next »

[mirosurabu]

The separation stems from the following:

Traditional games primarily focus on fun, immersion, addictiveness and often craftsmanship. Big open-ended worlds, fantasy, sandbox, competition, analytical fun, entertaining unfolding.

These new games primarily focus on wide range of different feelings, themes and authorial vision and expression. This makes their type of gameplay a weird one because it's sacrificed.

[neon]

This makes their type of gameplay a weird one because it's sacrificed.

oh god, here we go...

[joulimousis]

I would like the people that gets angry at this post to read all the thing, and think a bit before posting. I never stated that there should be no art in games, what I'm saying is that art is in the viewer more than the maker, so it's kind of a spoiler (or an excuse for not convening the message clearly) so say "this game is art" if what you are meaning is "this game has a meaning".

Many contributors had taken a very interesting view on the matter, and its very nutritive to read them. Besides how many times the subject was brought up in the forum I think it has value.

[mirosurabu]

This makes their type of gameplay a weird one because it's sacrificed.

oh god, here we go...

Where we go?

Did you read too much into my post?

[rogerlevy]

"art game" is redundant.  generally people don't use the word "art" to describe their artwork.  so just don't.  shall we move on?

[PlayMeTape]

"art game" is redundant.  generally people don't use the word "art" to describe their artwork.  so just don't.  shall we move on?

Or just do? Sorry but who are you to say people aren't allowed to call their games art games if they'd like to? You don't have to like it but why can't people just ignore it instead of signing up to tigs just to make another redundant topic about it?

[i wanna be the guy]

just gonna throw in my two cents here with the knowledge that someone has probably already said this (what's reading a thread in its entirety???)


the people claiming that "art game" is a useless or redundant term probably have very little knowledge about art or games in general. The comment sounds like one you would hear coming from a person who believes "VIDEO GAMES ARE EVIL, ALL THEY CONTAIN IS SHOOTING AND VIOLENCE!!!! WHAT'S SO ARTISTIC ABOUT THAT, MY SHITS ARE MORE ARTISTIC THAN THE BULLET YOU JUST PUT IN THAT GUY'S HEAD!!!"

not saying they do think like that (size 99 welp if they do, though)
just saying it sure as hell comes across that way

[gimymblert]

The problem with artgame is that it's also a genre which came with expectation. Calling your or some game "artgame" is to frame expectation, regardless of content. You know you won't SEEK entertainment. If you take generic game 6 and called it an artgame, even if the game is very good, people will be confused and upset.

But what about some game like "harvest moon".

When the first was out, most game where based on conflict and tension. The game originate from the desire of the author to make a game about "taking the time" and choose farming to convey that theme. There is no conflict and time pass independently of player action. You can have relation with npc, bringing the game beyond the simple farm simulator. The game is making a statement, both formally and in content. It wasn't obvious at that time there would be a market for that game (could alienate those who like gestion and sim game because it embrace adventure game language).

It takes an opposite approach to most game to show a new way to makes game (without conflict), it was a conscious choice. BUT who call this game an "artgame", you don't even think of him as "art" because it does not show the superficially attribute of art, "moody and depressing ambiance", Yet it fulfill the common definition of art more than some game branded as art (SOTC and ico i'm looking at you ... BADLY).

[Bones]

An art game to me; Is a game where the aesthetics of the game are exaggerated to the point that they over rule such things as programming, or the game play it's self.

When a game is made to be "fun" this usually inclines that the person(s) is working on the Design, or Concept of the game mechanic so that it is in fact, fun to play.
This doesn't mean an art game can't be "fun" but fun isn't the primary objective of an artgame.
It's just that the focus is more on visual stimulus. (or audio stimulus if the music is the focus of the "artgame")

Where as an "art game" has the basic principle to be something pretty to look at or hear.
I'm speaking in terms of when the programming focus is on the visual effects, or made to assist the art rather then the game play mechanics or responsiveness of a character.
The gameplay comes secondary in an art-game, in that the art has more importance and focus then the actual game or mechanics of the game it's self.
UNLESS the gameplay revolves somehow around the art.

If the world is primarly focused on being atmospheric, artsy, ambient, deep, emotional, and expressive.
Then I'm pretty sure the game is likely the focus of an Art related game and not the average casual game.
Thus creating a definite line between an artgame and "non" artgame.
I'm not starting that games aren't art, but we have to keep both these definitions separate.

There is art in games.
Games can be art as a whole.
And there can be strictly art focused games.

Any game it's self can be perceived as a work of art as it's whole.
But the focus on visual art by it's self can be added to help the game in becoming a visual masterpiece.

[Brother Android]

Where as an "art game" has the basic principle to be something pretty to look at.

I don't think this is how the term is usually meant. There are lots of mainstream games whose primary focus is to be pretty (take Uncharted, for example) that people don't consider art games. I think the basic principle has more to do with meaning. Not even atmosphere, really - Knytt is an artistic game, but I don't think it's an "art game," because the emphasis is still on traditional gameplay.

[tsameti]

(SOTC and ico i'm looking at you ... BADLY).

Aww, you didn't like SOTC? Ah well.

generally people don't use the word "art" to describe their artwork.

Actually they do. An artist's goal is to make Art, why should you deny them the right to use the word which represents their intentions and aspirations? It's a label that tells people what they're doing and why, and in that regard is very effective.


Tell me if I'm wrong, but as I see it there are a couple of camps here:

There are folks who are afraid that if we separate artgames into their own category, serious artistic work won't find its way into other titles. We'll get a niche and that's our sad little ration of what could have been wonderful.

We've got folks who are antagonistic to what they view as pretension on the part of creators. They believe the audience must be arbiters of what is or isn't meant to be art, rather than leaving the decision in the hands of the would-be artist.

We've got folks who embrace the term wholeheartedly, with the intent that it frees certain developers to aggressively pursue something different.


I suppose we probably also have folks who don't want art at all in their games, but I don't think they've been any participating in this discussion.

This makes their type of gameplay a weird one because it's sacrificed.

I don't know if it's always 'sacrificed' per se, more like the game-play in art games may not be designed expressly with the goal of being 'fun' or responsive. Honestly, if an artgame is a good one, it's just as important that the play reinforces your themes and motifs, than a fun game reinforces your booyah(!)s

I think the basic principle has more to do with meaning.

Yea, I tend to agree. There are games out there which are 'stylish' but might not be artistic. Suda51's No More Heroes for example: very evocative style, real focus on flair, but the emotional depth isn't really there.

[gimymblert]

Come on I did not say SOTC was bad or I didn't like it, nor I say it's not art. But people brand it as art for all the bad superficial reason ! 
It was to contrast with Harvest moon who was also a deeply personal game (according to interview) and much more modest and yet tick most the "art" definition box.

Fumito Ueda agree with me if you read some of his interview, it's focus was exactly the same as anyone else in the industry: make a fun game while pushing realism, he have hard time calling his game ART and takes God of war as an inspiration.

SS: Many game journalists — and even the entry on Wikipedia — have described Shadow of the Colossus as one of the best examples for video games being an art form. How does that make you feel? Do you agree?
FU: I’m happy about it, I’m flattered. But I wonder what part are they are referring to when they make that comment, that it’s art. What part are they looking at? Because I think it’s possible to make it even more artistic. But because it’s a video game, those possibilities have been subdued somewhat — it’s a game. So I’d be interested to know what part, exactly, they mean when they refer to it as art.
There are games out there that are much more artistic than Shadow of the Colossus. And personally I also believe that it would be possible to make it even more “arty,” so to speak.

SS: What other games do you think represent a good argument for games as art?
FU: I guess it depends on how you define art, of course. But in a Japanese conception of the term “art,” it’s thought that it might be something that’s difficult to understand, or complex. Or something unique or uncommon.
So given that definition of art, maybe it’s a little detrimental to actually name any titles.

SS: You were asking why so many people name Shadow of the Colossus as an example of art. I think many people would answer that it’s because players begin to sympathize with the Colossi…
FU: So it makes you think — I understand.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/09/24/team-ico-talks-fumito-ueda-on-the-last-guardian-shadow-of-the-colossus/

ICO creator Fumito Ueda has said he's not trying to create games which are works of art - whatever the critics might say.

Ueda was speaking during a panel discussion at the Game Developers Conference, as reported by Gamasutra. He didn't reveal anything concrete about his current project but did say, "My team and I are making a game which is close to art - that's what people say.

"Personally I don't think that way. We're making a game to entertain people. Sometimes my personality and my team's might be reflected on the game, and it might look like art, but it is a game to entertain people. That kind of feedback is welcome but it's not what I'm trying to achieve."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-my-games-arent-art-says-ico-creator

The creator of Katamari Damacy say the same things. IT's funny to see that both have degree in ART schools, but not the technical art school, the bullshit kind.

EDIT:
Yet at the same time, most people who is chasing ART have no background in art. It's like those game designer are like those gamer who thinks they can make game because they play them a lot ... even if they know how to program, it does not make them good game designer.

[rogerlevy]

Or just do? Sorry but who are you to say people aren't allowed to call their games art games if they'd like to? You don't have to like it but why can't people just ignore it instead of signing up to tigs just to make another redundant topic about it?

i dunno, maybe i came off as otherwise but... do what turns you on.    but ... i won't apologize for contributing to the sentiment against the term.

but for that matter ... why can't people be allowed to continue questioning something they feel strongly about?  there is a difference between a thing and open discussion about the thing.  one of them is a personal preference (i.e. you can bar certain people from looking at something if you don't want them to be part of your audience), the other by definition should be egalitarian, provided you're civil, which the OP was. <- sorry. this was really generous.

in the end i can tell you're defending something against some apparently frequently-appearing negative sentiment.  but i feel it has nothing to do with people believing games can be art, i think it's about Image.  should this term be cast into the pit of unpopularity, games would still continue to be an artform, it would just "endanger" games with less artistic merit, because they would have lost whatever weight the term used to carry.  

just make your game a work of art.  call it an "art game".  and to the people who don't like that, don't.  that's what i was intending with that above post anyway - encourage people who already don't like it, because i'm in that camp.

[mirosurabu]

I don't know if it's always 'sacrificed' per se, more like the game-play in art games may not be designed expressly with the goal of being 'fun' or responsive. Honestly, if an artgame is a good one, it's just as important that the play reinforces your themes and motifs, than a fun game reinforces your booyah(!)s

I feel it tends to be compromised in certain way and I'll try to explain that using example.

(just for the record, I don't think these games are not entertaining, I'm just trying to explain the difference between the two categories.)

Anyways, let's look at thatgamecompany's Flower.

In this game you control a wind in 3D and explore and interact with nature.

If it was about fun interaction, I believe the game would have been an open-ended world where you fly around different places and explore them. You could do quests in a non-linear way. These would present challenges with rewards that are directly related to gameplay. Things like improving the speed of the wind, new ways to fly and fancy stuff like that.

That or just have challenge-driven game with nice difficulty curve.

Or have a sandbox / toy value.


But, Flower is a linear game with no challenge whatsoever and little to no toy value.

The game's primary focus is aesthetics that are firmly tied to little interaction and agency there is.


Small worlds has bare bones interaction and agency. All you are doing is discovering caves. The progress is marked nicely making it enjoyable experience.

[Hangedman]

Much of the annoyance on this topic stems not from the discussion itself but from the fact that it has been discussed to death, and given the contentious and tiresome nature of the discussion, nothing much is likely to come of it.

Also, 'read my blog post' is not a good way to start a thread. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

[rogerlevy]

Well, personally, this topic is new to me, because I only just started getting active in these forums.  So I don't mind talking about it (for now!)

But, Flower is a linear game with no challenge whatsoever and little to no toy value.
The game's primary focus is aesthetics that are firmly tied to little interaction and agency there is.
Small worlds has bare bones interaction and agency. All you are doing is discovering caves. The progress is marked nicely making it enjoyable experience.

oh but i disagree!  i haven't played Flower, but from what I've seen and heard, it sounds like a very enjoyable and groundbreaking game.  

what if the structure you're talking about, that neatly-marked "progress" is exactly what games like Flower attempt to question?  do we need that to have an enjoyable experience?  

traditional art doesn't employ any sort of progress markers for viewing.   so, Flower and similar games (I would say Ico, little to no "progress markers") attempt to sit side by side with the experience you get from feeling a painting or a piece of music by removing those arcade-style indicators and structures.

which isn't to say!  which isn't to say that, you can't make a game that embraces and GUSHES those trappings and manages to simultaneously question expectations about games, from an artistic perspective.  games like ... Killer 7, No More Heroes.

it's all about pushing boundaries.  however - i'll admit, i come from an artistic perspective.  i love games primarily for their emotional and philosophical value to me.

[mirosurabu]

I didn't say I don't enjoy Flower! I do enjoy Flower!

I was only saying why it's different. It's different because it's not primarily about fun interaction, it's about minimal interaction tied to awesome aesthetics.

And I agree - Flower and Small Worlds have very interesting progress markers. In Small Worlds, as you explore, the world zooms out, motivating you to explore more cavities. It has nothing to do with numbers. It's about aesthetics. You get there and it gives you more beauty. In Flower you get to interact with things in very interesting way and you get to "repair" the nature to make it more beautiful. The "repair" animations are quite rewarding too. (:

[rogerlevy]

I didn't say I don't enjoy Flower! I do enjoy Flower!

I was only saying why it's different. It's different because it's not primarily about fun interaction, it's about minimal interaction tied to awesome aesthetics.

And I agree - Flower and Small Worlds have very interesting progress markers. In Small Worlds, as you explore, the world zooms out, motivating you to explore more cavities. It has nothing to do with numbers. It's about aesthetics. You get there and it gives you more beauty. In Flower you get to interact with things in very interesting way and you get to "repair" the nature to make it more beautiful. The "repair" animations are quite rewarding too. (:

Oh, heheh, my bad.  Well, cool, we're chums then.

Wonder if i can convince a ps3-owning friend to let me use it to try out the game... i have been searching for experiences like the modern classics that came during the heydey of the ps2.  so if anything comes close and i'm missing out ... what the fuh

[tsameti]

I mean, my hope from these conversations is always thus:

That everyone who leaves fuming goes off and makes a game, the game that 'proves' their thesis. Then I will play those games.  

But seriously, if there's a productive avenue that this conversation can go, it's in understanding the views that lead us to feel so strongly one way or another about the issue.

Some of us feel that controlling the terminology can actively affect the evolution of a full branch of the Indie movement. After all a term, even if inaccurate, has the power to create a market niche, and market niche means extra leeway for financial survivability. A term can define organization and affiliation, it can facilitate collaboration.

We honestly feel that if folks don't go out of their way to actively define a market for games with artistic intention, the market will never come. Comics had to create an entirely BS word before people started taking them seriously, (and honestly few people outside of the audience really do) the graphic novel exists because certain comic authors needed breathing space away from a crowded field of youth power fantasies. I propose that Maus and Persepolis couldn't survive on a rack with SpiderMan, the same way that a game about a funeral couldn't survive on the shelf next to Halo:Reach.


On the opposite end of the argument, there's the danger that if a whole class of games get labeled as 'art' it means that the games they love and play, especially the games they hold dear to their hearts might not be art (or might not be perceived as art). That's an unpleasant admission. It's the threat of admitting that they've devoted huge sections of their life to the pursuit of something that didn't have value. So there's a very serious impetus to argue the point aggressively. You're defending the value of what 'is' already where others want to clear landing space for what 'can be'.


But wherever you're coming from, it all stems from the same desire. The desire to be able to stand up to your peers or your reflection and say "this is a thing of value, this is what I love, this is what I do, and it's important."

[Melly]

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

Links?