Creativity comes from within – within who you really are, which is typically hidden beneath layers of who you are not, which is not real.
The original definition of `a creator` is really a definition of God, which for pretty much everyone is going to be heavily flavored by personal beliefs. What I present here as a definition of creativity may conflict with your idea of Reality or your belief system, whatever that may comprise. So please keep an open mind and bare with me as I try to explain this.
Creation is infinite. Infinite does not mean `contains all finite possibilities`. Infinity is not a sum of finite parts, or a total of all finite possibilities. Infinity is actually a state of pervasive equality and sameness, not difference, where a single pure state of being pervades equally everywhere, always. Within the infinite are all the qualities of `The Creator`, ie God. Those qualities include wholeness, oneness, omnipresence, unity, limitlessness, knowing, eternity, timelessness, spacelessness, and also other ways of describing qualities of God such as life, love and peace.
As far as the Infinite Creator is concerned, there is no separation between Creator and Creation. There is no time delay, or space, or any other form of separation identifying creation as separate from creator. Some people call this Heaven. This kind of a `place` is Real Reality, where we as One are God’s creation, wholly unified and at One with `Him`. Such a place is NOT the physical universe. The universe is a made up insane fantasy dream of impossibilities and separations, which we are dreaming, not God, that has nothing to do with the infinite. It also therefore has nothing truly to do with creation or creativity. A quick quote from A Course in Miracles: “Nothing real can be threatened, nothing unreal exists, and therein lies the peace of God.” To God, the physical world does not exist other than in OUR mental delusion.
Still with me? I am a crackpot yet? Let’s continue.
What we call creativity in the physical world, typically revolves around taking things which `are already created` and rearranging them into seemingly new combinations. It can also mean taking things which symbolize creation and helping/influencing them to grow or evolve. This world of dreams that we live in is a world of symbols, and there are symbols of limited ideas of creation all around us. None of these symbols are as pure in their creation as is the Infinite.
These symbols are but the `end results` of creation, because in this physical world all creations are separated from their creator. In this world we appear to live within a ‘creation`, not a creator (ie separate from God). Here, creator and created are separated by time and space, and what seems created has separated itself from its creator. This is true of everything in this make-believe universe, be it human babies, plants, animals or projects. Even the tiniest cells divide in order to `create more`. Reproduction itself, as symbol of creation, is an act of separation.
Separation and creativity are complete opposites.
The ability to create means the ability to extend one’s own Self, producing more of Itself, in its *exact* likeness, with no loss of Self either in Oneself or the extended self. Creating is a process of extending the creator. That which the creator creates, must itself be just as creative as its creator, and just as able to create as its creator. (This implies that as `God’s One Son` we are just like God in our creative potential, although we did not create God.)
A creation must also bestow upon its own creations the same level of `the potential to create` as itself. In this way, the ability to create continues to extend infinitely, without change, without diminishing, without loss and without separation. If at any point the ability to create is removed from a creation, or it is made different to its creator, that is the point at which the extension of creation ends and turns into an `effect of creation`. That’s where creator and created are no longer One. That’s when the creation no longer has the potential to extend itself, or to pass on as much ability to birth new creators as itself.
What we see as the physical world is the end result, or effect of, a creative process which reached a point of separation and limitation. Thus we see all around us forms which differ from each other. Those very differences are evidence of the fact that whoever created all this did not instill in its creation the image of itself, ie the ability to also be a creator. We see `the created` all around us, but severely limited in its ability to create.
And so when we humans start to `get creative`, there is a limited scope as to what we can achieve. All we can do is work with pre-existing limited forms, trying to change their form as a substitute for true creativity. We can take an object and combine it with some other object and maybe we can even alter it at a very low chemical level to seemingly transform it into other objects. We can try to push back the envelope of how much these forms can be changed, and into what, but we can never get to the point where we can really alchemically say that we can turn anything into anything. Just by virtue of being `in` a creation, separated from our creator, we are already severely handicapped in our ability to extend creation. Although we may create physical babies which loosely resemble us, we cannot create perfect clones of ourselves on every level of mind body and spirit – at least, not until we reawaken from this dream world.
What we can learn from all this is that we can at least use our knowledge about the metaphysics of infinite creation to inspire our limited creative outlets. We can create games, environments and shared experiences which in as many ways as possible symbolize the characteristics of True Creation.
Now let’s shift a little to talking about how this applies to game creation.
If I were a typical game developer (and of course this doesn’t apply to everyone), I probably would try to create a game which is filled with end results, solidified ideas, final designs, limited capabilities, confined environments, premeditated events, predetermined preferences, and the expectation that by doing this we will be worshipped. I believe this is founded on the workings of the ego.
As an ego, we like to separate. The ego is made of separation. The ego is not creative, and is in fact destructive, for all forms of destruction are forms of separation, and separation is the end of creation. As an ego-developer, we try to use our impressive `skills and abilities` to come up with something on behalf of others which we think they will buy. To buy something really means to `buy into` something, to accept it, to believe it is truth, to believe in it, to make it real and to think it has merit or meaning. It has nothing to do with purchasing. Getting an audience to buy into something is all the ego wants to do, to make its fantasy about itself real, and to make itself real, which is impossible.
Ego developers set about an impressive design of a game which they believe is what the end-user wants. Whether this is based on informed decisions or surveyed information or guesswork or education, it’s still the same. When we try to create games `for` other people what we’re doing is trying to do something for them that we believe they cannot or won’t do for themselves. We are providing a service. We think we will create the amazing marvel that they’ve always wanted. We’ll do it `for` them, on their behalf, to save them. And we hope they will be so convinced and so glad that they will part with cash over it, or make us famous, or tell everyone how great we are, so that our ego can be bolstered by it. All of this is ego-centric, because it all starts out by looking at the end-user as a separate entity. Such developers operate behind a wall of separation where their own self-interests are really their only interest. The more egocentric such developers are, the more out of touch they are with the audience and the worse their games are.
As such developers come out of their ego isolation into the light of creativity, there is a trend toward an increased extension of themselves. The creativity which they allow to flow through them (from The Creator), not originating from themselves but from God, is less hindered and less limited. That means they find joy in allowing the end user to experience aspects of `being creative` as well. Instead of trying to take away all of the end-user’s creative choice, which results in a crappy game you can’t relate to, they focus on putting the end-user in touch with their own creativity. And this is a good thing.
We are beginning to see now a trend toward what people are calling `user generated content`, or `player generated content`. The idea is to make the end-user be the center of the universe. NO! That is NOT what creativity is about. The more ego-centric we make the user be the less life their creations will have. If the end user becomes the center of the universe, the only thing that has happened is that the role of developer has traded places with the role of end-user. Trying to turn the end-user into a developer doesn’t necessarily mean that they will be creative. You can’t just lay the role in their lap and expect them to use it wisely.
So we are now seeing games where user-content is highly encouraged but typically it is for the purpose of stroking the user’s ego. In other words, the ego’s of the game’s developers have been put aside just enough to let other people create for themselves (rather than `for them`), but enough ego is retained to confine the end-user to still being an extension of the ego, rather than a creator. Basically what it comes down to is that the amount of `creativeness` the game’s developer *shares* with the end-user, determines the amount of creativeness the end user will share with others – for the benefit of others and not themselves. It’s not about just taking the developer’s ego and displacing it into the end-user. The important thing to remember is it’s not just about sharing content, ie creations, it’s about sharing the ability to create – sharing in the creative process.
A poor example of a user-created game system is where you simply give the user some programmer-like tools and say here, go and modify it. We have to remember that many people, although capable of being creative, are not necessarily capable as skilled technicians. The ability to create is natural and intuitive, whereas the ability to write complicated scripts or manipulate complex interfaces is something they’ll have to learn. Also some/many people have blocks to creative flow and therefore it is important that the creative system not only encourage their creativity but also help them to be creative. They need to be able to express themselves simply and easily to achieve results which might take a programmer years, in a matter of minutes or even seconds. This of course calls for high-level functionality in-game. Some games really drop the ball on this by just throwing the end user in at the deep end – treating them like a traditional egocentric software developer.
It’s not about making the user into a developer, or `getting them` to do work for YOU that you otherwise would have been doing for them. Creative games should not be about role reversals between developer and end-user, or about one person doing work for another person which they will later be separated from. The key is that everyone involved can share equally in all creations and all creative possibilities.
Where some games also fall short is that they give the end-user the ability to create whatever objects/spaces/cities/characters they like. This isn’t necessarily being creative. It’s just a matter of giving the user lots of premeditated stuff to reorganize and rearrange into combinations they like, kind of a post-processing. And without good high-level tools and easy interfaces, most users will end up creating junk. Just look at the millions of user-created images floating on the net, scribbled in some graphics software with terrible composition and poor color and horrible design skills. Sure there are works of art out there, but a lot of people don’t have the skills to use the tools effectively. Being creative is not about being skilled. Everything a person needs to be creative is already inside of them, since what is inside of them is extended when they create. They don’t need external influences to achieve creation, so if they have to go via such interfaces they must limit or interfere as little as possible.
A good user-generated content game makes creativity BE the game. The user should be playing with being creative. They should create by manifesting new `things` in the game and once those things are created the user should have feedback as to their effects. With each creation there is a change to the environment, and that means the rules are now different. With different rules comes different challenges and different grounds upon which to make future creations. This shifting of circumstances, coupled with unique adaptive challenges and the use of creativity to achieve goals, produces gameplay.
The key to allowing the user to be creative is to allow them freedom. Denial of freedom is denial of creation, since it puts a stop to the extension of creativity. You could say that putting a stop to creativity is a choice for death. The life of a game dies at the places where creativity is blocked and meets separation. It’s all very well preconceiving or predesigning everything but turning creative processes into solidified forms which block creativity simple ensures the game is limited. Such games are limited in creativity, limited in freedom, and they are `closed`. Life is creativity. The life of a game is the ability of the game to extend creation, to keep the creativity going, to keep perpetuating itself, because the game IS the creativity. A game isn’t just a bunch of end results, or products, or decided-upon solutions. For it to have a life it must encourage life, encourage creativity, and encourage its own extension.
Freedom = Creativity. Giving the user more freedom usually gives them more opportunity to be creative. A clean slate is great for someone who is very creative and talented at doing so, but for some people a clean slate is like being in a desert with no idea what to do. For those who need guidance, it should be provided, so as to help them to discover their creative abilities.
Sharing = Creativity. Allowing people to share equally encourages creativity. Creativity can only be extended by openness to sharing. Sharing alone is not a solution – you can’t just make a game `social` and think that you’ve made it creative. The social sharing aspect is only there to facilitate openess, freedom and the exchange of creativity. Yet sharing without creativity is like having an open door with nothing to pass through it.
In many games there is a theme of making the game simple to begin with but hard to master. The idea here is that only while the illusion of problems remain does the game remain. In other words, the life of the game is associated with the illusion of there being challenges which must still be overcome. The usual way to implement this in a game is to make mastery of the game difficult. Making it difficult to master is partly tied into the suggestion that the game will be dull and boring if it is always the same. Without seeming challenges to make you become even more skilled and even more determined, the sense of excitement supposedly will wane and disappear. But is this what’s really happening?
Perhaps what’s really happening is that the game does not facilitate creativity enough, and that the game’s life is not based on creativity but on the illusion of life. The game may comprise only a limited amount of content, material, places to explore, or characters to meet. These limitations put a block to the game’s life and thus the game has to compensate for it by `adding something` that makes the user stay interested – like more difficult problems. But let’s stop for a minute and ask what would happen if the game focussed on getting the user to be as creative as possible, all of the time, such that they do not get bored, and such that there is no need to make the game itself have an end? Why does the game have to slowly ramp up the madness with ever more complex and difficult attack waves? Sometimes these efforts to illicit user-interest are only there to cover up the game’s lack of natural joy.
Creativity brings joy, naturally, by virtue of the fact that through openness, freedom and the ability to create, you can *flow*. When there is a flow of creativity, there is an extension of light, and this is experienced as inner joy. Joy and happiness are the same. What if a game is simply enjoyable all of the time, no matter how many times you play it, no matter how many times you’ve played it already, simply because each time you come to the game you have so much fun being creative? And what if the game is always simple and easy, yet very creative?
Creativity is naturally endless!
There is no limit to how many creative ideas and possibilities a person can come up with when they are in a creative flow. It is the endlessness of their creative flow that provides all of the interest and joy that a person needs. It comes from within, not from the game. It flows outward, extending to others and sharing in the joy with them, not in isolation. It is only when the game itself shuts down their joy that the game itself brings about its own end.
Creative games are alive. Uncreative games are not. Games that facilitate openness, freedom, sharing and creative potential, last longer than those which offer only a novelty appeal. There is no way to make an uncreative game last a long time. So hopefully, if we focus on creating games that truly encourage creative inspiration, improvisation, spontaneous quickness and joy, those games should naturally enjoy a long and healthy life.
Web 1.0 = Developer-centric games
Web 2.0 = User-centric games (user is the developer)
Web 3.0 = User-centric creative shared games (user shares their user-centric creations)
Web 4.0 = Decentralized games (everyone helps everyone else to share in being creative)
Pardon me!