Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411278 Posts in 69323 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 28, 2024, 01:25:24 PM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsPlayerGamesThe Marriage
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: The Marriage  (Read 9183 times)
constantine
Level 0
*


View Profile
« on: March 20, 2007, 10:47:22 AM »

Rod Humble (who seems to have worked for Sony at one point) has made his game The Marriage available.  It's his attempt at contributing to the Games As Art dialogue that any upstanding indie game site should participate in.  His core focus was to make the gameplay and rules that are the focus of the medium into the expression of the artistic purpose, rather than letting storytelling, graphics, and music be the art.  If you get the following.  So basically the game has a set of rules that you uncover on your own (though you can read his site for an explanation), but his point is to figure out and interpret the rules and meanings of the game on your own.  It's very simplistic, but he's a screenshot for people who won't download something without seeing what it is (ie graphics whores):



Of course, it's entirely up to your own opinions as to whether it qualifies as art or not.  So, your thoughts?  Wankery, or high art?
Logged
DrDerekDoctors
THE ARSEHAMMER
Level 8
******



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2007, 11:56:29 AM »

Well, of course I can't say whether it's art or not, but it plays like shit.
Logged

Me, David Williamson and Mark Foster do an Indie Games podcast. Give it a listen. And then I'll send you an apology.
http://pigignorant.com/
shinygerbil
Blew Blow (Loved It)
Level 10
*


GET off your horse


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2007, 12:04:52 PM »

Pile of crap, and pretentious to boot, but if the creator thinks it's art, then it is...
Logged

olücæbelel
Derek
Bastich
Administrator
Level 10
******



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2007, 12:07:17 PM »

Pile of crap, and pretentious to boot, but if the creator thinks it's art, then it is...

That's probably the best line I've heard on the "Games as Art" debate yet.  Is it possible to just end it there? Smiley
Logged
Bezzy
Level 5
*****


Loves the Gloves


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2007, 12:09:14 PM »

  So, your thoughts?  Wankery, or high art?

Can't it be both?

Me and my mate JP have been talking about/working with this approach to mechanic design for aaaaages. We called it "Naked Design", and it's all about the idea that while a core system can be represented by a number of different metaphors, without any metaphor, there's still a Logos Ex Machina - a message in the machine.

Studio Denki (i think?) used the idea of prototyping with super simplified graphics before going into the art stage a long time ago, too, but that was more the nascant idea of prototyping than being particularly artistically minded, I think. Can't be sure about that.

The abstract shooter I did was all about representation of depth and space, but also took on an abstract look in an attempt to disassociate the gameplay with reality, so that presumptions weren't made on the player's side, and thus, were never contradicted by the whacky physics (which let you crash into hill sides for speed boosts etc... or tried to). More and more it started to just look like funny shaped space ships, so I failed there.

The game I'm working on now can have its core mechanic represented by a number of different metaphors ("Skins" if you will) but the central mechanic stays the same. I think there's a strong message in the game's mechanics for the people willing to read into it that deeply. I use a range of metaphors (including very abstract ones) to highlight the idea that the game portrays a system which reoccurs all over the place in real life. So I'm trying to (stealthily) make the point that there's a transient nature to mechanic and metaphor - they seem to slide over each other like layers. A metaphor cannot systemically affect a mechanic, but to say they're completely separate things is also wrong, I think:

Metaphor does imply and guide an interpretation of the underlying systemic message - change your Terrorists into Little girls, and you're going to start playing with people's pre-concieved notions of what to do to each, even though they may act systemically identical. It may not change the game, but it changes how the player reacts to it, and thus changes the feedback loop of human interaction. So, a metaphor is a lot like a filtered lense. A totally abstract metaphor like the one above is a bit like "white light" - untainted and undistorted by the lense. It has (or aims to have) no preconceptions brought to the table.

As I found out, though, nothing is truely abstract. Everything you can think of brings cognative association. The squares, for instance. I see that they're squares, which makes me think of straight lines and axes (axises :p ), so I assume that the squares might only be able to move vertically and horizontally. I could be wrong. I could be right. Either way, I'm making assumptions about the mechanics based purely on how it loos. Likewise, the circles represent for me something that I'd expect to move freely in 360 degrees.

Cognative association is unavoidable, so it's pretty hard to reach anything like pure abstraction outside of your own head.

There's more to it that that... sorry. I'm just skimming the subject. Erm. I think I might sound a bit wankey myself.

Not to take anything away from this guy - just saying, he's not alone in this idea. It has always Interested me.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2007, 12:14:48 PM by Bezzy » Logged

fish
DOOMERANG
Level 10
*


cant spell selfish without fish


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2007, 12:45:13 PM »

art is in the intention.
thats always been my definition.
Logged

Bezzy
Level 5
*****


Loves the Gloves


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2007, 01:53:12 PM »

But there's lots of examples of things that are taken to be art, but there was never any intention of art in the makers.

Me, I think art is amorphous: pretty subjective, and you can't pin it down elegantly. Too many exceptions proving too many rules.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2007, 04:49:52 PM by Bezzy » Logged

KoKo5oVaR
Level 0
*



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2007, 01:54:45 PM »

"As such its certainly meant to be enjoyable but not entertaining in the traditional sense most games are."

If this is art, i've enjoyed this as much as i can enjoy modern art paintings Grin


So to say, boring. But of course, this is all really subjective  Smiley.
Logged

Bezzy
Level 5
*****


Loves the Gloves


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2007, 03:33:01 PM »

Huh. Now I've actually played it. I think you really can start to piece together a mental model of how you feel he feels about marriage.

However, it might say more about what I think about marriage than what he intended. Such is art!

SPOILERS, I suppose

[spoiler]

I guess I associate happiness with the size of the block (because they die when they're too small). Transparency, I would say represents their love of one another - interestingly it's an assymetrical relationship. again, when it "fades", their love has faded. LOL: a lit crit pun! Loss of Love! HAHA! Shut up me.

It seems like the circles are these outside interests - work, or people, or culture. The blue square (guessing it's the man) wants to explore these things. He also seems to exhaust himself/become upset/less happy when you prod him to go back toward his wife, while this doesn't seem to happen when you prod his wife toward him. I'd infer that this means she loves the attention, and doesn't mind giving it, while he doesn't mind accepting it, but finds it hard to give since he's focussing on his passion! STOP BOTHERING ME, WOMAN FACE! THIS ART GAME IS GOING TO SET THE INTERNET ON FIRE FOR A WEEK OR TWO!

She's made happy by his attention. He's made happy by being able to look outside the relationship. He feels stifled by too much lovin' and attention, and feels perhaps a bit tied down. He balances this by being interested in life outside marriage.

Slightly emergent part, which might not be intentional (but if it is, it's pretty clever) - if one person gets too much happier than the other, they get so big that they surround the other, and the smaller block never seems to be able to escape the bigger one, and look at outside interests. I guess the big one could be said to be a partner who is so happy that they're larger than life, and stifle the other. Or, perhaps, if you give too much attention to the other, they get used to it, and suddenly all you're doing is trying to perform impossibly high upkeep, leaving you no time to look elsewhere... no time for yourself.

[/spoiler]

I actually really like this thing. It's made me think that I'm probably a bit of a sociopath, and better off without a girlfriend.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2007, 03:35:07 PM by Bezzy » Logged

Alevice
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2007, 03:41:24 PM »

The mental model certainly does affect the interpretation, regardless you spoiled yourself reading his intended meaning.

I see much of the relationship as an attempt of domination over the other person, primarily the woman over the man. Keeping them togheter benefits the most to the woman, to the point of total consumption over the man (substracting his personality and will out of the equation). The man seems to grow more when they are somewhat distant to each other, sufficing (sp?) his will and ego over other matters (other women, like lovers, or even his mother, perhaps?), meaning he doesn't get much benefit on the relationship (or at least he feels like it). The control of the player would seem to be an indirect influence over their thoughts, and any attempt to direct involvement (ie, clicking) will gets matters just worse.
Logged

moi
Level 10
*****


DILF SANTA


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2007, 02:48:34 PM »

If this is art, i've enjoyed this as much as i can enjoy modern art paintings Grin


So to say, boring. But of course, this is all really subjective  Smiley.
When I was younger I really hated this sort of paintings(I'm in my thirties now), but the older I grow the more I find it enjoyable for some reason, don't know why. Maybe it's related with the way the brain works when you get old...
Logged

subsystems   subsystems   subsystems
Anthony Flack
Level 5
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2007, 10:51:22 PM »

It's a nice enough picture.

I think perhaps when you are young, or maybe forever if you never get over it, you have certain expectations that an artist is required to impress you with their skill or insight in some immediately obvious way. But really, it is sometimes enough to just have some nice shapes and nice colours together. It doesn't have to be clever or symbolic - especially if it's something you are going to be living with in your house. It can be just a simple, relaxing thing like having a nice flower garden.

It probably doesn't help that there is this big, ridiculous hierarchy around art that has been built up by academics, dealers, buyers, and galleries. It makes everything come across as so self-important, so competitive. Nobody likes to be told that something they don't like has been officially deemed "great". People resent the fact that certain paintings sell for millions of dollars; and quite rightly really because it's absurd. But beneath all the bullshit it's really quite an innocent, simple thing.
Logged

Currently in development: Cletus Clay
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic