Scott McCloud’s creator types
The Webcomics Examiner has an interview with Scott McCloud, where he presents the following breakdown of types of comics artists:
He says of these types, that
Now the two left-hand tribes, the classicists and the formalists, put a high value on art. While the two right-hand tribes, the animists and the iconoclasts, put a high value on life. So there’s an art/life dichotomy there.
Then, on the upper and lower hemispheres, the upper hemisphere, classicists and animists, put a high value on tradition. And the lower hemisphere, the formalists and the iconoclasts, put a high value on revolution.
This made me wonder where individual games, and individual MMO developers, fall on these scales. Is WoW an animist MMO (less concerned with formal stuff and more about the experience)? Am I a formalist or an iconoclast? Or are the true formalists the folks who make stuff like The Endless Forest, an MMO that is more art object that entertainment experience?
9 Responses to “Scott McCloud’s creator types”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I love McCloud’s work. He’s brilliant. On top of which alot of his ideas translate to games and really all mediums of visual communication. One concept that I use alot, David Hayward wrote a nice article on visual aesthetics in gaming. He adapts McClouds visual triangle to games which is a really nice adjunct to the idea. (Though he doesn’t use the book version and doesn’t include “Text” attachment on the Iconographic corner…)
He also has a bit on the 7 levels of professional development of a person within a given craft that I really love. Which would be a nice thing to use with this for any given person.
I think, when you’re discussing a person, it’s really hard to say “Mr. X is Y”. But obviously when generalizing, you can draw certain conclusions. I think the best way to use that diagram is to use a ‘pushpin’ to show placement relative to the center… someone who is a traditionalist would have a positive Y value and if they were slightly classicist then they’d have a small negative X value.
My question is: Is there much practicle use to this notion? I think it can be useful for self analysis – to help you refine your own ideas in general terms. You can make a diagram like that for many things – I’ve seen one for political belief affiliations. Ultimately it’s not much of a tool so much as a talking point…
Huh… my article link didn’t work… Here it is.
[…] Comments […]
One could argue how much of art lays in designing a MMORPG. Personally I would say depending most MMORPGs it’s by far less than some (esp. the designers) might think. Many parts of a design are too static to call them art. Only a part of a MMORPG is about drawing the painting. Much is about constructing the canvas, mixing chemicals to get colors, even designing a chair to sit on while painting. Very important and highly skill based – but not realy art.
So I think it’s very hard to use such types on MMOs. You can’t even use them on the content – which might be closest to arts from the players perspective – because most MMORPGs (if not all) realy suck when it comes to content. The “best” are more like fairy tales for 6yo kids, the worst don’t offer what could be called content at all. Classifying the art of MMO design in that way would require to see a style with the MMO. To be honest, I don’t see one with most MMOs. Maybe the first generation like UO, AC, EQ and others had their styles – but since then I would simply seperate them into “Guided Experience” (WoW, EQ2), “Sandbox” (SWG, Eve Online) and – well – “Total failures to become anything at all” (DnL) 😉
There is nothing wrong for a MMORPG in being a Sandbox or a Guided Experience type of game. I just don’t see any deeper styles and as such no real arts in them. Some work, some don’t. Some are fun, others aren’t.
To compare any MMO with arts, they first need to get way better with the experience they offer. But well, that’s just my point of view, I don’t try to propagate my personal view as a definition here 😉
Right now I see MMORPGs like the first generation of cinematics. They were great fun, but had no real story, no real meaning to teach anything, no real emotions, no arts. Which is something I’m eager to see in MMORPGs of coming generations. It was a long way from Pac Man to Monkey Island – lets see how MMORPGs will do 🙂
We teach classical art to students, because it lays a foundation. It makes them stronger at all art, no matter what corner they land in, ultimately. It informs their decisions. It informs, yes, even one’s departures from the classical. An iconoclast will be a better iconoclast if he understands just what he’s choosing to defy.
Deciding where game designs fall is a bit of a challenge, given that there is no such thing as classical MMO design. You can’t even really put MUDs in that corner, because they are wildly disparate animals, some of which attempted things that would be considered radical by current MMO standards. I think that we really lack a sufficient history and breadth of material to begin to classify MMO designs or designers in this way. Is Second Life formalist, because the nuts and bolts are exposed to the players? Or is it iconoclastic, because it defies the whole “game” thing, completely, and lets people be whoever they want to be? Is UO classical, just because of chronology? I’m not sure we’re ready to decide these things.
I don’t think these types really apply to MMO developers. To me, the two axes don’t really seem like a continuum. For example, I think both of us believe strongly in both tradition and revolution, Raph. We know that history is important, largely because of our experiences there, but we also know that the medium has to change and adapt to grow. As Tess points out, a training in the classics helps you understand game design better, even if you are going for something revolutionary. “You have to know the rules in order to break them,” is how it is usually stated.
Likewise, I think the art/life continuum is also false. You go from arguing for games as art to arguing that we need to do more simulation within the spawn of a few posts on here, Raph. 🙂 You don’t fit neatly into a particular space, and I think most won’t.
So, I don’t think most of us fit into neat little categories. Perhaps we need to come up with better categories?
My thoughts,
>This made me wonder where individual games, and individual MMO developers, fall on these scales
Thought provoking question, Raph.
And I’d say it applies outside MMO’s as well. (e.g. is your WWII FPS game intent on making weapons dramatic, fantastic, or historically & physically accurate)
I guess that I’d state that if you view those ‘quadrants’ endpoints of a spectrum, my might have more agreement. Of course McCloud uses this kind of spectrum often in his Understanding Comics, and while I don’t think that any one title, developer, or player for that matter would like to be pigeon-holed into a fixed place on such a chart, I think that such charts make interesting “rulers” for comparing works in different ways.
Another example would be the whole narration/ludology thing, where people often claim you are of one camp or the other. Can this not be a gradient as well?
[…] More McCloud You’ve read Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics, right? If not, go get it, read it, and then resume here.Clint Hocking has some thoughts on the book’s applicability to the games medium.There’s a great interview with McCloud here, which talks about his upcoming book, which is sort of a follow up to UC. Raph posts some thoughts on this here. […]
[…] You’ve read Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics, right? If not, go get it, read it, and then resume here.Clint Hocking has some thoughts on the book’s applicability to the games medium.There’s a great interview with McCloud here, which talks about his upcoming book, which is sort of a follow up to UC. Raph posts some thoughts on this here. […]