Overconfidence or Oversocialness?

[Eric]

I've been dealing with this issue myself lately. I'm taking a break from sharing work on the forum, because, as I wrote to ProgZMax when I asked him to temporarily lock up my art thread, I realized I was posting in order to post, setting arbitrary deadlines for myself, and working hard on things that looked good to share, but weren't necessarily needed for the game I was working on. Feedback, whether positive or negative, can be stimulating, even addictive. For someone like me, who works out of the home and is a stay-at-home dad to a 10-month-old, it's fairly easy for that feedback to start fulfilling some of your delinquent social needs as well.

I also don't think it's safe to say that every man has an inner circle with which he can share everything either. My poor wife has to bear the brunt of it, as I share everything with her, and she kindly at least feigns interest in my hobbies (in return, I could probably earn myself a Master's in Special Education, her field, with little effort, just based on what I know from talking to her). But my friends who are interested in gaming play Call of Duty, my parents and sister think everything I've done up to and including my dissertation is "cute," and my acquaintances who are artists are all so talented and accomplished that I'm too anxious to share anything with them.

I think many people (like me) post here because it seems like, of all the places, this is where you should post adventure game-related things, and that the sharing of these things might engender goodwill with others who share interests in such games.

I also agree with Ben when he says that constant feedback drives the production of games, especially when they're otherwise created in solitude. I'm a typical Gemini, and my attention wanders easily. While posting in that art thread, I created a false sense of accountability for myself. Feedback from others allowed me to semi-consciously believe that people were waiting for updates from me, and so I should keep working, and specifically on that project (since starting my hiatus, I've indeed switched the game on which I'm working, though that was more a result of coming to terms with my art style [I may switch again after seeing Duje's lovely new game that looks to cover similar ground]).

As to the generational aspect, I'd ask a few questions for context. The first is a question of technology. When I was 14, and I was an adventure game junkie, I would have loved a program like AGS and a site like this. I didn't have that opportunity. I'm not sure there is a widespread older population that had the capacity to create and share at this level, but were only prevented by modesty. New media removes all sorts of creative and distributive barriers that I didn't even recognize existed when I was younger.

Why not share everything, just in case? As Paul Newman said in Harper, "Only cream and bastards rise." These half-made games often get much, much more attention than something like what is probably my favorite AGS game so far this year (though I admittedly haven't yet played Resonance) Kitten Catastrophy.

The second question is one of maturity. As I've posted in another thread, semi-defending one of the users I'm assuming is tacitly being referenced here, when I was 16, I was in a horrible garage band that played pop punk cover songs, and I thought we sounded amazing. I also used to enjoy Kevin Smith movies, have massive sideburns, use a wallet chain, and all sorts of other things of which I'm now a little ashamed. Time and experience have opened and developed my tastes. I will probably feel the same way about 30-year-old me when I'm 60 as 30-year-old me feels about teenage me now. I'm daily relieved that I was never a teenager with access to YouTube.

The third question is one of motive. In my main line of work, academia, there are some folks who sit on an article or book and polish, polish, polish, until they find they missed out on getting tenure because they haven't been published. Whereas those who put out less polished material, even if they're criticized, still usually get tenure because they've at least done something. The first person's book might be better, but no one ever sees it. In looking at these games that are "looking too terrible to believe they are serious," I'd ask whether they intended these games to be played and enjoyed, or are rather just releasing them to show that they did something, as opposed to toiling in solitude, keeping your work in solitude, and playing it in solitude.

The basic threshold for participation here at AGS Headquarters is taking part in some aspect of the creative process, whether that's through sprite making (like I did), competitions, MAGS, full-on game releases, joining production teams, or critiquing others' work. Perhaps these malformed, stillborn games are seen as a way to gain a foothold in the social sphere of the forum, and not for providing actual entertainment?

This isn't necessarily a defense of those games, but rather an attempt at explaining their existence....

TL;DR: Too long, didn't summarize.

[an Urpney]

Some good points here, Eric, but why certain members don't just post some art for their games or a small portions of it in The Critics' Lounge? You did that and it was nice to see your work improve with every update from you. Some young and inexperienced game-maker-wannabe could really use some critique to improve their work. Posting half-made, unplayable product will give them nothing but bashing.