• YIIK (Pronounced Y2K), Indie RPG, steps into another controversy
    99 replies, posted
People in this game act like gimmicks and parodies. And its all so WOKE it becomes cringy as hell. Im glad its being trash talked. https://youtu.be/gIVHbQrvTA8
It's like this but worse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otKxEWKjWRo
i'll never call this game anything other than "yeek" because trying to call your game Y2K and spelling it YIIK just reminds me of that one kid whose parents named her "KVIIItlyn" or whatever also holy shit the protagonist of this game already reminded me enough of Phil Fish just from how he looked but now there's even more to justify that comparison good job dude
"Creativity is about hiding your sources" And then there's fucking YIIK that just thinks it can claim something is an "Insperation" and get away with directly ripping shit
don't forget all the excess prose that is just looping the same points and topics in a conversation over and over, or things like the infamous elevator quote. the set of images the protagonist finds about a major character's seeming disappearance directly references a woman's last recorded moments before she was found dead by suicide, characters talk about Chrono Trigger and Lufia as their childhood when the game is in 1999, the protagonist is basically the creator of the game wearing a t-shirt advertising his last indie game from a couple years ago in spite of that (and said creator vehemently responded to people complaining about the protag's assholery before lashing out at all criticism in general; also the shirt is even mirrored in the dialogue sprites showing no effort to prevent the problem), and so on, and so on. nevermind deliberate yet stupid gameplay design like tying every, single, attack and skill, to a fucking minigame for paltry damage in drawn-out battles in a complete and utter misinterpretation of what made Paper Mario or Shadow Hearts interesting in the same combat styles
Physically the creator looks nothing like Phil Fish. He kind of acts like Phil and the main character sort of looks like him, but the main character's appearance is very clearly not based on the creator, although I'm not sure if the same can be said about his behavior.
what https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_thumb/1119672643295174656/pu/img/gl_EKnWvnrKEPUFO.jpg how is the main character's appearance not based on the creator's
Well you can get away with being transparent about your sources but you need to bring something fresh or clever to the table with your influences if you are going this route. Venture Bros and to a lesser but still great extent Metal Gear do this, especially with the latter having Otacon in MGS4 look uncannily like Kojima. For the record, I did not like MGS4 that much... 3 and Peace Walker were amazing tho
Guess what? https://kotaku.com/indie-developer-accused-of-plagiarism-says-it-was-an-in-1834902499
not the creator. in fact, the guy actually has nothing to do with it at all. he in fact tweeted at the developer jokingly saying they were making a game based off him. here's the actual andrew allanson https://i1.sndcdn.com/avatars-000528541017-6bvi0y-t500x500.jpg
So basically... https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/223058/aee300c3-64cd-4aa1-96d7-4fd96ad6e44a/dogfood.mp4 Unless the character in question recognizes the text as being from After Dark this is still just unattributed bs.
So, his love for the novel is seeping into reality... but it would be weird for him to realize a direct quote. A quote taken from his mind. Presumably because it's in the book he read. But he doesn't realize it "because how would the quote possibly be on his mind????" also would it REALLY be so absurd to just have him say "...wait, is that from After Dark?" Wouldn't that enhance how bizarre and otherworldly the situation is? By pointing out "hey why are you quoting a book"? also After Dark was published in 2004 and the game takes place in 1999 get fucked yiikboy
Oh man, that's a big oof.
The explanation is so absurd and pretentious Jesus Christ Its like a writer who thinks hes smarter than he actually is
ohhhhhh
I don't really agree. I can accept that the Iwata grave is just a little tribute/easter egg. It breaks with the timeline, but it's not impacting the narrative in any way. No character is bringing up Iwata's death as though it's an event that occurred in-universe. But in this case he's trying to wipe away this failed tribute by claiming that the main protagonist knows dialogue from a book that shouldn't exist but somehow does, and it's something that is directly related to the narrative.
To be honest that was actually well written and funny Yiik does it in a way that's just... what the fuck are you doing
Exactly. Kenny asked Lee if he knew how to pick a lock, and when Lee asks why he would ask that, Kenny replies with an answer that reveals his subconscious bias. In YIIK, Claudio just automatically assumed that the protagonist was being racist just because he asked the two people who were with him and just so happen to black if they knew how to pick locks.
Really makes you wonder if YIIK's dev has some... subconscious... bias's... HMMM
Not true. He changed "high-flying night bird" to "high-flying dawn bird". See? He can totally be original!
Lifting parts of something wholesale isn't a tribute or a homage or a reference or any other bullshit excuse you bring up. we thought it would not be in-character for ‘Proto Woman’ to cite that their words hail from Murakami’s novel, since they don’t have the awareness that their words are actually an excerpt from a book. See, I know he's talking out of his ass because if that REALLY was his reasoning, he would've had the main character drawing awareness to it. It's about as clever as the rest of the game.
I always find it hilarious when go in trying to make art. Art isn't made to be art going in, something usually ends up being art some time after the fact.
In all honesty, I'm not feeling the outrage. Honking a paragraph from a book strikes me as way less egregious than the death of Elisa Lam or the developers throwing a shitfit over [A R T]
Badage Boys full conversion mod when?
? weird take. people make art for the sake of art all the time...
It took me a while to process what he said, but I think I got what he meant. I don't think he's talking about art for the sake of art, in the sense of "I am feeling creative and so I am going to make something." Ergo, not "art" in the pure sense of the word. I think he means making art for the sake of "saying I made art." As in pursuing art not for the art itself, but for the perceived esteem around "being an artist." I guess another way to put it would be that there is a notable difference between someone making art because they have an idea in their soul they want to express, and someone making art because they want people to think that they're an artist. The latter tends to be pretty obvious to note, and tends to feel hollow and cynical.
Pretty much this, I worded my post a little weird. It's pretty much the difference between something with meaning and being pretentious.
I've come to realize that I kind of absolutely hate indie devs tbh So many of them mistake hatred towards them as something other than the annoyance at how they act or how shit their game is Games can be art, but that doesn't make your game specifically art
This is probably one of the worst things i've ever seen. It reminds me of the joke boss battles in the Problem Sleuth webcomic, but somehow manages to make less sense while being completely serious. And Problem Sleuth had a fucking diabetes stat. https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/mspaintadventures/images/c/ca/MK_bloodsugar.gif/revision/latest?cb=20090130210800
So there's a bit to unpack here. I apologize in advance for the wordiness. The first part, I am going to interpret as "So many indie devs mistake people being annoyed at the quality of their games or how they behave as being criticism towards them as a person." Please correct me if I am misinterpreted this post. Running with that interpretation, that isn't really exclusive to indie devs. That's more of an creative-type-person thing in general. Artists--especially amateur artists--tend to consider their work to be an extension of themselves - and as such, any attacks against their art is perceived as a personal attack. I suspect it's largely rooted in anxiety and fragile self-esteem: they fear that they are in depths they don't belong in, and that people will tear them apart as being "posers" or some other nonsense. Anecdotally, I can personally say that is absolutely where my overdefensiveness came from in my early years as an artist. It's something that can take a long time to overcome. Moving onto your second point, I think you're on the right track, but your wording is just a bit off. All games are art, full stop. Anything that is created through the effort of synthesizing existing ideas to create new ones is art. I think what you're trying to say is that just because your game is art, it doesn't mean your game is good art. And that is absolutely valid. There are a lot of metrics to measure art by, ranging from the objective like the accuracy of the art to what it's trying to portray, to the subjective like the emotions it invokes in its audience. And while it's generally a fool's errand to directly try to say how one piece of art is better than another when judging among peers, when a given piece of art scores lower across every metric across the board, it's generally pretty safe to say that it's worse art. This post, for example, is technically art. But it's not very good art. You'd be laughed out of academia if you tried to seriously compare this post to the writings of Salinger or Orwell. But comparing Salinger to Orwell? Those two are widely considered peers. While Orwell may reign superior in some metrics, Salinger may beat him out in others. You can't really say that one is better than the other. But you can certainly say both are better than this post. The last part I think plays into what Megafat was talking about earlier, and I think it also ties in a bit to what I got into in the beginning with amateur artists. I think these indie devs you think of do genuinely want to create art of some form. But the passion is weak, and they find the fire flicker out rather quickly - and so they tend to draw back to more cynical "I'm an artist, I must create art" thinking to push themselves through. And that's where these bullshit explanations come from - they know, deep down, that those decisions they're trying to defend didn't come from the same place in their souls as their core drive to make their game did. They may have genuinely wanted to make their game, but they didn't genuinely want to make whatever it is they're desperately trying to defend. Much like myths are often considered to be a kernel of truth wrapped thick in fabrications, I think a lot of these indie games are a kernel of genuine passion wrapped thick in layers of cynical decisions.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.