next »

[xix]

Pearls Before Breakfast

We have to admit that there are other artists out there that strive for perfection. As artists that develop everything against all prescribed notions of how to do things from art, to music, to storytelling, we have to deal with this notion of perfection and beauty head on. In a burgeoning field whose artistry is still at question, we have only three decades of history to look back on, learn from, to excel. No matter how you look at it, three decades is always less than two millennia. Laughably less.

And so what do we have to look on other than how we feel? What is beauty?

There are philosophers who study this question. I've taken a few classes, and I'm not convinced on any one of them. What I have is a few bits and pieces of knowledge gathered from here and there. The article poses an interesting question. Is "genius" really "genius" without context. If Miyamoto didn't have Nintendo's seal on his games, would he really create works of beauty?

Obviously the gut reaction is to say "yes, yes he would."

But I don't think it's as simple as that. That the quality of our work is judged solely by the patrons of yesterday's work is to live in the past. It's a seemingly safe place for safe people who have no vision of now and tomorrow. The world is at a stand still when no one shifts sides, no one learns a new love of the art. As artists part of our job is to create. But why create if there is no one to appreciate? I don't think that question has an answer.

Though I could be wrong.

[Chris Whitman]

That article is absolutely insane. I particularly enjoy the point in the video when he starts playing countermelodies across several strings. I am appalled and totally unsurprised that no one noticed.

I hate to kick off the video games as art debate again, but I really think that video games, as an art medium specifically, are still developing their sea legs, as it were, and we are pretty much already wrecking it.

I think a lot of us have very clear memories of playing games which were influential to us as children, and it seems a lot of the real game enthusiasts, that is to say those of us aspiring to make games which are not simply adolescent murder-fantasies, have already become mired in self-reference to the point where we have lost perspective completely, and we stand here wondering why no one 'gets it,' like we do.

I look at it this way, we are all very influenced by the games we played growing up: things like Metroid and Final Fantasy and all these games which evoked very real feelings when we were six and eight years old. If you go back and look at the same games now, they're very rudimentary. As children, however, we were excellent at filling in gaps with details and building up complex and realistic inner worlds around a few pixels -- Metroid was haunting and alien, Final Fantasy was epic and magical -- so now we're all going nuts over pixel art and low colour depth and retro everything. Thing is, I really don't think those games were any good... for adults. They were good for kids specifically because of our aforementioned imaginative abilities.

It's not that adults necessarily have less ability to imagine (that's commonly said, I know, but if you really think about how many great works have been imagined by children you will realize it's pretty silly), I think it's just because kids possess that certain naiveté which requires fewer details to establish the illusion of consistency. As adults, we require more complicated topics to feel engaged at the same level. Our cultural experience is also greater, that same cultural experience which provides the reason why no one can ever, say, write a classic 'fantasy novel' (or videogame in a classic fantasy scenario) which is really artistic ever, ever again, no matter what spin they put on it (because what Lord of the Rings was, in relation to contemporaneous novels, was totally unique, and while things can be unique in a different way, the cliches of German-inspired fantasy have been beaten so thoroughly into the ground that they are hopelessly derivative, regardless of the angle: the initial experience was an invention, while its derivatives are simply a retelling).

A lot of modern art theory gives us that art is contextual, not simply from the standpoint of 'where we see it,' but in the broader terms that the experience of art is an event which depends as much on us as on the 'piece' we're viewing.

Basically, I'm suggesting that the mode in which we experience classic games is nostalgic, based on systems of interactions and feelings which we experienced as children.

This doesn't, of course, make them any less 'good,' to us, but it does mean a couple of things. First of all, that most people who did not grow up playing the same video games are barred from enjoying this, because they cannot be nostalgic about the same things we are. It also means that continuing to develop games based on our experiences as children is inherently retarded (I mean, in the actual use of the word). We are not making any real progress and the medium is not moving forward. We are restricting ourselves to making simple toys because they are immediately gratifying, even though they are incomprehensible to the majority of people and are ultimately unsophisticated. Simple isn't bad when some things are simple, but it is bad when everything is simple.



So here's the thrilling conclusion:

The kicker is, I think, that this doesn't mean you have to steer clear of 2D or steer clear of 3D or make games with linear stories or make games with non-linear stories or do any of the things that people who are trying to make the future of gaming in the image of their preferences usually tell you. I think you just have to start making something which is genuine and evocative and artistic, something which is a real exploration of something, which has a theme and uniting characteristics which form the basis of your decisions on whether to use 2D or 3D, or how to write a story or not write a story.

And the tricky part of this is that it means that, to create real art in a way that no one has really done before, we also need to become masters of our craft (arts and crafts, get it?). Artists need to make real art: we can't rely on churning out 3D models for muscular beefheads or pixelated pictures of anthropomorphic animals; writers need to start writing compelling characters and interesting dialogue; designers need to start designing interesting worlds and interactive systems that are genuinely engaging; programmers, of course, need to start really learning the ropes and writing efficient, reusable code (no one will see this, of course, but it prevents the whole process from taking a million years) and to make something of genuine quality, in my opinion, this has to be done with small teams who can work together on a shared vision, not some guy at the top telling hundreds of people "how it's going to be." This is multimedia, right? Everything needs to be artistic and everything needs to work together. It's about having an understanding of all the elements and how they form a cohesive whole which is somehow important to people. We will know when we start making beautiful games because they will wow people in a serious way: not from pretty graphics or the latest technology, but from games that explore the real heights and depths of the human experience in the same way that beautiful painting, music and literature have in the past.

You can heap this on the pile of art-game manifestos, if you want, but I think that, if we make nothing but toys, we will be nothing but toymakers.

[Anthony Flack]

Man, that article just went on and on and on. I had to bail out. Just like the violin guy, the experiment simply wasn't interesting enough to take up that much of my time when I'm busy.

It is very easy, I think, to live within your own subculture, and not fully appreciate just how insignificant you are to the world at large. That guy is one of the most famous classical violinists in the world, adored by many - but I'd never heard of him. I don't move in those circles. His violin is an amazing piece of work, but only people who are really obsessive about violins would give a shit. To everyone else, it's just an impressive price tag. Most people aren't really into Bach, either. And everyone else has their own lives to be getting on with. The public were not deluded; it really wasn't that big a deal after all.

Similar to what we do. If you're really into videogames, Shigeru Miyamoto or Kenta Cho or whoever else might be a big deal. To the vast majority of people, they're just another anonymous human; their games are just more of those dang videogames.

I'm not going to downplay the value of art - I love art in all its forms. But it's not really "important" - despite the hype, artists never really change the world in any significant way. And art is an indulgence; you can only really appreciate it when there's nothing more important you have to be doing.

[Mark-P]

I just wanted to say that I loved all of I Like Cake's post. Especially the toy/game distinction, which puts its finger on what bugs me personally about a wide swath of games.

A lot of indy development seems to be caught chasing youthful nostalgia. Personally, I no longer have the time or patience to play platformers or shmups which send me back to the loading screen every 20 seconds if I don't twitch my 3rd finger at the right time, in training myself like a monkey to execute button-presses in perfect sequence. In truth, that didn't much entertain me as a kid either, but I didn't know much better back then. I'm far more interested in meaningful narrative, beit scripted or occuring procedurally, and of immersion in another world and of a whole load of other 'feelings' that I find hard to articulate.

A toy is something you play with at arm's length. It never draws you in, never involves you on any deeper level unless you have that powerful child-like ability to succumb to imagination and try to build your own world with it.
I have a deep unease with pretty much all of Nintendo's franchises and console games to a wider, if lesser degree. They all just seem like disposable children's toys to me. I pick them up, play around with them but feel no compulsion to continue playing. I already did this stuff when I was 11 and on an emotional, narrative and aesthetic level, the current iterations of these games seem as stunted as they were 10 years ago. I don't have the creative energy left to try and *make* games I play interesting any more - I demand that they do it themselves.
Moving up, the adolescent market often seems to be filled with an unpleasant cocktail of murder, testosterone and tits, things I was guilty of finding somewhat entertaining as a teenager but now find distasteful to be treated so flippantly. So what's there for adults who don't want to play 'casual'?

I'm very concerned for the mainstream PC development scene, which I felt used to represent my interests as a 'mature' gamer. A mixture of growing costs, expanding team sizes, piracy, shit working conditions and publisher jackassery seems to be killing the source of so many of the games I loved as a kid and which most importantly still rock when I go back and play them today ( Deus Ex, XCOM, Baldurs Gate, Planescape : Torment, the Total War series, Half-Life, Sim City, Total Annihilation etc etc. )

Sadly, the independant scene seems to be one of the few places left where genuine passion and a coherent, vibrant, creator-driven vision can still be realised, where you can try crazy, dangerous stuff that would scare a publisher away. Except that most experiments are still too ambitious, just fail, or are ignored and everyone else is spending their time trying to remake games which weren't really that much fun when they were on 16bit consoles. I don't know where I'd fit in there, I'm probably part of the problem too.

Certainly I feel we'll get a lot more exciting material from the indy sector when creators stop trying to recreate their childhood and move forward to satisfying themselves as adults. Then we ought to see more games that there can be no denying are art in themselves, rather than containers of it, that actually affect people's outlook on life instead of eating up their spare time. Breaking out of this may create some conflict between the power of the concept of making games purely for oneself first, and the goals of making them accessable to a wider audience.



PS - I love this forum and the ability to read and write stupid, romantic crap like this in it. I apologise for not tackling the original post, the article raises some very interesting and sobering thoughts about how high artistic endeavours fare when dumped into the real world, but it was a wee bit longwinded in making its point. I speed-read.

[Derek]

What's really sad is that if it was Britney Spears singing in that subway (or taking a crap, or really doing anything), then there would have been a huge crowd.

It is very easy, I think, to live within your own subculture, and not fully appreciate just how insignificant you are to the world at large. That guy is one of the most famous classical violinists in the world, adored by many - but I'd never heard of him. I don't move in those circles. His violin is an amazing piece of work, but only people who are really obsessive about violins would give a shit. To everyone else, it's just an impressive price tag. Most people aren't really into Bach, either. And everyone else has their own lives to be getting on with. The public were not deluded; it really wasn't that big a deal after all.

I don't know, if you're so single-minded that you can't step out from your comfort zone for a few moments and appreciate the work of someone who is one of the very best at what they do (regardless of your own interest in their field), then I would honestly say that you need to reevaluate your life a bit.

I'm not going to downplay the value of art - I love art in all its forms. But it's not really "important" - despite the hype, artists never really change the world in any significant way. And art is an indulgence; you can only really appreciate it when there's nothing more important you have to be doing.

Yeah, but what are these important things you're doing?  Paying bills?  Stuffing an Egg McMuffin into your mouth so you can live for another couple of days?  Reading a book?  Everything you do from day to day is an indulgence.  Art is important in its meaningless, in that it makes you step away from yourself and consider something that is outside of the world you're familiar with... all these so-called "important things."  It makes you consider and imagine.  Besides which it can touch you and be meaningful and emotional to you in a multitude of different ways.  At the inevitable end of your life, you won't remember 99% of the things you did that kept you living that long... you'll remember the handful of people and moments that touched you, and art will be a part of that.

And for many people, art is something that they *have* to do, anyway.  Just like Joshua Bell had to make music.

And the tricky part of this is that it means that, to create real art in a way that no one has really done before, we also need to become masters of our craft (arts and crafts, get it?). Artists need to make real art: we can't rely on churning out 3D models for muscular beefheads or pixelated pictures of anthropomorphic animals; writers need to start writing compelling characters and interesting dialogue; designers need to start designing interesting worlds and interactive systems that are genuinely engaging; programmers, of course, need to start really learning the ropes and writing efficient, reusable code (no one will see this, of course, but it prevents the whole process from taking a million years) and to make something of genuine quality, in my opinion, this has to be done with small teams who can work together on a shared vision, not some guy at the top telling hundreds of people "how it's going to be." This is multimedia, right? Everything needs to be artistic and everything needs to work together. It's about having an understanding of all the elements and how they form a cohesive whole which is somehow important to people. We will know when we start making beautiful games because they will wow people in a serious way: not from pretty graphics or the latest technology, but from games that explore the real heights and depths of the human experience in the same way that beautiful painting, music and literature have in the past.

You can heap this on the pile of art-game manifestos, if you want, but I think that, if we make nothing but toys, we will be nothing but toymakers.

Very, very well said!  Post of the century.

[xix]

You know, something about Shadow of the Colossus being used as a coping mechanism in the movie Reign on Me seems to be a big step towards games as beautiful works. I don't think that the movie is any better for its use of the game, but it's cool to see people in other media acknowledging the effect games have in a good light.

I don't know how any of this answers the question at the beginning of the thread, but this is looking good.

[Icedemon]

i agree on all fronts. I think I Like Cakes post nailed it home. However, i don't think it is impossible to be recognized by everyone, you just have to have the right tools, and attitude. Everyone knows what Halo is, everyone knows who Tom Cruise is, everyone has heard bohemian rhapsody. (even if they don't know it) General appeal is a big part of recognition in the art world. That's why in history class so many damn writers and artists were "living lives of poverty" and "were never really famous until after there deaths." On a lesser scale, this happens with games too. Mario is still alive, final fantasy is older than my brother, and everyone knows what Pong is. It's all about appeal...

 

-Ice

[Anthony Flack]

I don't know, if you're so single-minded that you can't step out from your comfort zone for a few moments and appreciate the work of someone who is one of the very best at what they do (regardless of your own interest in their field), then I would honestly say that you need to reevaluate your life a bit.

But if you aren't already interested, you won't even know they are the best in their field. None of those people who walked on past would have gone to his concerts, either. Everyone who happened to be a violin enthusiast recognised that something special was going on; everyone else didn't.

You can step outside your comfort zone and appreciate something like this; certainly. But first, you generally need someone to point out that here is someone who is the best in their field, and why. People would form a crowd for Britney Spears, but only because they would recognise her.

And I'm saying all this as someone who has dedicated their whole life to the pursuit of art. I think one of the problems with that experiment is that it had a fairly elitist attitude to the heirarchy of art - it was assumed that a really good classical violinist was the peak of human musical achievement, but it turns out that for most people, classical violin doesn't really push their buttons.

[xix]

The article already took note of t/hat kind of argument.

There was a little boy being brought to school by his mother. He noticed the music, and he wanted to hear it, but the mother was in a rush and she turned him away. It's a really sad moment, but it's is of interesting note. As we grow up we get too busy with our lives. Children, though, they're different. They are usually used as a metaphor for our innocence, and when children are drawn to something, that says something about our nature as human beings.

That's not to say I think we're saying different things at all. I think there's definitely a balance out there. The issue at hand is how to deal with the acceptance of games in the mainstream. Do we discredit the mainstream as ignorant people? Or do peacock and lure them to our world?

[Anthony Flack]

Yeah, but what are these important things you're doing?  Paying bills?  Stuffing an Egg McMuffin into your mouth so you can live for another couple of days?  Reading a book?  Everything you do from day to day is an indulgence.

Well, speaking for myself, at least 14 hours of every day is spent doing things I don't want to do, and most of the rest of the time is broken down into little 5 or 10 minute chunks (hey, I'm spending one now, while I'm waiting for work to start). A few years ago I probably would have said the same thing, but now I have a family and a mortgage and all the rest, the terrible thing is that suddenly it's all about responsibility and duty. Which is why I don't participate in indie community stuff; why I'm not releasing a game a year, why I don't paint any more, why I don't play in a band (my favourite thing in the world) any more, why I can never read a book all the way through any more, why I don't listen to records, go to concerts, visit art galleries or even play videogames except on rare occasions. Not because I don't want to - I would love to; I'm desperate to - but I have worked very hard (and will need to continue to work hard) in order to get myself into a position where I can once again indulge in the creation and appreciation of art, which is all I ever really wanted to do in life.

The issue at hand is how to deal with the acceptance of games in the mainstream. Do we discredit the mainstream as ignorant people? Or do peacock and lure them to our world?

But, we're all ignorant people. Does it really matter? If someone took a $50,000 bottle of wine and gave it to you in a $10 bottle, would you really sit up and take notice? Probably not, unless you were a wine enthusiast. But we don't all need to be wine enthusiasts. Wine, classical violin, videogames - they're all just one of many niche interests that some people choose to pursue with a passion, and the majority of people choose to largely ignore in favour of painting, photography, heavy metal, cooking, sports, reality TV, etc etc etc.

[Derek]

And I'm saying all this as someone who has dedicated their whole life to the pursuit of art. I think one of the problems with that experiment is that it had a fairly elitist attitude to the heirarchy of art - it was assumed that a really good classical violinist was the peak of human musical achievement, but it turns out that for most people, classical violin doesn't really push their buttons.

That is true.  I mean, the art world is really elitist, there's no getting around that.

That's not to say I think we're saying different things at all. I think there's definitely a balance out there. The issue at hand is how to deal with the acceptance of games in the mainstream. Do we discredit the mainstream as ignorant people? Or do peacock and lure them to our world?

No, I don't think you want to discredit anyone.  I mean, it really depends on what type of a game you're making... there's nothing wrong with targeting a niche.  In this case, however, I think we're kind of all agreeing (and this is probably generally true of game developers and game enthusiasts) that we'd like to see games become more accepted as something more than a toy.  In order to do that, you have to make games that reach people on a more human level.  And that means touching very basic human emotions.

Jenova Chen always talks about using a feeling as a starting point for making a game.  He's a pretty smart guy.  It makes sense that to make an emotionally engaging game you use an emotion and not, I don't know, a game genre, as a starting point.  But then you have the added challenge of making the game a good game.  And then when money gets involved it gets even harder...

[Alec]

In order to do that, you have to make games that reach people on a more human level.  And that means touching very basic human emotions.

I dunno. I've played games and experienced emotions playing them. And more than just basic. And both mainstream and indie. So I think we're already at that stage.

I find the whole "games are toys and we need to make them better" thing really dumb. Games are what they are, and they already work as an art form. Let's grow from there. We don't need to tear down what already works, and we don't need to shit in our own backyard.

[Derek]

I find the whole "games are toys and we need to make them better" thing really dumb. Games are what they are, and they already work as an art form. Let's grow from there. We don't need to tear down what already works, and we don't need to shit in our own backyard.

Ah, I would agree that you don't need to tear down what already works (or even things that don't work).  I mean, games are already wonderful and we're all here because we believe that.  And we've all had emotional experiences from games, as well.  I'm playing Earthbound right now and it is really touching me.  I think that it is a sublime experience.  What it does for me a book or movie could never do.

That said, you're coming from the position of someone who already believes that games are amazing, emotional experiences.  Most people don't feel that way, sadly.

Case in point, someone asked me about Aquaria at a party and I described it as kind of a "coming of age story."  To which someone else replied "A coming of age story?  In a video game?!"  This guy is smart, he reads, plays music, watches movies, etc.; he's even played a lot of video games when he was younger.  But video games are obviously toys to this person in his adult life.

So yeah, we're at the stage where video games touch Alec and Derek and everyone else in this thread, but we're not at the stage where they touch that guy.  Why is that?

[Alec]

I think both society and games are going to mature to meet somewhere in the middle. I don't think its solely the fault of games or the ignorance of society about games, but a combination of the two.

I really think it'll just take time. The old generation has to die for starters.

(no offense meant to any old people, with the exception of Ebert)

[Derek]

I think both society and games are going to mature to meet somewhere in the middle. I don't think its solely the fault of games or the ignorance of society about games, but a combination of the two.

I really think it'll just take time. The old generation has to die for starters.

Yeah, I agree with that.

These kinds of discussions inevitably come up in that cycle, too.

[Alec]

Yeah. I just think its wrong to try to think of what we "should" be doing to make games a more like "art" - because I believe games are art already.

While experimentation and growth are great, I think we as developers should move forward rather than be "ashamed" about what games are.

I'm sure that down the road some radical thinkers will come up with new ways of looking at the medium that will blow some unexperienced players away. But I don't know that that has to be our goal as independent game developers.

Just making good games would be a start.

[xix]

It's kind of easy to say that "games are already art, let's just keep making them good". I think it's harder to understand what that really means, especially in the face of a lot of games.

Take the Mortal Kombat series post MKII. When MK started getting crazy with babealities and friendships and ultimate destructionalities and whatnot, it was really crazy, but it wasn't "good". It didn't happen until much more recently that traditional art techniques were adapted and the chop-socky atmosphere of the game was perfectly framed. Now we have Zombie Liu Kang whirling around chains attached to his wrists.

Changing our modus operandi is going to be the only way games are going to be recognized as something truly great and literary. There are conventions that do need to be torn down. There are old traditions we need to erect. In videogame making land, that is.

[Alec]

Actually, making good games is pretty hard. I'd rather see more people making more interesting games than read people talking about how they think games suck.

[Alec]

Changing our modus operandi is going to be the only way games are going to be recognized as something truly great and literary.

This just makes me want to throw up. Are you serious?

You assume we all use the same "modus operandi", when this obviously isn't the case. I really liked Jon Mak's idea at IGS of looking at games as personal expression. I think a lot of people already do that. I don't think that's a bad way to make games. I think many of the other ways are valid too.

May we find different and potentially better ways to head at it? I don't know.

A lot of art seems to be about personal expression in some form or another.

That's not to say that the way people makes games won't change or won't improve, but this basic, BASIC element of it being an art form - self expression - is already present.

Whether you think the games that come out of it are worthless shit or not.

[xix]

I'm not going to argue that creative expression can and has already been done before. Games are art blah blah blah.

The real problem is the mode of thinking when we create games. When we want to talk about a challenge for a player character immediately we think of ways to kill the player, for the player to lose health, etc. Imagine a game like Shadow of the Colossus where your health was never visible in a HUD and all you could do was feel it via controller vibrations, slowed character movement, increased character breathing, etc.

Virtua Fighter is practically virtual sport, but it doesn't make sense to some people right away because health bars aren't real. The lexicon of gaming is so ingrained in us that health to us immediately brings up the idea of a number, a percentage.

Game music is background music.

There are hundreds of examples of this.

I actually don't think we want different things. I think we're just talking about them differently. To you the progress the industry has made looks like the success of a few companies I see as a failure of the industry as a whole. Maybe I'm biased because other industries have interested me much more than videogames as of late, but that's how things go...