ellas. Pero en algo más activo como The Cave, parece mucho más difícil controlar el tempo. ¿Cómo equilibras el tempo del comic cuando hay la posibilidad de que el jugador corra y salte a través del lugar donde has gastado tanto tiempo?
RG: Ahí es donde entra en juego lo que te contaba de preparar los chistes para que se resulevan mucho más tarde. En Monkey Island, hay este gran pedazo donde Guybrush dice esa línea de que es capaz de aguantar el tiempo durante 10 minutos. Está alardeando, y es un gran alarde, y es casi divertido. Pero lueog el chiste realmente se resuelve mucho más tarde en el juego, cuando eres echado al agua, y está atrapado, y realmente puede aguantar su aliento por 10 minutos. Luego el hace una broma de eso. Ese es un ejemplo de como puedes preparar algo que se reuelve más tarde.
The Cave isnÔÇÖt an action game. ItÔÇÖs very much an adventure game, but weÔÇÖve always had this problem with adventure game where if people are running through the world very quickly, theyÔÇÖre going to miss things. So itÔÇÖs kind of about being able to have visual gags that if you miss them the first time, the second time you run by them you might see them. You need a lot of visual repetition, so if people miss one thing theyÔÇÖre going to get it again a second time.
![[Imagen: 8EnGK.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/8EnGK.jpg)
Gameological: Take me through your writing process.
Ron Gilbert: ItÔÇÖs filled with lots of angst, thatÔÇÖs for sure. It depends. If IÔÇÖm doing much longer things, then IÔÇÖm also trying to explore, creatively, what they are. If I already know a character very well, I can jump in and write 10 lines of dialogue for them, but if I donÔÇÖt really know what the character is yet, then it becomes more of an exploratory process than an actual writing process. It can sometimes be a very long process of figuring out what that character is.
I do free-writing a lot when IÔÇÖm trying to figure out characters. Just kind of writing as much as I can as fast as I can, trying to see if anything pops up in that free-writing process that helps define what he characters are a little bit.
Gameological: Tell me about how you collaborate with other writers on a game. How was working with Sean Howard on DeathSpank compared to working with Tim Schafer?
Gilbert: Working with Sean was a little different because he was never in the office. I actually never met him in person. The work that we did was all via email. It was me writing outlines of the things I wanted him to write. Then he would write and send them back. Then I would edit them or send them back and say, ÔÇ£Look letÔÇÖs change this up a little bit.ÔÇØ
Working with Tim and [designer] Dave [Grossman] on Monkey Island, we were all in the office together. We were constantly reading what each other were writing, and we were constantly talking about it. We were constantly hashing through ideas and looking at each otherÔÇÖs jokes and going, ÔÇ£Wow, that could be funnier.ÔÇØ It was more like a writersÔÇÖ room that you might see in a sitcom TV where people were always throwing out ideas for stuff.
Gameological: In discussing The Cave, youÔÇÖve said with this game and with others youÔÇÖve done in the past, you start by coming up with the environment, then creating the characters, then the puzzles. How would you say that process is different today then when you first got into the industry in 1983?
Gilbert: I donÔÇÖt think itÔÇÖs really different at all, especially when youÔÇÖre dealing with adventure games because they are so much about the environment. IÔÇÖve always started that way. IÔÇÖve always picked a place I thought was interesting. For Monkey Island, it was the Pirates Of The Caribbean ride at Disneyland. I just loved that ride and I wanted to live there. Monkey Island really started with that as a place that Guybrush would go to. Guybrush came from that, and then the story came from that, and the puzzles came from that. ThatÔÇÖs always been my process. The only exception to that was DeathSpank because DeathSpank started out as a character, and it was afterward that I created the world he lived in. I think thatÔÇÖs the one exception where I started with character instead of starting with world, but itÔÇÖs mostly starting with world for me.┬á
Gameological: Monkey Island and DeathSpank are very much games about their lead characters. How is writing and designing a comedy game around a single character different than designing around an ensemble like in Maniac Mansion?
Gilbert: ItÔÇÖs a lot more work. In something like The Cave, youÔÇÖve got those seven different characters, but youÔÇÖve still got that main character, and thatÔÇÖs The Cave. He is sentient. He does talk. He is that main character that I can attach everything to, in a way.
When you have that large ensemble cast, which there is in The Cave, or there certainly was in Maniac Mansion, itÔÇÖs a lot more work because you have seven characters that you need to deal with. You have potentially seven different storylines. You have seven different reactions that have to happen when some event in the game or something funny happens. ItÔÇÖs a lot more work because youÔÇÖre doing everything seven times instead of one time with someone like DeathSpank or Guybrush. I think thatÔÇÖs probably the biggest difference. ItÔÇÖs just a lot more work.
![[Imagen: JOv6E.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/JOv6E.jpg)
Gameological: When you have to do that much more work, how does that change the process of coming up with a good joke?
Gilbert: I donÔÇÖt know that it really affects the process of coming up with a joke. YouÔÇÖre probably not going to go as deep with characters. Guybrush we can go really deep with because he was the only character whereas something like The Cave you really canÔÇÖt go as deep with the individual characters, but youÔÇÖve got a lot of breadth. YouÔÇÖve got seven of them. People are still getting the same amount of jokes; theyÔÇÖre just spread across seven different characters.
ItÔÇÖs always nice if you can play the characters off each other a little bit. If youÔÇÖre playing with Bernard and Razor together in Maniac Mansion, there were little quips that they would go back and forth with. That stuffÔÇÖs fun, and because it changes based on that characters that the playerÔÇÖs chosen, some people will see those things, and other people will not. People like that kind of stuff.
Gameological: YouÔÇÖve said many times that you want people playing your games to feel like they are taking part in a conversation when they interact with your character. That theyÔÇÖre not just working through dialogue trees. How do you effect that feeling of a real conversation?
Gilbert: For things like DeathSpank and Monkey Island, it was having the lines that the character says actually in the dialogue choices. There were games before Monkey Island that had dialogue choices when you would interact with characters, but they were dealing with larger, more emotional issues. They would say, ÔÇ£Be nice to this person. Be mean to this person. Be funny to this person.ÔÇØ So you were choosing be mean to this person and then the character would say something mean to that person.
In Monkey Island, I really wanted those choices that you made to be exactly what Guybrush was going to say. Yeah, one of them might be a mean thing and one of them might be a nice thing, but you were really seeing exactly what he was going to say and that helps bring out a lot of his character. The other thing thatÔÇÖs nice is when those dialogue choices come up on the screenÔÇöthere were four choicesÔÇöyou only got to choose one of them, but you got to read all four. That was a great source of humor because I could tell four jokes at once. You would laugh at the other three. You might not choose it because it wasnÔÇÖt the one you wanted, but you still got to laugh at the other three jokes. ThatÔÇÖs a rapid way to build a characterÔÇÖs personality, through those dialogue choices.
Gameological: How do your games change from when you first conceive them to when theyÔÇÖre actually out?
Gilbert: I think in some ways they become less ambitious. IÔÇÖm the kind of designer that designs really big to start with, and then I go through and start paring the design down. Some of it is the design is just too big, and it needs to be pared down, and then thereÔÇÖs time constraints and budget constraints. So all of those things start to chip away at the design. I would say what people are actually playing is probably far less than I originally envisioned and originally designed it to be.
Gameological: How do you think that affects the humor?
Gilbert: I donÔÇÖt know if it affects the humor too much. The humor is just something thatÔÇÖs there from the beginning and is slowly layered in. Certainly funny things get cut, but also funny things get added. Sometimes I need to cut something out of the game and it creates a really awkward situation, so I can make fun of that situation a little bit and cover up the fact that something was cut. Mask it with humor, so to speak.
![[Imagen: 043S6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/043S6.jpg)
Gameological: Given the public response to your Kickstarter project with Tim Schafer and Double Fine, thereÔÇÖs obviously a hunger for adventure games today, but you donÔÇÖt really see any of them going whole hog into the old school and using a text parser. Why has the text parser disappeared from making adventure games?
Gilbert: I never liked text parsers. I played the Infocom adventures, and when I was in junior high school, I played Adventure on the mainframe computer at the local university, and I never really liked parsers. ThatÔÇÖs one of the reasons why when I did Maniac Mansion, I just got rid of the parser. It felt like I just had to guess what the game designer called something. What is he calling that? Is it a bush or a shrub? Is it a plant? I just felt like I was playing this meta-game called ÔÇ£second guess the parser.ÔÇØ That was just never interesting to me. If I want to do something, I just want to do it. I know what I want to do and I want the game to respond to what I want to do. There is still a very vibrant market for text adventuresÔÇöthey call them interactive fiction today. ThereÔÇÖs still a vibrantÔÇöwell, not market, I donÔÇÖt think theyÔÇÖre really selling themÔÇöbut thereÔÇÖs still this community that does play those games. IÔÇÖve just never been very fond of them and I donÔÇÖt think people like a lot of typing and writing and reading. They just like to visually absorb something.
Gameological: ItÔÇÖs funny that you talk about that battle with the parsers. I talked with Steve Heinrich, the head writer of You DonÔÇÖt Know Jack games, and he said one of the deepest wells of humor is when people are wrong. When somebody messes up, thatÔÇÖs a great set up for a joke. Being wrong in an adventure game, even something without a text parser like Maniac Mansion, can make you lose so much progress that it ultimately frustrates you. How do you balance penalties when youÔÇÖre making a game? How do you make it so that there is a great opportunity for people to be wrong, but that they donÔÇÖt get so discouraged they stop playing?
Gilbert: It is something you need to watch out for with humor. A lot of humor for thousands of years has been based on the misfortune of others. We can laugh at other people who are having miserable or horrible things happening to them, but we donÔÇÖt like to laugh at ourselves when horrible things happen. We may laugh as a defense mechanism, but we really donÔÇÖt like to laugh at ourselves when bad things happen. In a game, you have to tread that line a little bit. You really canÔÇÖt make fun of the player for failing, because youÔÇÖre going to turn off a lot of people when you do that.
With games, you can divorce yourselves a little bit. I donÔÇÖt think anybody, when theyÔÇÖre playing Monkey Island or The Cave, thinks they are those people on the screen, but they definitely empathize with them, and they do relate to them, and they do feel a big attachment to them. So you have to be careful that the humor is making fun of the character and not what the player did with the character, because then youÔÇÖre insulting the player and not the character.
Gameological: Something else youÔÇÖve talked about in the wake of the Kickstarter campaign is managing audience expectations. ThereÔÇÖs all this pressureÔÇöfrom past work, from people whoÔÇÖve already put money to play a game that hasnÔÇÖt been made yet. What responsibilities do you feel you have to your audience when youÔÇÖre making a game?
Gilbert: The answer that anybody creating anything will give is that you should have no responsibility to them. You have to do what you want to do, and you have to do what you think is the right thing to do and what you think is the best thing to do. People who like what you do and are fans of your work are just going to like what you do as long as you do something true to yourself. You can get into a lot of trouble when you start to worry too much about what people are going to think because then you start to get into this weird self-censorship cycle. You do something that might be interesting and different and unique, but you become too worried what people are going to think, and you censor it.
Creative things, no matter what they areÔÇöbooks, video games, whateverÔÇöif theyÔÇÖre really good, they have lots of pointy little edges, and thatÔÇÖs what makes them interesting. ItÔÇÖs all these pointy little spikes and all these little things you can cut yourself and prick yourself on, thatÔÇÖs what makes creative work interesting. If you get into self-censorship mode, you start to pound all those pointy edges away because youÔÇÖre very afraid of offending somebody or worried what somebody will think of it. And then what youÔÇÖre left with is kind of blah, just not interesting. I think you just need to do what you think is the right thing to do, and hopefully people like it.
Gameological
¿Cuál es el primer reto en hacer un videojuego divertido?
RG: Lo más complicado de hacer humor en los videojuegos es que no tienes control sobre el tempo. Tempo es algo que los comediantes o los guionistas de películas y televisón tienen perfectamente controlado. Pueden preparar un chiste y ejecutarlo cinco segundos más tarde en el momento justo. Con los juegos, apenas tenemos control sobre el tempo porque hemos dado ese control a los jugadores. Son libres de vagar todo lo que quiera. Cuando la gente pregunta, "Guau, me gustaría hacer cosas de juegos, etc." les hablo del tempo del humor en los videojuegos. Realmente necesitas contar chistes donde la última gracia pueda venir mucho, mucho, mucho más tarde que la preparación. Puedes preparar un chiste, y luego algunos jugadores descubrirán la línea 15 segundos más tarde, pero puede haber gente que no descubra la última gracía hasta dentro de 30 minutos, y tus chistes tienen que funcionar en esas condiciones. Eso creo que es lo más complicado del humor en los videojuegos.
En los juegos de aventuras, especialmente en las antiguas aventuras de apuntar y hacer click, tienes mucho más control sobre el tempo porque tienen un ritmo muy pausado. Rondas por el entorno, lo examinas, miras las cosas, intentas interactuar con ellas. Pero en algo más activo como The Cave, parece mucho más difícil controlar el tempo. ¿Cómo equilibras el tempo del comic cuando hay la posibilidad de que el jugador corra y salte a través del lugar donde has gastado tanto tiempo?
RG: Ahí es donde entra en juego lo que te contaba de preparar los chistes para que se resulevan mucho más tarde. En Monkey Island, hay este gran pedazo donde Guybrush dice esa línea de que es capaz de aguantar el tiempo durante 10 minutos. Está alardeando, y es un gran alarde, y es casi divertido. Pero lueog el chiste realmente se resuelve mucho más tarde en el juego, cuando eres echado al agua, y está atrapado, y realmente puede aguantar su aliento por 10 minutos. Luego el hace una broma de eso. Ese es un ejemplo de como puedes preparar algo que se reuelve más tarde.
The Cave isnÔÇÖt an action game. ItÔÇÖs very much an adventure game, but weÔÇÖve always had this problem with adventure game where if people are running through the world very quickly, theyÔÇÖre going to miss things. So itÔÇÖs kind of about being able to have visual gags that if you miss them the first time, the second time you run by them you might see them. You need a lot of visual repetition, so if people miss one thing theyÔÇÖre going to get it again a second time.
Gameological: Take me through your writing process.
Ron Gilbert: ItÔÇÖs filled with lots of angst, thatÔÇÖs for sure. It depends. If IÔÇÖm doing much longer things, then IÔÇÖm also trying to explore, creatively, what they are. If I already know a character very well, I can jump in and write 10 lines of dialogue for them, but if I donÔÇÖt really know what the character is yet, then it becomes more of an exploratory process than an actual writing process. It can sometimes be a very long process of figuring out what that character is.
I do free-writing a lot when IÔÇÖm trying to figure out characters. Just kind of writing as much as I can as fast as I can, trying to see if anything pops up in that free-writing process that helps define what he characters are a little bit.
Gameological: Tell me about how you collaborate with other writers on a game. How was working with Sean Howard on DeathSpank compared to working with Tim Schafer?
Gilbert: Working with Sean was a little different because he was never in the office. I actually never met him in person. The work that we did was all via email. It was me writing outlines of the things I wanted him to write. Then he would write and send them back. Then I would edit them or send them back and say, ÔÇ£Look letÔÇÖs change this up a little bit.ÔÇØ
Working with Tim and [designer] Dave [Grossman] on Monkey Island, we were all in the office together. We were constantly reading what each other were writing, and we were constantly talking about it. We were constantly hashing through ideas and looking at each otherÔÇÖs jokes and going, ÔÇ£Wow, that could be funnier.ÔÇØ It was more like a writersÔÇÖ room that you might see in a sitcom TV where people were always throwing out ideas for stuff.
Gameological: In discussing The Cave, youÔÇÖve said with this game and with others youÔÇÖve done in the past, you start by coming up with the environment, then creating the characters, then the puzzles. How would you say that process is different today then when you first got into the industry in 1983?
Gilbert: I donÔÇÖt think itÔÇÖs really different at all, especially when youÔÇÖre dealing with adventure games because they are so much about the environment. IÔÇÖve always started that way. IÔÇÖve always picked a place I thought was interesting. For Monkey Island, it was the Pirates Of The Caribbean ride at Disneyland. I just loved that ride and I wanted to live there. Monkey Island really started with that as a place that Guybrush would go to. Guybrush came from that, and then the story came from that, and the puzzles came from that. ThatÔÇÖs always been my process. The only exception to that was DeathSpank because DeathSpank started out as a character, and it was afterward that I created the world he lived in. I think thatÔÇÖs the one exception where I started with character instead of starting with world, but itÔÇÖs mostly starting with world for me.┬á
Gameological: Monkey Island and DeathSpank are very much games about their lead characters. How is writing and designing a comedy game around a single character different than designing around an ensemble like in Maniac Mansion?
Gilbert: ItÔÇÖs a lot more work. In something like The Cave, youÔÇÖve got those seven different characters, but youÔÇÖve still got that main character, and thatÔÇÖs The Cave. He is sentient. He does talk. He is that main character that I can attach everything to, in a way.
When you have that large ensemble cast, which there is in The Cave, or there certainly was in Maniac Mansion, itÔÇÖs a lot more work because you have seven characters that you need to deal with. You have potentially seven different storylines. You have seven different reactions that have to happen when some event in the game or something funny happens. ItÔÇÖs a lot more work because youÔÇÖre doing everything seven times instead of one time with someone like DeathSpank or Guybrush. I think thatÔÇÖs probably the biggest difference. ItÔÇÖs just a lot more work.
Gameological: When you have to do that much more work, how does that change the process of coming up with a good joke?
Gilbert: I donÔÇÖt know that it really affects the process of coming up with a joke. YouÔÇÖre probably not going to go as deep with characters. Guybrush we can go really deep with because he was the only character whereas something like The Cave you really canÔÇÖt go as deep with the individual characters, but youÔÇÖve got a lot of breadth. YouÔÇÖve got seven of them. People are still getting the same amount of jokes; theyÔÇÖre just spread across seven different characters.
ItÔÇÖs always nice if you can play the characters off each other a little bit. If youÔÇÖre playing with Bernard and Razor together in Maniac Mansion, there were little quips that they would go back and forth with. That stuffÔÇÖs fun, and because it changes based on that characters that the playerÔÇÖs chosen, some people will see those things, and other people will not. People like that kind of stuff.
Gameological: YouÔÇÖve said many times that you want people playing your games to feel like they are taking part in a conversation when they interact with your character. That theyÔÇÖre not just working through dialogue trees. How do you effect that feeling of a real conversation?
Gilbert: For things like DeathSpank and Monkey Island, it was having the lines that the character says actually in the dialogue choices. There were games before Monkey Island that had dialogue choices when you would interact with characters, but they were dealing with larger, more emotional issues. They would say, ÔÇ£Be nice to this person. Be mean to this person. Be funny to this person.ÔÇØ So you were choosing be mean to this person and then the character would say something mean to that person.
In Monkey Island, I really wanted those choices that you made to be exactly what Guybrush was going to say. Yeah, one of them might be a mean thing and one of them might be a nice thing, but you were really seeing exactly what he was going to say and that helps bring out a lot of his character. The other thing thatÔÇÖs nice is when those dialogue choices come up on the screenÔÇöthere were four choicesÔÇöyou only got to choose one of them, but you got to read all four. That was a great source of humor because I could tell four jokes at once. You would laugh at the other three. You might not choose it because it wasnÔÇÖt the one you wanted, but you still got to laugh at the other three jokes. ThatÔÇÖs a rapid way to build a characterÔÇÖs personality, through those dialogue choices.
Gameological: How do your games change from when you first conceive them to when theyÔÇÖre actually out?
Gilbert: I think in some ways they become less ambitious. IÔÇÖm the kind of designer that designs really big to start with, and then I go through and start paring the design down. Some of it is the design is just too big, and it needs to be pared down, and then thereÔÇÖs time constraints and budget constraints. So all of those things start to chip away at the design. I would say what people are actually playing is probably far less than I originally envisioned and originally designed it to be.
Gameological: How do you think that affects the humor?
Gilbert: I donÔÇÖt know if it affects the humor too much. The humor is just something thatÔÇÖs there from the beginning and is slowly layered in. Certainly funny things get cut, but also funny things get added. Sometimes I need to cut something out of the game and it creates a really awkward situation, so I can make fun of that situation a little bit and cover up the fact that something was cut. Mask it with humor, so to speak.
Gameological: Given the public response to your Kickstarter project with Tim Schafer and Double Fine, thereÔÇÖs obviously a hunger for adventure games today, but you donÔÇÖt really see any of them going whole hog into the old school and using a text parser. Why has the text parser disappeared from making adventure games?
Gilbert: I never liked text parsers. I played the Infocom adventures, and when I was in junior high school, I played Adventure on the mainframe computer at the local university, and I never really liked parsers. ThatÔÇÖs one of the reasons why when I did Maniac Mansion, I just got rid of the parser. It felt like I just had to guess what the game designer called something. What is he calling that? Is it a bush or a shrub? Is it a plant? I just felt like I was playing this meta-game called ÔÇ£second guess the parser.ÔÇØ That was just never interesting to me. If I want to do something, I just want to do it. I know what I want to do and I want the game to respond to what I want to do. There is still a very vibrant market for text adventuresÔÇöthey call them interactive fiction today. ThereÔÇÖs still a vibrantÔÇöwell, not market, I donÔÇÖt think theyÔÇÖre really selling themÔÇöbut thereÔÇÖs still this community that does play those games. IÔÇÖve just never been very fond of them and I donÔÇÖt think people like a lot of typing and writing and reading. They just like to visually absorb something.
Gameological: ItÔÇÖs funny that you talk about that battle with the parsers. I talked with Steve Heinrich, the head writer of You DonÔÇÖt Know Jack games, and he said one of the deepest wells of humor is when people are wrong. When somebody messes up, thatÔÇÖs a great set up for a joke. Being wrong in an adventure game, even something without a text parser like Maniac Mansion, can make you lose so much progress that it ultimately frustrates you. How do you balance penalties when youÔÇÖre making a game? How do you make it so that there is a great opportunity for people to be wrong, but that they donÔÇÖt get so discouraged they stop playing?
Gilbert: It is something you need to watch out for with humor. A lot of humor for thousands of years has been based on the misfortune of others. We can laugh at other people who are having miserable or horrible things happening to them, but we donÔÇÖt like to laugh at ourselves when horrible things happen. We may laugh as a defense mechanism, but we really donÔÇÖt like to laugh at ourselves when bad things happen. In a game, you have to tread that line a little bit. You really canÔÇÖt make fun of the player for failing, because youÔÇÖre going to turn off a lot of people when you do that.
With games, you can divorce yourselves a little bit. I donÔÇÖt think anybody, when theyÔÇÖre playing Monkey Island or The Cave, thinks they are those people on the screen, but they definitely empathize with them, and they do relate to them, and they do feel a big attachment to them. So you have to be careful that the humor is making fun of the character and not what the player did with the character, because then youÔÇÖre insulting the player and not the character.
Gameological: Something else youÔÇÖve talked about in the wake of the Kickstarter campaign is managing audience expectations. ThereÔÇÖs all this pressureÔÇöfrom past work, from people whoÔÇÖve already put money to play a game that hasnÔÇÖt been made yet. What responsibilities do you feel you have to your audience when youÔÇÖre making a game?
Gilbert: The answer that anybody creating anything will give is that you should have no responsibility to them. You have to do what you want to do, and you have to do what you think is the right thing to do and what you think is the best thing to do. People who like what you do and are fans of your work are just going to like what you do as long as you do something true to yourself. You can get into a lot of trouble when you start to worry too much about what people are going to think because then you start to get into this weird self-censorship cycle. You do something that might be interesting and different and unique, but you become too worried what people are going to think, and you censor it.
Creative things, no matter what they areÔÇöbooks, video games, whateverÔÇöif theyÔÇÖre really good, they have lots of pointy little edges, and thatÔÇÖs what makes them interesting. ItÔÇÖs all these pointy little spikes and all these little things you can cut yourself and prick yourself on, thatÔÇÖs what makes creative work interesting. If you get into self-censorship mode, you start to pound all those pointy edges away because youÔÇÖre very afraid of offending somebody or worried what somebody will think of it. And then what youÔÇÖre left with is kind of blah, just not interesting. I think you just need to do what you think is the right thing to do, and hopefully people like it.
Gameological
: