next »

[mirosurabu]

I find it interesting that most developers don't like to explain or at least make their "art" experimental games more approachable to people who are not used to their supposedly innovative piece of work. The usual excuse is - it will ruin the experience, though the only kind of real excuse I can see for someone not willing to explain their experimental work or make it more approachable is either laziness or inability to explain it.

Having a separate article (an artist creator's statement) describing what you tried to do with your experimental work can only aid. I can't see how it can ruin experience, especially when it's not part of the game and players are not obligated to read it. It's only meant for people who don't seem to grasp the concept.

There are many other ways to make your experimental art approachable. It does not need to be an artist statement. Using hints in your game or making somewhat abstract tutorial make only portion of what can be done.

The importance of such verbal assistance to experimental games is huge for several reasons:

1) To separate your work from placebo and randomly created work
2) To prove that your idea is great
3) To introduce it to more people and potentially base the foundation for such concept

The idea that people should understand art games on their own is funny mainly because of well-known "placebo effect" - effect which is largely caused by imagination of the evaluator and not the product itself. Further, it's not possible for people to understand new, supposedly innovative works. Most people operate from different mindsets and in order to grasp a ground-breaking idea they have to switch to a different one in order to fully understand it.

Discuss.

[rob]

Do you want David Lynch to get up on a podium and say, "Hey, guys, let me explain Mullholand Drive for all you. Basically, what I was trying to do was..."

Art is an entirely subjective field and the artist trying to give people a definition of their work would only ruin it. Have you ever thought a piece of work (art, music, game, movie, sculpture- whatever) meant one thing, but upon finding the artist's intention got disappointed?

[mirosurabu]

I changed some words in my original post. I don't want to discuss about art in general, though I could. Just so that we can keep things simple.

We talk about experimental games. Stick to experimental games.

[Bree]

I say artists should have a statement, but it shouldn't be read until after the player has finished the game. I always find it interesting to hear other artists talk about their work, and allowing people to see what they were trying to do allows them to figure out what worked and what didn't.

[JLJac]

Well, sometimes art(games) are made to have multiple interpretations. And some art(games) are made to say something about the one experiencing, based on what he/she thinks and feels, rather than about the artist and his/her thoughts and feelings.

To some point I think I agree with you. An art(game) should deliver a thought or feeling clearly enough to be understood, but I think that piece of emotion or that line of thought should be brought to the one experiencing clearly within the game, not as a separate entety.

If you need to tell people what to think about a piece of art or an experimental game you have failed at the art's original purpose, which is making people think or feel when being exposed to the art.

[Renton]

Do you want David Lynch to get up on a podium and say, "Hey, guys, let me explain Mullholand Drive for all you. Basically, what I was trying to do was..."

Actually, I do want that. I didn't understand shit in that movie.

[Bree]

Even if a game is meant to have multiple interpretations or is meant to be introspective, the artist should still have intended to do so; otherwise, we're back to "placebo art". An artist's statement is meant to explain what an artist was attempting to convey or what response they wanted to provoke, and it doesn't necessarily have to include their own thoughts and feelings on the matter.

[JLJac]

But must "placebo art" be a bad thing? The main thing is what feelings it communicates to the one consuming the art, not how the art was made, nah?

(Semi joking )

[Bree]

When I said "placebo art", I was referring back to the original post, where he mentioned the placebo effect- in this case, where the viewer will find meaning that the creator didn't intend. This isn't necessarily a bad thing- in fact, a lot of the most enduring works of art allow many people to see many different things. However, I feel like an artist should at least try and give some meaning of their own to the work, rather than just making a random pattern and giving it an abstract name.

[Ivan]

I don't see why that is important. Isn't it more important to invoke something in the viewer? Isn't that what we make things for? Why do you care so much to know if the person who made it had some concrete design in mind if the end result is something that connects with you on some level?

[mirosurabu]

@Toastie

I wouldn't care if I could connect.

When I played "Passage" for the first time, it made no sense to me. After reading short description about the game and then replaying it - I could understand the design idea behind the game and I was able to connect. And how many people understood "Passage" when they played it shortly after its release?

The reason I care that much is because I find it interesting that some designers are not willing to discuss their design ideas because it will 'ruin the experience'.

[Bree]

Because if we can figure out what evoked those responses, then we can use them to create bigger and better experiences. I'm not saying they need to have a totally concrete design; even something as simple as "I wanted to make the player cry" would be enough. If they show that as their intent, then we can look at the game they've designed and figure out what worked and what didn't.

The artist's statement is meant to show the intent of their work so that one can gauge how successful they were. This is not only beneficial to the growth of the artist, but the growth of the medium itself. If you want to make a game just for the hell of it, that's fine. But isn't there a small part of you that wants to make something greater? Make something with meaning, or purpose? Video games are still a young form- we have a lot of work to do if we're going to make it great. More communication between artists and viewers is only going to help our chances of improving.

[Problem Machine]

If the thesis of a game could be accurately described with words, what's the point of the game? The reason the game exists in the first place is because words are inadequate.

[Bree]

The statement is not meant to replace the art itself; saying "I want to make a game that will make you cry" is not the same as actually making the player cry. That's not its job. And if you can't articulate what you are trying to accomplish in words, then you need to think harder about your idea.

[Fuzz]

if you can't articulate what you are trying to accomplish in words, then you need to think harder about your idea.

This is the main problem I see with artist statements and the like. They follow this pattern of thinking, that words are the ultimately pure medium and we must explain everything using them. I say, bullshit. Art is for art's sake, and you don't need to have a clearly defined, categorical meaning for it.

[Peevish]

I was in art school for four years. I hate artist statements with a fiery burning anger.

But seeing one written for a game is a curiosity.

Still, a game is by nature pretty self-explanatory, since the player has to understand how to interact with it. It always seemed silly to assign people in media arts to write artist statements. Movies and games and music tend to be less abstract than paintings or sculptures.

[mirosurabu]

I don't argue that people should encourage other people to read creator's statement before playing game, but rather that creators should write creator's statement. You argue as if I claimed the first one. Argue why one should not write creator's statement, or why one does not.

Not everyone can connect with experimental game. Even people who like and enjoy experimental games cannot connect to most experimental games out there. There has to be a way to make it easier for people who are operating from different mindsets. Creator's statement is one way to help with this issue.

Creator's statements are also useful to communicate design ideas, as Matthew said.

Also, I changed topic title to "Creator's Statement". I want us to stick to experimental games not art in general.

[Captain_404]

If games were a fully, or even mostly developed art medium (oh no! I said "art"!) I could see more foundation for the argument that games should not be accompanied by artist statements, but in a society where much of the medium's own community does not consider it art I think they can be immensely helpful.

Even within the gaming independent community, I still see splits on the idea that games can even be a valid artform to begin with. Pop culture regards the medium as some sort of trash to be purged from the earth, a great big thanks to scandal-hungry media for that one. Maybe it's just because I'm from Midwest America, but when I even mention that I write games to people they seem to instantly sneer at me, assuming I'm making some sort of "Hot Coffee" game; I have to slow down and explain that games aren't at all what the public perceives them to be.

If culture regards us in this way, how do we expect to ever be taken seriously as an art form?


I'm not saying that artist statements are the only answer to this problem, they are most certainly not, but I do think they can help. As a still growing, still young medium, it would be a great start if we treat our own games as art before we expect the rest of the world to.


I guess I see the statements as training wheels. Maybe someday we'll finally figure out this bike-riding thing and never have to again be slowed down by such clumsy wheels, but until then we're stuck with them.

[TheBlackMask]

If games were a fully, or even mostly developed art medium (oh no! I said "art"!) I could see more foundation for the argument that games should not be accompanied by artist statements, but in a society where much of the medium's own community does not consider it art I think they can be immensely helpful.

My thoughts exactly.  Video games are something that are still not often considered art, and statements help to clarify things in the game that might not have been obvious.  In about 10 years, once video games have matured a little as a medium, I can see the lack of a need for statements, but right now, I believe that sometimes they are a necessity.

I am surprised that nobody has really mentioned the fact that statements do vary in quality.  There is a huge difference between attaching a statement that says "hey, this is why this game is art" and making your statement actually assist in provoking thought on the subject matter.

[Aik]

Hmm, no - usually those statements come across as pretentious and reading them can suck the enjoyment out of just playing the game. I don't play an art game (or any game, really) to think about what it means - thinking about that gets in the way of playing/experiencing it.

An exception I'll make is if you're being crucified because of how people see your game (e.g. Super Columbine Massacre RPG). That creator's statement exists with good reason.