next »

[vorpaldinger]

A game that is made as an artistic exercise need not necessarily be entertaining to be successful, it only needs to be evocative, and if there's an underlying theme or exploration, it needs to get its point across or reach a conclusion.

The expectation for games that exist outside the 'art project' bubble is that they be fun in some way.

Pretty simple distinction, but it's not to say that an art game can't be fun.

[tsameti]

Art-game is sort of its own genre (or sub-genre, whatevs)

I guess, but if you look at Daniel Benmergui's interactive poetry games and compare them to Passage's exploration style, or Flower's flying/collecting gameplay, there's not really a mechanical uniformity to say that they can fall into the same genre.

It's more like a shared intent.

Apocalypse Now is a film with strong artistic aspirations, and even moreso is The 400 Blows, but they don't have much in common beyond 'hey, feel something'.

But don't let me run into a gamedev calling his/her game art, because I will lose my mind! And god knows what I'm capable of in such a position.

I don't know if I'm agreeing with the intent of this statement, but I do feel there are a couple folks who are trying to use the term 'art' when they haven't really earned it. They produce a game (often a platformer) with a visual style that's interesting but honestly, only for the sake of being interesting, without a specific intention to what they're trying to say. So you end up with something that isn't as fun as it needs to be, hoping to coast on its sense of style.

But I don't know if it's fair to get angry about it. Art's hard to make, sometimes even for Artists. At least they're trying, maybe they'll figure it out on their next project.

[joulimousis]

tsameti, the angry part is just a joke. I would never get angry for something this small.

Agree on everything you wrote by the way.

[RCIX]

It may be the way you worded it, but how it comes off is "I don't like it, and if I don't like it then you should stop doing it" with no regard to whether others like the game.

Take Small Worlds for an example. This is, IMO, the quintessential example of an art game. Simple, light on actual gameplay, but with plenty of meaning and room for interpretation packed in. Finally, an interesting art style makes it pull you in (hopefully).

[joulimousis]

The post is about how we call something, not about if "it" should exist or not. Of course I want all kind of games, keep doing it!

[Ant]

Take Small Worlds for an example. This is, IMO, the quintessential example of an art game. Simple, light on actual gameplay, but with plenty of meaning and room for interpretation packed in. Finally, an interesting art style makes it pull you in (hopefully).

To me it's a platformer, I don't see why it needs to be tagged as 'art'.

All games have gameplay so all games can be categorised including 'art' games. Passage is an adventure game, Majesty of Color is a puzzle game, etc. The quality or meaning of the game shouldn't have any impact on its category.

[rogerlevy]

i agree, i think that calling ones own game an "art game" is, first and foremost ... pompous?  it's definitely not very confidence inspiring. 

hopefully one day we'll be so up to our ears in truly artistic games, that such a term will be so tacky that using "art" to describe your own creation  would be considered professional suicide.

[deathtotheweird]

i agree, i think that calling ones own game an "art game" is, first and foremost ... pompous?  it's definitely not very confidence inspiring. 

hopefully one day we'll be so up to our ears in truly artistic games, that such a term will be so tacky that using "art" to describe your own creation  would be considered professional suicide.

How is it pompous? If someone calls their game a "great art game" then that would be pompous. Art game describes what type of game it is, now how good it is or how meaningful it may be.

[s0]

Why "semantics"?

Also who actually uses the term "art game" to describe their own games? I can't say I know anyone.

[Brother Android]

 

I agree with that sentiment, though; the terms we choose are inevitably going to be imprecise, since we're people. I think "art game" is fine in the same way "art pop" or "art metal" is fine; they denote examples of an artform whose artiness is specifically emphasized. It's not dissing anyone else's creations, or at least, I've never interpreted it as such.

[VomitOnLino]

i agree, i think that calling ones own game an "art game" is, first and foremost ... pompous?  it's definitely not very confidence inspiring. 

hopefully one day we'll be so up to our ears in truly artistic games, that such a term will be so tacky that using "art" to describe your own creation  would be considered professional suicide.

How is it pompous? If someone calls their game a "great art game" then that would be pompous. Art game describes what type of game it is, now how good it is or how meaningful it may be.

I believe that's a red herring, if art was art solely bound by the artists declaration of this work being art then - I would not be able to see any merit in the term art. I think art is perceived as a work of art by the ones consuming (reading, seeing, touching ... etc.) it. The reasons for such feelings can be manifold, most often implementing the evocation of emotion of some sort. Conclusively it could be said, that before becoming famous and well regarded painters such as Dali or Van Gogh were and actually are just that - painters.

Then, on an entirely different level, there is a problem with the word (video)game, as someone already pointed out. If you are willing to take off the rose tinted glasses for a second - you will realize that the term (video)game means - in a way - canned enjoyment. It's a quick and actually quite young form of entertainment media. Of course now you're gripping your heart through your "Atari 2600 Forever!" shirt, but the fact that you are nostalgic about the medium, and/or part of the community doesn't change what the term (video)game implies.

For me if it's not so much being offended by the term art-game, as in such that I feel that it's frankly quite a ham-fisted term to emerge from the depths of the web. I think terms like "interactive art" would be much more descriptive of what you get. Also, as a bonus, you're free from a lot of negative connotations that are attached to the term "game".

The other thing is that you will notice that no where on his website Jason declares his works as art games or art in any other term for that matter. He leaves the judgement, rightly as he should , with the viewer.

[deathtotheweird]

He leaves the judgement, rightly as he should , with the viewer.

Sure.

But really, why do people put so much effort in making a big deal about this? It's not really a big deal, it's not really worth of the amount of discussion it's given. The argument really doesn't change every time it's brought up.

Keep this shit on your personal blogs and off TigSource at the very least.

[The Monster King]

dunno man as far as i know most people dont call their "art games" that themselves, usually its a name given by someone that sticks

usually its given to games that either dont have fun as a primary goal or that dont have the "game" part as the most important, that part being completion of objective, usually its games that are both. If they're pretty abstract too they tend to get put in "art games".

ive never seen devs call their games art games themselves, and even if they did its a way to show that they want to do things differently and in what direction, im not sure what makes you so angry about that, its not like being an art game automatically makes it good or bad, it could be great and it could be shit.

i agree its not worth to whine and make an argument out of it

[s0]

I think terms like "interactive art" would be much more descriptive of what you get. Also, as a bonus, you're free from a lot of negative connotations that are attached to the term "game".

No because interactive art has been around for longer than- and is only tangentially related to "art games". Genre names like this are never just "technical descriptions" (as much as we'd want them to be), they're inextricably bound to the context from which they emerged.

Or to put it in a less abstract way, it's not a good idea to just lump art games in with interactive art because they both come from a completely different "scene". There's very little, if any, overlap between art game developers and people who design interactive installations and stuff.

Art games are called "art games" because they've emerged from the gaming subculture and are, as of now, still part of it. 99% of all art game devs have a gaming and/or game dev background (Tale of Tales is one exception I think), art games are discussed on gaming sites on the internet and are mostly consumed by gamers.

So even if people might consider some "art games" to be "not games" in a "technical" sense (even though I disagree with that, but whatever), they're still games by virtue of the cultural context they exist in.
 

[VomitOnLino]

I think terms like "interactive art" would be much more descriptive of what you get. Also, as a bonus, you're free from a lot of negative connotations that are attached to the term "game".

No because interactive art has been around for longer than- and is only tangentially related to "art games". Genre names like this are never just "technical descriptions" (as much as we'd want them to be), they're inextricably bound to the context from which they emerged.

Or to put it in a less abstract way, it's not a good idea to just lump art games in with interactive art because they both come from a completely different "scene". There's very little, if any, overlap between art game developers and people who design interactive installations and stuff.

Art games are called "art games" because they've emerged from the gaming subculture and are, as of now, still part of it. 99% of all art game devs have a gaming and/or game dev background (Tale of Tales is one exception I think), art games are discussed on gaming sites on the internet and are mostly consumed by gamers.

So even if people might consider some "art games" to be "not games" in a "technical" sense (even though I disagree with that, but whatever), they're still games by virtue of the cultural context they exist in.

You make a good argument, point taken.

[Nate Kling]

yeah that was a great post ca sinclair!  That was a really great explanation.

[neon]

i love new guy coming to the forum and making a thread about the validity of the term "ART GAME" and acting as if it's a profound, brand-new topic for discussion that is being raised for the first time.

new guy, we have had this discussion like 20 times.  none of those threads ended up being very constructive.  this one isn't going to either.

"all games are capable of being interpreted as art!  what distinguishes an "art game" from another game??  what a stupid label!!1  the very idea of art is subjective!!1 why not just call it a game???"

none of this is new.

[tsameti]

No, it's not new. But it's a topic that gets people interested and excited about game development.

I understand you've had the conversation before, but some folks haven't had the opportunity to participate in the discussion. Is there harm done if they come to the same conclusion that came before?

And what if they come to a different conclusion? Isn't that just as productive?

[moi]

Hey OP: you stop copypasting the same subject in different forums and I'll ask them to stop  saying "art games".
Deal?

[gimymblert]

Joining the party

There is:



"Artgame" and "game as art". It's an arbitrary classification, but made to convey intent and focus.

"Artgame" would focus on statement and leave entertainment secondary, if the former suffer from the second, the second will be sacrifice.
"Game as art" would focus on entertainment and leave statement secondary,  if the former suffer from the second, the second will be sacrifice.

The critic of one genre mirror the other.

ARTGAME are deride based on their weak gameplay.
Game as art are deride for their shallow meaning and fail attempt.





That and the fact that art is trivial in our era.