next »

[GregWS]

OK, so I slogged trough around half of that games and art thread, and although a lot of it was interesting, it became very, very, metaphysical to the point where I realized it probably wouldn't go anywhere.

So this thread is instead going to talk about some more practical stuff (don't get me wrong, I  theory, I just think this is worth talking about too).  Instead of asking whether or not games are/can be art, we'll just assume they can be, and talk about what aspects of them make them successful (or unsuccessful) "art games."  Just talking about practical aspects of games is fine too, examples aren't necessary, but of course do go a long way to proving your point(s).

So, I'll start with the game that for me is the perfect "art game."  Knytt Nano (Not Stories; it's in my sig) is an art game because it explores a moment, a place and a feeling; it has atmosphere to the extreme.  What makes this a successful art game to me, is that the gameplay is essentially actively experiencing art (with accompanying music).  Each screen is a beautiful composition on it's own, and they could all be viewed as individual squares, pasted on a wall in an art gallery with the music playing.  This however, wouldn't be nearly as good as the experience the player gets from exploring this environment for themselves; it is active, not passive, interaction.  The gameplay is essentially a simple game of hide-and-go-seek in this small atmospheric world, and one could argue that the gameplay is being ignored, but I wouldn't, as this game proves to me that gameplay isn't everything.

I think Knytt Nano proves to me that this recent push to glorify "gameplay" as main thing video games should focus is sort of hollow.  "Games" should focus solely on gameplay, but we're talking about "Video Games," and I think that unless we create a new name for our type of media (eg. something horrible like "Interactive Media") then we need to see "Video Game" as something different from "Game."  It would probably even be wise to think of "art games" as "interactive art," because many of them are very successful as art, but not as "Games" in the traditional meaning of the word "Game" (eg. Tag, Chess, Tennis, etc.).

[William Broom]

I think Gravitation is a great art game. It has the atmosphere, of course, but what really makes it stand out is the way you can relate to it. My experience is coloured somewhat by reading the creator's quote about the game, where he says it is about "mania, depression and the creative process". This is exactly what it is about. It captures something very fundamental about these ideas, and portrays them in a way that a noninteractive medium never could.

[Don Andy]

Well, in my personal view, it's art if it manages to emotionally touch you in any way (anger, sadness, fear, drugs) so I think it really depends on who you intend to "watch" your art when designing games.

What's just beautiful for one group is pure gay for the other group and what's a terrifying masterpiece of a game for one is a gory, poinless slaughterfest for the other.

And if you're not addressing anyone in particular, then you'd just go with what would cause a emotional reaction with you.

[increpare]

I think Gravitation is a great art game. It has the atmosphere, of course, but what really makes it stand out is the way you can relate to it. My experience is coloured somewhat by reading the creator's quote about the game, where he says it is about "mania, depression and the creative process". This is exactly what it is about. It captures something very fundamental about these ideas, and portrays them in a way that a noninteractive medium never could.

I don't know.  I think it's almost a little formulaic; its use of metaphor isn't particularly profound.  I think it would be rathher easy for a non-interactive medium to portray the idea.  Simply take a recording of somebody playing the movie, and I think you would have captured *something* about it.  Certainly you'd have the core idea there, and people would be able to 'get' what was going on as much as a player would.  Admittedly it's a bit different playing it through, but I don't know what exactly one would be missing were one just to watch someone else playing...

[Craig Stern]

I don't think the "what makes a game art" discussion would necessarily have any effect on your game design at all, unless your primary goal was to create works of art (as opposed to simply making fun, enjoyable games).

Personally, I'd love it if my games were eventually viewed as art, but I'm much more concerned with whether my games are enjoyable to play, flow well, draw the player in with compelling characters and story, and address the broader themes I want to address.

[increpare]

[waffle waffle waffle] ... but I'm much more concerned with whether my games are enjoyable to play, flow well, draw the player in with compelling characters and story, and address the broader themes I want to address.

What sort of themes?

[michael]

Well, in my personal view, it's art if it manages to emotionally touch you in any way (anger, sadness, fear, drugs)

drugs? the emotion?

[charon]

Personally, I'd love it if my games were eventually viewed as art, but I'm much more concerned with whether my games are enjoyable to play, flow well, draw the player in with compelling characters and story, and address the broader themes I want to address.

The quality of a game influences it success at being a work of art. It's just like with any other art, except for its extreme borders, works that cannot be enjoyed are generally considered boring, not artistic (although something that is boring can still be artistic ).

I don't think we should seek some deeper meaning, metaphores about life etc in order for a game to be considered 'artistic'. We can do that of course, and even if we find it, there is absolutely no proof or argument that the author meant for it to be there, short of asking them in person.

For example... The bikes of these dudes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_County_Choppers, are works of art - some of them even as just sculptures. But that is beyond the point. My question is this: if another artist happened to, by pure chance, actually make a sculpture that looked exactly like one of OCO's choppers, which one do you think would be regarded as 'better' art, or more 'artistic' at least?

Art can be about dark and deep themes, but it's hardly required to. A comedy can still be art, especially if it's funny, even if it's just about a tramp going places and kicking people's butts...

So if we really want to make more 'artistic' games, what we really need to be is original, and if we can't, we at least have to be good as craftsmen focusing on quality and fun aspect... However and this is unfortunatelly a very big problem of today's games which is that in computer games, same as with choppers, the technical aspect of the execution matters a great, great, really great deal.

[Don Andy]

Well, in my personal view, it's art if it manages to emotionally touch you in any way (anger, sadness, fear, drugs)

drugs? the emotion?

Eh, maybe phrased a bit unfortunate.
Was talking about games that make you feel like you're on "drugs", meaning extremely trippy games. It's probably a fine line between being a trippy and being a shitty game, so just forget I said that :D

[Craig Stern]

[waffle waffle waffle] ... but I'm much more concerned with whether my games are enjoyable to play, flow well, draw the player in with compelling characters and story, and address the broader themes I want to address.

What sort of themes?

Telepath RPG Chapter 2's overarching theme is one of freedom vs. loyalty. It plays out in different ways with each of the characters, depending on how you play the game, and can result in one of two endings.

BTW, I am a huge fan of waffles.

[increpare]

BTW, I am a huge fan of waffles.

Sweet, savoury, or both?

[Craig Stern]

Ooh, good question. I've got to go with sweet, I think.

[GregWS]

OK, so to bring things back on topic a bit (my first post did a bad job of setting the topic, so my fault), I'm not so sure that games should always be fun and enjoyable to play.  For example, it is not fun to learn about certain confirmed medical atrocities committed during WWII (I really wish I'd never heard of them), but I do think people (myself included) should know about it so that degree of callous dehumanization can never be repeated.  And that said, I see no reason why games shouldn't be used to make the player feel absolutely horrible inside while playing; a lot of good art does this to spur a change in the viewer, to help them to realize why they shouldn't do something or act a certain way.  As an active medium, video games can let the player do things they might do in reality, and a good game may help them to realize why an action or pattern of thought should never leave the fantasy world of the game.  You may be forced to do something terrible in the game, and having experienced the dreadful emotion afterward, would thereafter never even want to comprehend committing that act in real life.

Admittedly it's a bit different playing it through, but I don't know what exactly one would be missing were one just to watch someone else playing...

I have to completely disagree with this because there is a massive gap between watching someone do something and doing it yourself (even when that action exists in the digital realm).  For instance, being forced to shoot a character (presumably an ally, for whatever reason), to push the button instead of watching someone else do it, elicits a completely different feeling.  Unlike any passive media, as an active media games put the onus on the player; you only feel guilt for your actions, not the actions of others.  Those actions may make you feel bad, but they can't make you feel guilt.

What Don Andy said about trippy games is worth noting tto; I know a lot of people that hate Rez for it's trippy factor, but I can't get enough of it for that very reason; I don't do drugs for the simple reason that I'm not in control of whatever I experience, and my control over myself is reduced.  With trippy games, however, I do have enough control that I could shut off the game if I wanted too; I think those few trippy games that do it right are incredible for that reason, and I hope that they become even more immersive in the coming years to make the experience even more incredible.

[increpare]

For instance, being forced to shoot a character (presumably an ally, for whatever reason), to push the button instead of watching someone else do it, elicits a completely different feeling.

Maybe.  Except that, in the game cited, the gameplay is essentially linear.  There are no choices, really.  You play through a certain very definitely pre-arranged experience.  And sure, Passage, say, I thought was a pleasant enough experience, but...hmm...I do value the interactive aspect of it, but...hmm...going to have to put more thought into formulating what I think I think...

[GregWS]

OK, here's a much better example for a horrible situation from a game that David Jaffe wanted to make a while ago (and got canceled) called Heartland.  The game would have been set in a Chinese invasion of America, and it would have been fairly extreme in the themes it dealt with.  Here's an example quoted from http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_146/4817-Inside-David-Jaffe-s-Heartland

Jaffe describes a real-time sequence where the player and squad enter a suburban house after the Chinese invasion has turned the neighborhood into a war zone. It's the home of a Chinese-American family. The squad rounds up the family, having them kneel in the living room.

The player chases after the teenage son, beating him and dragging him down the stairs, and throwing him into the living room. The commanding officer orders the player to douse the family and the house with gasoline, and set it on fire. "It was meant to be, 'Oh, my God, this is the worst thing in the world,'" says Jaffe.

"Obviously, it would have been up to the player to make a decision: Do I do that, or do I say, 'Fuck this, this is wrong, I'm not doing it'?"

Another moment Jaffe discusses is a video camera the player comes across. If the player watches the tape, they see an American beheading a captive Chinese soldier. If the player rewinds further, there's footage of the American solider before the war, recording a family vacation at Disneyland. Jaffe was looking to explore the question "How would we react if we were occupied?"

There is a clear choice in this situation, and consequences if either path is taken.  If you didn't kill the family, your allies would immediately become your enemies, and your enemies would probably remain your enemies too.  I guess the trouble is making enough choices in a game, not just one meaningful one.  I do think though, even if the player is not given the choice, there is still a bit if guilt for having committed the action.  I mean, yes, to continue the game the action was necessary, but you don't have to keep playing the game, so there is always an implicit choice involved.

[increpare]

I mean, yes, to continue the game the action was necessary, but you don't have to keep playing the game, so there is always an implicit choice involved.

I agree with you on that point.

[GregWS]

Yeah, and making the person a player, not simply an observer, is the basis for why I think video games can be more effective in conveying a message than other art forms.  We're never forced to play a game, but understandably we don't want to just stop, because that would seem like a waste of money, and we probably would like to see what happens next.

I don't know how much you know about philosophy, and I'm a little rustier than I should be, but I think there are some interesting parallels here with the method of dialogue used by Plato (I may be wrong though, so please correct me if so).  The teacher asks the student "leading" questions, so that the student finds the answer partially on their own, instead of being simply told the answer outright.  This method is far more effective because the student remembers having to arrive at their own answer, even though the path was implicitly laid out for them.  I think the way video games can toy with emotion could be very effective for this type of learning (the MGS games really come to mind here).

[Craig Stern]

Wow, that Heartland interview was intense. I think it's a shame that game was never completed: I think there's something special about a game that will challenge the people who play it on a psychological level.

[muku]

I don't know how much you know about philosophy, and I'm a little rustier than I should be, but I think there are some interesting parallels here with the method of dialogue used by Plato (I may be wrong though, so please correct me if so).

I think it's Socrates you're thinking of.

[Bree]

I think it was Socrates as well, but the parallel is certainly an interesting one. Much like any other medium, games have to find some way of keeping the audience engaged.

For me, Execution was a nice example of what you were discussing with regards to the power of choice. The fact that your decision could never be undone made it that much more powerful.