next »

[DavidCaruso]

You pretty much summed up all the emotions video games can produce: fear, thrill, wonder, excitement. That's pretty much it, the same kinds of emotions you can get out of programming, just a little bit more fun, rewarding and comforting. That's how I feel about them.

Sure, you might get those kinds of emotions in some form with programming, but you're not going to get them to even nearly the same degree as if you played a great videogame. In terms of degree, no other artform compares to games for these emotions.

Not that I'm saying that "current artgames" are better at doing it. Not at all. I just find it amusing that people claim that video games are on par with, say, music, or films, when it comes to emotions.

Uhh, they are. In fact, with the singular exception of making people sad and crying, they're shittons better. Why is making people sad and crying seen as such a lofty and noble goal, anyway? It's the most worthless emotion to evoke I could possibly think of, but it's held up as some sort of ultimate ideal that videogames must achieve in order to be on par with 1) Citizen Kane and 2) Schindler's List (the only two movies ever mentioned in videogame art debates, everyone seems to always forget about Blade Runner or A Fistful of Dollars or The Lord of The Rings or Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark or Psycho or Die Hard or Aliens or...)

Also, I praise "artgames movement", not necessarily the output.

The concept behind the movement is what leads to the output. If games aren't already art and they have to become more like good movies or novels to be art, then you get games that are like good movies or novels instead of good games, a.k.a. bad games. As much as the "artgamers" claim to hate modern games, what they're doing is just furthering the movie-ification of games a hundredfold.

EDIT: yeah someone should prob just make a General A.R.T.Game Discussion thread for this lol

[mirosurabu]

In terms of degree, no other artform compares to games for these emotions.

There is a lot of goosebump-y music (that I don't call art) that is far more superior in conveying these emotions (all that trance music comes to mind). But that's not the point. The point is that these feelings are very basic and you can easily get them through systematization (which programming is all about). The point of art games on the other hand is not in systemizing, but in identifying with complex human emotions. And this is, as far as I understand, the cornerstone of art, while the former is the cornerstone of science (and immersion is the cornerstone of escapism, which is a subset of fun).

They are both good, but are generally mutually-exclusive in that it's hard to combine them. So, given that most games are about systemizing things, I find it amusing that people are so keen to call games 'art' when they are generally not. They are fun, like trance music is, but they have little to do with empathizing. And while this whole 'stories in games trend' tried hard to make them more artistic, in the end, I'd rather pick up a book than bother with a game story, as quite often, they are simple stories for people who do not care about stories.. ya know, like that sax solo in Katy Perry's "Last Friday Night" song.

Why is making people sad and crying seen as such a lofty and noble goal, anyway?

It's about making people empathize with other people suffering. That's a positive trait, isn't it?

Now, it's a different problem that your average art-game is stupidly over-sentimental.

[s0]

There is a lot of goosebump-y music (that I don't call art) that is far more superior in conveying these emotions (all that trance music comes to mind).

Do you mean trance as in the electronic dance music subgenre, or "trance-inducing" music in general?

Also, your definition of art is pretty bizarre. Art has to be about "empathizing" and "complex humans emotions?" I could name you tons upon tons of works almost universally considered "art," even "high art" that are about neither.

[mirosurabu]

EDM subgenre.

It might not be the most inclusive definition, but then it's not like there is simple definition of art. In general, I'm pretty sure that the concept of interpretation (which is firmly tied to the concept of empathy) is foundation of most if not all art. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'm also sure that systematization is opposite to what makes art.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

art isn't just about emotions tho; even if it were true that the emotional range of games were more limited than other forms, that has nothing to do with art. emotions are a very crude and limited form of aesthetics (e.g. if you just focus on emotions, the art you get tends toward melodrama). i prefer to think of emotions in art as a tool for the more important things in art, emotions are helpful in achieving certain artistic effects, but aren't the ends in themselves, the goal of art should never just be to make the viewer/player/reader/listener feel some emotion and nothing else, it also needs to engage the intellect, the imagination, the conscience, etc., not just the heart

games are especially good at the conscience part of that, since they're one of the only forms of art that's interactive. it's easier to make the player feel proud of what they've done, ashamed of what they've done, amazed at what they've done, regretful of what they've done, self-satisfied of what they've done, uneasy about what they've done, defensive about what they've done, etc., in games than elsewhere

also, since they are often complicated systems, creating complex simulations with or without real-life verisimilitude is a great way to engage the intellect (as in sim-city, civilization, and other sim and strategy games, as well as some puzzle games like spacechem)

so basically i think the focus on emotions in art is a dead-end where games are concerned, and it's more fruitful to understand and use the other aspects of art besides emotion when we attempt to make our games more artistic. with my last game immortal defense, in reviews, when people talked about it being art, the seldom mentioned it making them feel emotions, instead they said it "made them think", or that it made them feel regret over actions they made

[mirosurabu]

Empathy/interpretation have a lot of thinking involved. It's not like emotions are just sensory perception. But the point is that that sort of thinking is considerably different to analytical goal-oriented thinking.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

it's true that the reflection involved in art requires "dead-time", but that is really no problem. you can think about the game in between stages, on loading screens, during "the end", during "game over", during dialogue, or even when the game is paused. the state of the mind of the player isn't constantly in 'solve the problem' mode, sometimes it's resting between challenges, and sometimes it also operates on habit because it already knows how to do the goal and it's running on automatic. during those times aesthetic appreciation can be cultivated

some games intentionally take advantage of this, pacing the game between challenges and rest time. having areas which are challenging, and having areas with no challenge that the player just moves through easily. rpgs are particularly notable for this, the actual 'goal-oriented' part of the rpgs happens in battles, outside of battles there's more time for reflection

[mirosurabu]

That's what I call the "whole package" approach which I think sucks for reasons I outlined in another thread before (I think).

I believe there is a right way to do 'interactive reflection', it's just that game developers are not much interested in it or are just way too distanced from games to be able to look for 'right' mechanics. It's hard, but worth the effort IMO.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

understandable, but i tend to be dismissive of theories of game design which dismiss vast portions of videogames (entire genres, etc.) as not doing things right. if they fundamentally weren't doing things right, there would not be such a high demand for them. e.g. if jrpgs were truly horrible abominations which shouldn't exist, there wouldn't be so many jrpgs fans

basically i think a sophisticated and reasonable theory of games should take empiricism into account, and not just be theory alone, or dismiss what so many people like so easily

[mirosurabu]

I'm not saying they aren't doing things 'right', just that they are not art and that "art movement" is quite reasonable.

Good fun is good fun whether it's art or not.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

that'd depend on what one calls art i guess, but i feel that there are certainly a lot of people who feel that games like, say, photopia are art, even though they have very little interaction or mechanics

to me tho, i'm with icycalm in believing that all games are art, although i disagree with him when he says that the more fun a game is, the better art it is

[mirosurabu]

These are "art games", though if I'm correct, the term wasn't used until recently. Photopia, Varicella, Galatea, Facade, everything by Chris Crawford.. they all art games.

[removed repeating myself]

[DavidCaruso]

There is a lot of goosebump-y music (that I don't call art) that is far more superior in conveying these emotions (all that trance music comes to mind). But that's not the point. The point is that these feelings are very basic and you can easily get them through systematization (which programming is all about).

Links to these songs, please? I don't think any song ever made could even remotely touch Salamander 2 or Total Annihilation or Deus Ex in terms of conveying the emotions I described, sorry. And there's nothing basic about any of these feelings, and certainly nothing more basic about them than "empathy for the suffering." Videogame developers have to create extremely complex and involving systems to get us to feel these things, after all, and certainly more complex and involving systems than ToT (to name one prominent example) are making.

The point of art games on the other hand is not in systemizing, but in identifying with complex human emotions. And this is, as far as I understand, the cornerstone of art, while the former is the cornerstone of science (and immersion is the cornerstone of escapism, which is a subset of fun).

Not before the 20th century (when anything and everything became "art"), it wasn't! But glad to see that you've just singlehandedly dismissed Beowulf, the Iliad and Odyssey, Rembrandt and Michelangelo's paintings, the compositions of Bach and Beethoven, and much more as not art, because they don't "identify with complex human emotions" and because they don't require much "interpretation." Also, immersion is the cornerstone of art, not escapism (though the two are intricately linked.) The entirety of art history is artists finding better and better ways to engage the viewer. The trend continues from cavemen times until the 19th century (notice how much more engaging this is than this, thanks to more developed forms and techniques) in painting, and then photography and film killed painting so it continued in those artforms instead. But in short: the best art is the most engaging art. You can see from the movies they like and consider art that even modern film critics agree (though occasionally something like Crash comes along and OMG EMOTIONS SO DEEPZ ARTZ), and old film critics like Pauline Kael certainly agreed.

It's about making people empathize with other people suffering. That's a positive trait, isn't it?

Think about this for a second. Why do you think so many good movies and novels use empathy as a device? It's not just thrown in there for the hell of it because of some "artistic intention" ffs; the purpose of empathy in novels and films is to attach us to the main characters, and help us identify with them. This is necessary because in movies and novels the protagonists are the lens which we're viewing the story through, so there has to be some degree of attachment and connection. But in videogames, you don't need to identify or be attached with the main characters -- you are the main characters already. The main character isn't the one struggling in a game; he was already preequipped with all the tools he needed to get through his journey, and if he hadn't been then the game would be unbeatable. You're the one struggling. So when a game replaces you struggling with some "character" struggling in a cutscene with marital problems or whatever, that's obviously a huge step backwards in every way.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

These are "art games", though if I'm correct, the term wasn't used until recently. Photopia, Varicella, Galatea, Facade, everything by Chris Crawford.. they all art games.

some would call them that, sure. but i'm not sure how that matters? a game is a game, regardless of whether it's called an art game or not

but okay, how about something like planescape torment: a lot of people feel it's art, but it's not really an "art game", and most of its aesthetic worth comes from the dialogue, not the mechanics. the mechanics (the battle system, equipment system, etc.) are not very good, there's nothing special about them compared to most games, it's highly thought of for reasons other than its mechanics

[shig]

just popping around to say that davidcaruso makes some really cool posts

[mirosurabu]

Not before the 20th century [..] it wasn't

No, aesthetics are based on the concept of beauty which itself is related to the beauty of relating to people and life through complicated process I'm not aware of that closely resembles empathy. This is basis of all art, before or after 20th century. (see Lipps)

But glad to see that you've just singlehandedly dismissed Beowulf, the Iliad and Odyssey, Rembrandt and Michelangelo's paintings, the compositions of Bach and Beethoven, and much more as not art, because they don't "identify with complex human emotions" and because they don't require much "interpretation."

You're taking words out of context. Sure, realism (and to an extent baroque) is less about interpretation, and it's more mundane, but it's completely based on empathy, which is not strange, because its, um, realistic? (see Worringer)

Also, Bach and Beethoven, you smoking or what?

the best art is the most engaging art. You can see from the movies they like and consider art that even modern film critics agree

Which is not strange, because art should be engaging, but it should be art to begin with, which video games aren't, as the critic you're citing would say. They are just engaging and that's it. There are lots of super-engaging things that aren't call art, because they are just... engaging. (otherwise, I urge you to declare trance music as the greatest music ever because it's so engaging, it gives you goosebumps all the time)

I'm going to ignore the last paragraph.

edit:

Videogame developers have to create extremely complex and involving systems to get us to feel these things, after all, and certainly more complex and involving systems than ToT

ToT don't deal with systems at all and thus their games are simplistic. Regardless of that, their games are overly simplistic, but the systems in games you talk a lot about aren't extremely complex either (albeit much more complex than those in ToT games) and I can explain how and why, but I don't see the point of that really, because this is irrelevant.

[mirosurabu]

some would call them that, sure. but i'm not sure how that matters? a game is a game, regardless of whether it's called an art game or not

but okay, how about something like planescape torment: a lot of people feel it's art, but it's not really an "art game", and most of its aesthetic worth comes from the dialogue, not the mechanics. the mechanics (the battle system, equipment system, etc.) are not very good, there's nothing special about them compared to most games, it's highly thought of for reasons other than its mechanics

I didn't have a chance to properly play PST yet, but I've seen it's something like a text-heavy RPG.

[:^)]

Post-art utopia.

[gimymblert]

@DAVID CARUSO
:WTF: Do you realize that this idea of immediacy is a post modern idea based on the distrust of the narrative of tradition? It happen that art was formerly tied to the sacred function and progressively set it apart from it. As such it was always highly codified and made heavy use of allegory (which Rembrandt was a master of). Not knowing the allegory is missing most of the subtleties of those old painting.

It was only when the bourgeoisie rise as a powerful class that art start to stray from its formerly spiritual function to something more pleasurable (and full of puppies). The portraits for exemple was meant to represent power, first it depicts gods and then it depicts king (servants of gods), to show their power this class start to use portraits to show their success (because they were expensive). By semantic slippery it came to be the dominant representation of people.

SO art was always about a sort of meaning, it is only with the advent of postmodernism that rules, structure and meaning came to be unwanted and rise in two grand group (imho) immediacy and rejection of thought (pollocks which is ironically exactly what you describe art must be), or the deconstruction movement (Kandinsky, malevitch, duchamps, etc...).

What's more ironic is that art school are still driven by tradition, and because of that we are teach the way of the ancient and how they use to compose their arts, they left plenty writing and proof, the use of "canon" always had agenda. It was always about meaning (beauty back then was a philosohical matter, a view on the world, not at all the engaging immediacy "iLike" we have today which is a post modern construct).

/knee jerk reaction

[1982]

Oh christ, all games are art. Just like music, films, books or whatever inside our culture. There is no use to debate are they or are they not, because it is impossible to draw line between art and non-art. Meaningful discussion however is that is something good art or bad art, and why.

From wiki:

Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.

That doesn't rule anything out.

Life is easier when you accept it. And in the end, it is the only truth about art.

Arma2 is as much art as Braid. My personal opinion is, that ArmA is even better art mostly because from emotional stand point. I usually value emotion quite a lot when I value art.