next »

[GregWS]

Quite the game indeed! 

Right, so what does everyone think about the game's meaning/themes?

(I'll hold off saying anything until I've finished it.)

[linger]

I'm having a little problem myself, stuck on the
One-screen room in door 3 that you return to a 2nd time, with a warping black bird in cage. I at first assumed I had to use the avatar-bird to free the other one from the cage, then drop a 2nd cage on top of it, but with the way the cage-bird warps around, that seems impossible 

I must have missed the "Tutorial" as well. Took me forever to figure out how the Right Mouse Button worked, making triangles and all. The atmosphere is pure ace, though. Does it remind anyone else of Yume Nikki?

Instead of unclear controls/direction, I think one of the game's biggest problem is the presentation of the sound. It's mixed oddly, with some sounds being way louder than they should be...the "switch from one-screen room to another," for example. I've also experienced a glitch where on some screens, after the music track plays through it doesn't loop, leaving everything in silence. Has anyone else seen this? Maybe it's supposed to be that way, but still...

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Quite the game indeed! 

Right, so what does everyone think about the game's meaning/themes?

(I'll hold off saying anything until I've finished it.)

I don't think it has any specific ones, and I think games that have them are worse art than games that do. What I mean is like, a game that's guided by conscious thought is always going to be inferior to a game that's guided by subconscious thought, and meaning/themes tend to exist more in games guided by conscious thought. I'm coming more to the tale-of-tales school of thought when it comes to art games than the jason rohrer / jon blow camp.

[muku]

I'm coming more to the tale-of-tales school of thought when it comes to art games than the jason rohrer / jon blow camp.

I think you can't lump Jason Rohrer and Jon Blow in the same camp. I recall this talk by Blow where he talked about dynamical meaning and how it interrelated with a game's narrative. One of his points, I think, was that the thought process behind Rohrer's typical games which is fully guided by attempting to translate a real-world subject into a game world via abstraction won't scale up to larger games, simply because at some point you will want to introduce a game mechanic which is at odds with the meaning of your carefully crafted "metaphorical" gameplay.

I'm bad at explaining this, but it was an excellent talk, I thought, and it changed the way I think about art (and) games.

As for Glum Buster, I haven't played too far yet, only the first chapter plus a bit of the second. I'm not completely convinced yet that it is the masterwork everyone seems to be making it out as, but it seems I'm warming up to it as I play more, so I'll hold off judgment for a bit longer.

From what I've seen so far, a discussion of the themes wouldn't seem too fruitful, much like Paul said. Then again, Greg has mentioned somewhere that one of the later chapters has a stronger implication of theme. So, again, I'll play some more.

In general, discussions of supposed themes of a piece of art to me often feel more like what the viewer wanted to see in it rather than what the creator wanted to put in it. Which is valid, I guess. In fact, one of the question I've been throwing around in my head a lot lately is what's more important in a piece of art: the creator's intention or what it evokes in the viewer's head?

[William Broom]

Seems to me like there isn't a huge focus on Themes and Symbolism. It's just a bunch of crazy stuff going on. I would be disappointed if I got to the end and it turned out that the grasshopper was a metaphor for your wife or some shit like that.

[pgil]

I'm having a little problem myself, stuck on the
One-screen room in door 3 that you return to a 2nd time, with a warping black bird in cage. I at first assumed I had to use the avatar-bird to free the other one from the cage, then drop a 2nd cage on top of it, but with the way the cage-bird warps around, that seems impossible 

Yeah, I had a lot of trouble with this one. I solved it though:

The black bird will warp around  whenever your avatar bird looks at it. As far as I know, the only way to hit it is to saturate the screen with bullets. You basically just have to fire like crazy in all directions until you hit the bird. Then when it turns gold, use the right mouse button to trap it in the blue triangle.

As for the game's meaning... I wouldn't worry about it too much 
It just looks like these kids have to free those different worlds of evil (the single screen parts), then find their way back home, getting help from the now harmless creatures.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I think you can't lump Jason Rohrer and Jon Blow in the same camp. I recall this talk by Blow where he talked about dynamical meaning and how it interrelated with a game's narrative. One of his points, I think, was that the thought process behind Rohrer's typical games which is fully guided by attempting to translate a real-world subject into a game world via abstraction won't scale up to larger games, simply because at some point you will want to introduce a game mechanic which is at odds with the meaning of your carefully crafted "metaphorical" gameplay.

I'm bad at explaining this, but it was an excellent talk, I thought, and it changed the way I think about art (and) games.

As for Glum Buster, I haven't played too far yet, only the first chapter plus a bit of the second. I'm not completely convinced yet that it is the masterwork everyone seems to be making it out as, but it seems I'm warming up to it as I play more, so I'll hold off judgment for a bit longer.

From what I've seen so far, a discussion of the themes wouldn't seem too fruitful, much like Paul said. Then again, Greg has mentioned somewhere that one of the later chapters has a stronger implication of theme. So, again, I'll play some more.

In general, discussions of supposed themes of a piece of art to me often feel more like what the viewer wanted to see in it rather than what the creator wanted to put in it. Which is valid, I guess. In fact, one of the question I've been throwing around in my head a lot lately is what's more important in a piece of art: the creator's intention or what it evokes in the viewer's head?

Will try to look for the talk, but I don't think Rohrer is primarily about metaphors (it's only his most well-known games that use them). And just because two people are grouped in the same camp doesn't mean they share all fundamental beliefs. But they are similar in both believing that the "art" characteristic of a game should be restricted to, and only to, its gameplay: the rules and so on. Whereas tale-of-tales often promotes the idea that the "art" characteristic of a game should make use of everything a game has to offer, including its visuals, sounds, text, and so on, and that focusing so much attention on delivering art through the gameplay and not through other means is going in the wrong direction. I actually had a conversation with Rohrer in an email where he entirely rejected the notion that the visuals of a game could produce an aesthetic effect, which I disagree with: many of the most artistic games to me are artistic because of their visual style (for instance, Okami, or many of Cactus's games).

I think there are certainly a few themes or ideas you can take away from the game, I don't mean that it's entirely themeless. I just think the themes aren't very important and not the point of the game. But one of the themes is that you can teach a player game mechanics without explaining them the way most other games do, just by letting the player play with the mechanics and learn them on his own. Aquaria and many other games did a similar thing, so it isn't unique to this game.

I don't think either the creator's intention or what it evokes in the player matters actually. Thought about a game, whether it's by the creator or by the player, is entirely besides the point. The game itself exists. It's an ecapsulated concrete experience, it produces specific experiences in people. In effect it's a sensory object. Interpretations are stupid, whether the creator does them or whether the player does them. They're just thoughts. Thought isn't what matters, reality is. As an analogy, lightning is lightning. It's not modern scientific theories of it, and it's not ancient theories of Zeus throwing it, it's lighting, it doesn't care what people think about it. Experiencing lighting, watching it flash in the sky, is far more important than any interpretation or theory about it, and next to that experience those interpretations can add little to nothing.

[muku]

I think the talk was this one: http://braid-game.com/news/?p=385

But they are similar in both believing that the "art" characteristic of a game should be restricted to, and only to, its gameplay: the rules and so on.

If that was true, Jon Blow wouldn't have hired an artist to pretty up his game for lots of money and instead stuck with his programmer art, I think? Unless you insinuate that he only did it so that the game would sell better, which doesn't seem like him at all for everything I know about him.

I think the beautiful visuals of Braid are a major contributing factor to its overall "artful" feeling (though I see that that is perhaps beside the point).

I don't think either the creator's intention or what it evokes in the player matters actually. Thought about a game, whether it's by the creator or by the player, is entirely besides the point.

I think I was a bit unclear here. When I spoke about what a game evokes in the player, I wasn't only talking about the purely analytical thoughts that may arise from trying to analyze the themes, but also the feelings and emotions that it creates. Surely, if you disregard all that, the game may just as well not exist at all?

My question is more along these lines: if the creator tried to convey a very particular message to me via his game, however I failed to catch his meaning, but was still entertained and even moved by the game's atmosphere and the emotions it creates, is this worth less than if I had caught the intended message?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Thanks for the link, will check it!

I don't think it's true that if you believe that the primary aspect of a game is its gameplay and that the gameplay need be artistic if a game is to be called artistic that you also have to believe that graphics are unimportant. Even Rohrer spends a great deal of time on the graphics of his games.

I think the idea that art should produce feelings and emotions is kind of overemphasized. What matters more in art to me is not feelings or emotions, but sensations: colors, sounds, sights, and all that, not thoughts and not feelings. I.e., usually, I think art primarily communicates with one's senses, not one's emotions or one's mind. What matters to me about Glum Buster, for instance, is not the feelings I get in different areas, and not the thoughts I have in different areas, but the actual *areas*, their colors, the things in them, the behavior of those things, the actual sights and sounds I get from the game.

[GregWS]

I actually had a conversation with Rohrer in an email where he entirely rejected the notion that the visuals of a game could produce an aesthetic effect, which I disagree with: many of the most artistic games to me are artistic because of their visual style (for instance, Okami, or many of Cactus's games).

Wow, I'm surprised he's so strong on that point.  And I'm with you on this one, you can have game that are art because of their visuals.

I don't think either the creator's intention or what it evokes in the player matters actually. Thought about a game, whether it's by the creator or by the player, is entirely besides the point. The game itself exists. It's an ecapsulated concrete experience, it produces specific experiences in people. In effect it's a sensory object. Interpretations are stupid, whether the creator does them or whether the player does them. They're just thoughts. Thought isn't what matters, reality is. As an analogy, lightning is lightning. It's not modern scientific theories of it, and it's not ancient theories of Zeus throwing it, it's lighting, it doesn't care what people think about it. Experiencing lighting, watching it flash in the sky, is far more important than any interpretation or theory about it, and next to that experience those interpretations can add little to nothing.

I totally disagree with this, because were it true, then games wouldn't really be a medium anymore, they'd just be reality, which doesn't make sense.  They are a medium though, so the meaning of the experience, the designers intention, how the player interacts; all of this is easily as important as the thing itself.  I say this because that's how it is in all other mediums, and I fail to see why it should be any different with games; interactivity isn't enough to change everything.

[GregWS]

I think the idea that art should produce feelings and emotions is kind of overemphasized.

See I have a huge problem with this, because that is the only tangible "function" of art.

Now it has to be said, I think art that produces subconcious, "fuzzy" feelings and emotions is better a lot of the time, and it's even better still if the creator of the art is feeling those "fuzzy" emotions while creating it.  To me, that ties it in to the intangible, and provides incredibly strong and heavily masked meanings.  But the meanings are there, and you can feel them when you experience the work, even if you don't fully understand them.

I guess a good way to explain this is that a game without meaning will feel like a game without meaning.   This: oijfwl;jawjf aoijfejo poighcxm,of sanvroqi. is clearly not a language.  This however: Los juegos pueden ser arte. (sorry for using a translate tool; my Spanish is very weak at the moment, and I need to get back to learning it) reads like a language, even if the person reading it can't read said language.  You can pick up on the subtleties and order/organization of the text, even if you can't decipher its meaning.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Yes, I realize the idea that art is primarily about emotions is pretty solidly entrenched, and I don't actually hope to convince anyone that it isn't. But at least realize that things that are solidly socially entrenched are not always true (in fact I suspect most of the time our common sense beliefs about anything are wrong). I don't think evoking emotions is the purpose or function or content of art, or that art that doesn't do that would be absent of meaning.

Well actually art can't *not* do that, just because all people have emotional reactions to everything they see and do. Even if you tried to create art that didn't evoke an emotional reaction, it would evoke some emotional reaction. It's unavoidable, because humans use emotions. But that doesn't mean the purpose or point of art is to evoke emotions just because it always does evoke them.

So to reiterate, what I value in art is experiential sensation, not thought and not emotion. I care about what my eyes see, what my ears hear. I don't care as much about what those sensations make me feel, because what they make me feel is largely idiosyncratic and unique to me, whereas the sensations are somewhat similar between people. We each of us will have different emotional reactions to the different areas in Glum Buster. But most of us will see the same sights and hear the same sounds when we play Glum Buster. And I think that those sensations are the real meat of Glum Buster, not the feelings they evoke.

[PGGB]

What's your take on music then? The feelings that are evoked by music are generally at least to some degree agreed on. So that would mean that you either have some value in the emotions that are evoked or no music at all.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Well, I don't listen to music in order for it to evoke emotions in me, even though it unavoidably will. The exception is music to exercise by: in that case what I'm after are the emotions, because I want them to help me exercise. But when I normally listen to music, I listen to it to hear the music itself, not to evoke particular emotions. I think the music itself is usually the whole point, not the emotions it evokes.

So I'd say that it's a mistake to assume that the purpose of music is just to evoke emotions: music is harmony, music is melody, music is rhythm. Those things can be a pleasure to experience, as ends in themselves. The way a melody unfolds, the beauty of how particular instruments sound, and so on -- to reduce those to just feelings is almost devaluing music.

[mirosurabu]

Off-topic,

But the way you describe what art games should be like or games in general makes me think that the greatest example of art game is "Alone in the Dark 2: Jack is Back" from early 90's. That game was all about emotions, atmosphere, weirdness, exploration and vagueness. There's little to no text in the game, if we don't count the books from the game you can optionally read. (though, even books are written in a vague, puzzling manner). For those not played watch this

.
 Does this mean that The Path and other art-games from today are nothing new?.

Now back to topic.

[PGGB]

Well, I don't listen to music in order for it to evoke emotions in me, even though it unavoidably will. The exception is music to exercise by: in that case what I'm after are the emotions, because I want them to help me exercise. But when I normally listen to music, I listen to it to hear the music itself, not to evoke particular emotions. I think the music itself is usually the whole point, not the emotions it evokes.

So I'd say that it's a mistake to assume that the purpose of music is just to evoke emotions: music is harmony, music is melody, music is rhythm. Those things can be a pleasure to experience, as ends in themselves. The way a melody unfolds, the beauty of how particular instruments sound, and so on -- to reduce those to just feelings is almost devaluing music.

I don't think that the purpose of music is to evoke emotions. I think art has no specific purpose at all and doesn't need to.

Now when I make music I might have a theme or maybe something I want to try out in mind, but in the end the making boils down to aiming for emotions. Now after the music is made and other people hear it you are correct in that it is a piece seperate from the emotions I put in it or aimed for, still it was made with emotions in mind and so the emotions that are evoked are not random. They most likely are different than the very emotions I had but they are certainly guided by my work and similar. Harmony, melody, rhythm, all these things coin the feeling, therefore I guess these things would serve as kind of a bridge between two people's emotions.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Yes, I agree that many people do create music to evoke some particular emotion, but I don't think everyone does and I don't think we should believe that that is somehow the purpose of music. Many people just think music is an end in itself, that the sensory experience of a piece of music matters more than any other concern, including the emotions it produces. But it is true that many people do create and consume art to convey emotions or feelings. And that's fine, I just don't think they are more important than people who do not create or consume art for that reason.

An interesting thing about music is that the tempo can be directly related to the feelings it produces. Faster tempos produce more upbeat feelings, and the reason is the heartbeat. Our typical heartbeat actually coincides to the average rhythm of music, and music that's faster than that feels positive, and music that's slower than that feels sad -- exactly because when we're happy our heart rate is higher and when we're sad our heart rate is lower.

I haven't tried Alone in the Dark 2, will look into it. But I wasn't actually saying that games should not use text or should always rely on exploration of an interesting world -- other forms of games also exist and are just as good. Many of my favorite games are heavily reliant on text, like Xenogears and Planescape: Torment.

[PGGB]

I don't think that the purpose of music is to evoke emotions. I think art has no specific purpose at all and doesn't need to.

Quoting myself.

My point was more along the lines that everyone who creates music aims for a specific emotion. This emotion is then translated somehow into the medium (e.g. harmony, melody, rhythm for music). If this is true then it is valid to look for emotions and not simply the sounds, the pictures etc. as there are some more specific emotions in it and it's not all unique to the person who experiences the art.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Yes, my comment was really directed toward the earlier discussion, where it was being said that emotions were the meaning and purpose of art. I don't think they always are, although they can be.

[PGGB]

Alrighty!