Video games started out as toys, and still are. You might want to hijack the medium to tell an important message about the suffering in Sudan, or the plight of the palestinians, but in the end, doesn't it feel a bit silly? Isn't it a bit like using barbie dolls and gijoe to try to explain sexual harassment in the workplace, to adults? Who cares what Roger Ebert think? Did he ever make a game? What's his great experience in it that makes him an expert in judging?
Hmmm...
I've played your game first reading just your first post and reading people sighing "this is art". And I played it a few times trying to figure out what possible symbols the game carries and what is my possible interpretation for the game as a whole and each symbol separately. And I have found some although experience was very chaotic, and so your statement explains why. Still, this could be a good, if not phenomenal art-game as it has a convention of a twisted painting, specific gameplay that can express something, symbols and actions (idea of flashing photos is another interesting thing).
Now, I know how funny it is going to sound but it seems silly to me that someone might consider silly explaining anything with barbie or g.i. joe to adults. Even more, though, I think it is silly consider whole medium as restricted to one brand of toys for children and teenagers. It's like taking comicbooks and believing that Batman from 40s is everything this medium should ever offer and "The Dark Knight Returns" should have never been created, nor volumes like "V for Vendetta" or reality-inspired "Maus" or "Barefoot Gen" should never be created either.
It's not only that we can explain things in different ways. If we want to use more childish symbols, let it be, creators such as Miyazaki pretty much do it and they reach different audience (both young and adults).
Then, it's not really the problem that major gaming became shallow even in terms of entertaining experience (comparing to major gaming of 90s) but that while world move on, while mediums move on, while our culture moves on, and so "life moves on", games go backwards (good for them that they do it pretty much hand in hand with Hollywood movies, but still, Hollywood is capable of "Fireflies in the Garden" from time to time and world cinema does better and gets more attention and promotion than indie gaming scene). The problem with games is that they are not really various. And that less than 1% of them has any meaning at all (by which I mean a deeper meaning, something to think of, something that can enrich us as people, something that I could maybe describe as popular-art). While other mediums try different genres (movies seem like good example) like comedy, drama, action, documentary, thriller, etc. Games seem to be much more restricted. Let's face it, how many dramas did we ever encountered as gamers? Or comedies? How many times did we think of catching one title today because we are IN MOOD for something. All genres game have is usually RPG, shooter, etc., genres of how to play a game (in movies it would probably be the way plot has been built and shots taken because that's how we see something in the movie). My point is that games can be much wider than they are now. They can both include plot/emotional genre and typical gaming genre.
Then, there is even more. Games didn't really achieve so much yet. If one thinks that making art games now is too huge step because major gaming players are sort of going backwards to the caves looking for fire, why major gaming is totally incapable of creating something as deep, meaningful, philosopical, technical but also fun, entertaining and exciting as "Ghost in the Shell", for example? (I refer to Masamune Shirow's manga, although both, Oshii's movie and tv series will do good) Why indie gaming is still not capable of it? We don't make LOST either, don't we? We don't do much of poetic style, we don't write books-lenght stories with games, but we also rarely write short-stories of some meaning. And we are definitely far away from "Marriage of Heaven and Hell" (W.Blake) although games can definitely do it.
What they require for it is a change in thinking of developers and players. That games can be toys, but they can be something completely different.
And that's, my dear at-art-laughing game maker, my response to your statement.
No harsh way of expressing myself intended, so I hope I can add something to the discussion with my post.
Good luck with your future efforts
Developer
