The rants session at the GDC conference had an element of gaming in it so it seems silly of the panelists to arbitrarily change the rules because it was not what they had imagined. But then again the author of the article could be seen as having to broken an implicit social rule don't lie, don't cheat - that permeates most societies. No wonder they labeled him as a cheater.<p>"We like to brag about how the games industry brings in more money than the film industry, but as soon as someone like Zynga makes enough money to trigger our envy, we invent interpretations of the game rules to say it’s not okay."<p>I seriously doubt that the criticism against Zynga were due to game developers being envious of Zynga. Frankly, this is a straw man and avoids the valid concerns people have about games and their addictiveness. It's not about rules that have been broken, but what responsibilities game developers have.<p>"Meanwhile, we are breaking the very same rules: the addictive qualities of Facebook social games can be found throughout all our games."<p>Maybe it's not a question about if games should have addictive qualities but rather how much and where you draw the line? Games can have a profound effect on a individual and affect their behavior and if the gaming industry doesn't routinely discuss the various ethical and psychological effects of gaming, they risk being seen as irresponsible or oblivious towards the well-being of gamers.<p>"Jane McGonigal bent the rules to bring her buddies up to share her rant time, but her shenanigans were sanctioned by the industry guard."<p>McGonigal was "sanctioned" because conferences, like most other IRL interactions, need order to function. Maybe the conference panelists were unnecessary strict and actually caused a loss by stopping McGonigal from talking, but many interactions would become difficult to participate in simply because people gamed them to their benefit.
Mirror here:<p><a href="http://www.untoldentertainment.com.nyud.net/blog/2011/03/05/holding-the-bag-how-i-gamed-gdcs-top-social-game-developers/" rel="nofollow">http://www.untoldentertainment.com.nyud.net/blog/2011/03/05/...</a><p>(although the images are broken)<p>The article is well worth reading.
'Winning' was his priority, so Creighton found a way to win. Congratulations to him. Taking a risk like that in front of people you respect is tough, especially when it results in everyone in your industry remembering you as 'that guy'.<p>Edit:
Better mirror, courtesy of reddit user FunkyFreshFlow:
<a href="http://rorr.im/reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/fya4n/" rel="nofollow">http://rorr.im/reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/fya4n/</a>
A brilliant and insightful read.<p>Game developers should embrace and reward players that think outside of the box and subvert the game to add their own rules.
I can recall MissingNo. from the original Pokémon games as a great example of players subverting the game and in essence creating a cult following to this "cheat".
Having been there, I can vouch that this is what happened (though perhaps a bit exaggerated). It was pretty entertaining. I was pretty shocked that the panelists voted against him -- I thought what he did was exactly in the spirit of the entire thing.<p>I also have to say Jane McGoningal's "rant" was incredibly lame "rah rah we're changing the world" stuff. I wish they had given this guy more time -- honestly the panelists have mostly been the same people saying the same things the last few years, it'd be nice to hear some new voices.
Now that's a hacker.<p>People like that are the true gamers. (cue a grumpy Scotsman).<p>The ability to see the rules, see past the rules, and see into the structure of the question, then deal with that are the real hallmarks of what makes the hacker culture great.
As someone who works in the industry, my thoughts during the first half of this essay were 'this is normal, Players ALWAYS find ways around the rules'. I was shocked that the designers didn't instinctively get this and pronounce him the winner.