next »

[jwk5]

The problem is most art games aren't actually made with the purpose of truly being a game, from what I've seen thus far at least. It is a problem on both fronts because the journalists keep labeling them as games and the creators keep labeling them as games but really they are not. The best thing I can liken them to is a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book, since most of them seem to have this "Choose Your Own Interpretation" design going on.

The problem with setting The Path next to, say Cave Story, is that one is made with the purpose of being an interactive visual storytelling device and the other is made to actually be a traditional video game. Sure, if you judge The Path as being a video game I doubt it'd even deserve a rating of 2/10, but then what if you judged Cave Story as being an artware (sic)? That is the real problem, there is a visible difference in design and form between a video game and artware.

I find most of them to be pretentious and shoddy myself, regardless if they are a game or not. I really didn't like the path or it's plodding pace. It is akin to an art gallery with bad lighting. Just because it is supposed to be a piece of art doesn't mean you can't make it a comfortable experience. I think too many people are making artware without giving enough consideration for the artistry that goes into creating comfortable interaction. They seem to think their implied meaning is enough, but just like in video games a good story can't always make up for shoddy implementation.

So anyways, I think artware is should be judged aside from video games, and not just because of the ratings they'll get, but because I don't want to have to dig through a bunch of artware reviews to find the reviews of actual games that I am interested in. Likewise, it'd be nice to eventually browse through a long list of artware and see how that branch of interactive digital media has evolved over time. However, right now I think it is pretty young and most of those who make it aren't treating it very seriously, despite their claims and pretentious novels/descriptions they seem to attribute to them. I think once they are recognized as a separate medium you'll have competition, and the design bar will raise along with the quality.

[Gimym TILBERT]

You have recognize them with artware as a separate branch. I knwe psyfal was dead on with this word 

I was going to react about the argument on comfort but the last point you made calm me down. Discomfort is pretty important in rt as a mechanism to push thought and encourage thinking, there is a real psychological mechanism in action we take advantage off. Discomfort put people in action with imbalance. Generally thread that doesn't end (like this one) deal with some discomfort, if we were to nod in agreement there would be no discussion and the thread would die. Discomfort raise awareness and focus on a matter. That's also how story work too, they start with a discomfort and finish with a resolution. But (some) art want you to think they have the discomfort and leave with with the resolution.

The art you make reference from is entertainment they transport you and reassure you, they makes escape and bring you back to reality safely, their non threatening, they reinforce your way of thinking and your view on the world. For some it mean that it sedates you. Not everyone can stop at entertainment (which can be art, ask hitchcock) like no one can stop at art as discomfort, and the path is entirely about discomfort and disempowerment, they took what make game and put a reverse spin on it. But i get there will be a time were we would not feel threaten by them anymore, when they will become common and casual, a part of our identity without clashing.

And i don't think bringing absolute fun is less pretentious than simply bringing meaning, any serious non gamer would scold you into growing up. The fact we are a bunch of like minded people passionate by their stuff does not make us more right than any other people. We are all right and true to our axiom.

It's different and we are afraid to change while claiming the contrary.

[Gimym TILBERT]

Oh i forget! i wanted to share that link:

Click nothing
http://www.clicknothing.com/click_nothing/2010/02/didacticism-in-game-design.html

Extract:

There is a trend in game development that has been growing a head of steam over the last couple years, and I have some concerns about it. The trend is in support of the notion that game developers need to somehow demonstrate the maturity of their medium and of their own creative capabilities by making games that have a moral – or at least a socially responsible – message. The form this trend often takes is toward features such as morality meters and discrete moral choices at key branching points in game narratives. Now, I certainly have no problem with the ambition of developers to step up to the plate and demonstrate the maturity of the medium and their own creativity. I do, however, worry about some of the approaches.

I have talked and written in the past about a few of the numerous implementation challenges designers confront when trying to integrate these kinds of ethical decisions into gameplay – this post is not about that.

Rather than delving deeper into the questions of how we implement this sort of material – I want to back up a bit and make sure that in our attempts to design and build these new ‘socially responsible’ features into our games we are not missing the rather important prerequisite understanding of why. More importantly, I want to be sure that in our focus on ‘how to implement socially responsible messages’ we are not, in fact, directly undercutting the reason we have considered these sorts of designs in the first place – which in my view is to elevate the medium to a higher level of maturity and sophistication.

From http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2010/02/_so_to_revise_the.php

And also that http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2010/02/opinion_in_defense_of_that_rec.php
Which reference that thread!

[jwk5]

On the flip side of this whole discussion, with maturity and sophistication comes responsibility and accountability. One thing I've always appreciated about Nintendo is that in the midst of all this "we need to grow up" they haven't forgotten "we need to have fun!" Super Smash Bros. may not be the deep philosophical experience some other games have tried to be but it can bring out your inner child like no other (not to mention a lot of trash talking). People need to remember that not all art has to be serious, art can be fun and still be meaningful.

[Gimym TILBERT]

On the flip side of this whole discussion, with maturity and sophistication comes responsibility and accountability.

Sorry i'm a geek 

[jwk5]

Completely off-topic, but Peter Parker looks like a mime in that picture....

[Movius]

1) An insular niche of 'specialised' individuals. All of them talking their own jargon and obsessed with trivialities (The 'Innovation' row or the obsession with the 'validation' of games as a 'cultural medium' being good examples.)
2) Warped opinions about the real world
3) Utter disregard for the distinction between fact and fiction or the need to back claims with evidence.
4) Either a complete refusal to accept valid criticism. Or if it is accepted, it is disregarded as irrelevant due to *3*.

How is that different from the gamer stance toward arts? or any subject?  

I find your comment to be something of a non-sequitur.
That wasn't a comment about anybody's stance towards any other specific group. Rather the sort of self-reinforcing behaviour that keeps  perpetuating the 'innovative artist vs excellence-driven mainstream AAA sellout' thinking.

Your post does provide a good example of point 2 though. How is this 'gamer stance toward arts' determined?

Does a fascist ubergamer overlord decree an official stance toward arts that all gamers must follow?

Is it decided by a democratic referendum amongst all gamers?

Are there internal politics within this homogenous gamer group? Perhaps some ALP-style machine politics drives this gamer stance towards arts, if so does it come from the gamer-unity side or the unholy socialist gamer left/gamer Stephen Conroy right alliance?

[Paul Eres]

uh, what? all he was saying is that gamer culture can be as insular and as much of an echo chamber as artsy culture, employ just as much jargon, and be just as detached from reality. that's kind of obviously true.

[Gnarf]

How did "stance toward art" get into that sentence if that was all he said?

[Paul Eres]

it was meant as a parallel of the aforementioned artist stance towards gamers -- e.g. he was saying they do the same thing, have the same stance, but in reverse

[Gnarf]

Which was not what Movius was talking about, which is why he made that last post pointing out that the response didn't make much sense considering that it was not "about anybody's stance towards any other specific group".

[Paul Eres]

of course, i believe neoshaman was talking to the topic's topic in general, not to movius in particular

[Gnarf]

Fair enough. My bad then. The way he quoted a part of what Movius had posted led me to believe that the sentence following the quote was in response to what Movius posted. Reading comprehension is not my strong suit.

[jwk5]

You know what really sucks about this all, people running their mouths on David Jaffe's side of the fence keep starting fires and the people running their mouths on Tale of Tale's side of the fence keep fanning the flames but its the quiet "artware" creators just doing their thing and not taking jabs at anybody that are going to be roasting in the fire. If either of them (David Jaffe or Tale of Tales) really cared about art they'd just shut up and let people enjoy it.