next »

[ChevyRay]

Hmm, no - usually those statements come across as pretentious and reading them can suck the enjoyment out of just playing the game.

Complete opposite for me. I enjoy games more when I've had them explained to me, and find it pretentious when they're meant to be "experienced" or something extremely lame like that.

[TheBlackMask]

An exception I'll make is if you're being crucified because of how people see your game (e.g. Super Columbine Massacre RPG). That creator's statement exists with good reason.

I have actually just recently experienced this, as I just made Resist!, a game about suicide bombing.  Normally I do not write statements for my games, but with such a tricky subject, I felt obligated to clarify a bit.  Statements exist to clarify, while in many cases, they serve as a crutch, in other cases they can be almost necessary.

[gunswordfist]

"Having a separate article (an artist statement) describing what you tried to do with your experimental work can only aid."
Hmmmm..I'll keep that in mind for my games' descriptions. Thanks!

[Craig Stern]

As a former creative writing major, I find this sort of thing distasteful. If you've crafted a game with hidden meaning in mind, it's your job as the artist to make those meanings discoverable through careful observation and reflection. If your game requires a separate written statement to be understood, then you have (IMHO) failed as an artist.

I can understand why one might want to include a statement simply notifying the player of the fact that there is something look for in the first place, given TheBlackMask's observation:

Video games are something that are still not often considered art, and statements help to clarify things in the game that might not have been obvious.  In about 10 years, once video games have matured a little as a medium, I can see the lack of a need for statements, but right now, I believe that sometimes they are a necessity.

I don't think it will help bring games to artistic maturity to actually spoon-feed the player the meaning, however.

[TheBlackMask]

I don't think it will help bring games to artistic maturity to actually spoon-feed the player the meaning, however.

Exactly, like I said, there is a big difference between openly spoon-feeding the player meaning, and writing something that accompanies the game and perhaps provides a bit more insight.  For example, many people dislike Jason Rohrer's artist statements because he tends to overexplain everything...almost if if he is telling you why it is art.

What I'm trying to get across is that's it's ignorant to simply apply a black & white filter to this.  Simply saying "I like/dislike artist statements" is a generalization, as all statements will interact with the game's content in different ways.  I agree that a game should not require an artist statement, but in some cases, a well crafted statement can increase the value of the game.

[Biggerfish]

I encourage artists statements because I enjoy reading them.

If one doesn't enjoy reading them then they don't have to.

[moi]

Soooo....
How do you know if you don't enjoy reading them if you don't,...read them ?

[raiten]

@Toastie

I wouldn't care if I could connect.

When I played "Passage" for the first time, it made no sense to me. After reading short description about the game and then replaying it - I could understand the design idea behind the game and I was able to connect. And how many people understood "Passage" when they played it shortly after its release?

The reason I care that much is because I find it interesting that some designers are not willing to discuss their design ideas because it will 'ruin the experience'.

To me, the author's statement file in Passage more or less ruined the experience. I thought everything in the game was so obvious that writing it down was almost belittling. I also like interpreting things by myself, and not fully comprehending something is nice, it lends the possibility to there being more to the game, that you didn't grasp. I like that sense of mystery. Reading Passage's statement, I just felt like, "oh, so that was it?"

Why should experimental games be treated differently to movies or other forms of art?

[raiten]

If your game requires a separate written statement to be understood, then you have (IMHO) failed as an artist.

Couldn't agree more!

I encourage artists statements because I enjoy reading them.

If one doesn't enjoy reading them then they don't have to.

I wouldn't be able to stop myself. If you're really interested in a game you thought was deep and thoughtful, you WILL read the author's statement if there's one around. Do you really care about the game if you don't?

[Hajo]

Having a separate article (an artist statement) describing what you tried to do with your experimental work can only aid.

My driver was usually to avoid misinterpretations or misunderstandings, and therefore I usually tried to explain why I chose a certain design, approach or method for my projects.

I also like to read about other peoples ideas, when they make games; particularly since I seldom invest time to actually play them, but the time for reading seems to be well spent to me. I wish more people would discuss and explain their design decisions and their ideas behind innovative and avant garde designs.

[mirosurabu]

To me, the author's statement file in Passage more or less ruined the experience.

Why did you read it? If creator's statements ruin your experience then just don't read them. But don't use that as a reason for not writing them.

If your game requires a separate written statement to be understood, then you have (IMHO) failed as an artist.

No, you have not. You're just willing to introduce the idea to more people, and base the foundation for it. It's not required to connect with the work.

[raiten]

To me, the author's statement file in Passage more or less ruined the experience.

Why did you read it? If creator's statements ruin your experience then just don't read them. But don't use that as a reason for not writing them.

I already answered that in my second reply, but I don't see how you can claim that wouldn't be a reason for not writing them? If it ruins the game for some, why wouldn't you weigh that against it?

[Hajo]

To me, the author's statement file in Passage more or less ruined the experience.

Why did you read it? If creator's statements ruin your experience then just don't read them. But don't use that as a reason for not writing them.

I already answered that in my second reply, but I don't see how you can claim that wouldn't be a reason for not writing them? If it ruins the game for some, why wouldn't you weigh that against it?

if it makes the game more interesting or accessible for others, it's just a balancing questions - how many people will like it, and how many will not?

We do not have sufficient data to answer this, but I lean towards the argument of Miroslav, that if you do not want read the statement because you suspect it will ruin your experience, then just don't.

If such statement is missing, the ones who want/need it have no choice - it simply is not there. If it's there the ones who do not want it, still have the choice not to read it.

Thus I think it's better to have one, since it gives pleasant options to all groups, while the lack of such statement leaves one group without a solution.

[mirosurabu]

You read the creator's statement AFTER you connected with the game.

I advocate reading creator's statement or looking for any other kind of verbal assistance only and only if you can't connect to creator's work. (though, I don't advocate not reading creator's statements after connecting with work)

I also do see potential in creator's statements as a way to communicate design ideas, but that's not the primary focus of this topic. So, I won't discuss about that.

[raiten]

You read the creator's statement AFTER you connected with the game.

I advocate reading creator's statement or looking for any other kind of verbal assistance only and only if you can't connect to creator's work. (though, I don't advocate not reading creator's statements after connecting with work)

I also do see potential in creator's statements as a way to communicate design ideas, but that's not the primary focus of this topic. So, I won't discuss about that.

That's... not really how it works though. If you attach an author's statement, it's not like only the people you recommend should read it will read it. It might help a few to "connect" to the work, but it might also ruin the experience for a few. And if people can't connect to your work in the first place, well, then I have to agree with what Craig said, again. Make the game better, don't attach a text document.

[mirosurabu]

I don't see how it does not work that way. (Hopefully, you didn't assume I was talking about putting the statement into the game? Didn't you?) There are so many ways to get around this. Also, I do not believe it can ruin any kind of experience if it's well thought out. "It ruins experience after one connected to work" idea does not seem serious to me, as well.

You (and Craig) argue from the assumption that experimental work can be understood by everyone without any verbal assistance. I don't think this is true.

Analogy: If I put a blank paper in front of your face will you be able to understand it? If you do, then that's a placebo effect, because the blank paper is random creation of mine. If you don't then your assumption was wrong (or badly worded).

[raiten]

You (and Craig) argue from the assumption that experimental work can be understood by everyone without any verbal assistance.

No, now you're arguing on an assumption of what we think (but haven't said).

Analogy: If I put a blank paper in front of your face will you be able to understand it? If you do, then that's a placebo effect, because the blank paper is random creation of mine. If you don't then your assumption was wrong (or badly worded).

This is the problem, an interpretation of art can never be "wrong", an interpretation is not a "placebo effect". Shoving the "right", "intended" interpretation of something in the face of the player is just belittling what you have created.



Could any interpretation of this painting be wrong? Why do you think a game should be judged differently?

[Craig Stern]

You (and Craig) argue from the assumption that experimental work can be understood by everyone without any verbal assistance. I don't think this is true.

Analogy: If I put a blank paper in front of your face will you be able to understand it? If you do, then that's a placebo effect, because the blank paper is random creation of mine. If you don't then your assumption was wrong (or badly worded).

What makes a work of art interesting is that it is like an onion. Everyone can experience and appreciate the outer layer. People who pay more attention might notice something underneath; there will be clues that hint at submerged themes. A really great work will reveal more and more meaning upon repeated observations (or play-throughs, in the case of games).

It takes skill to design a piece like that. To simply hold up a blank piece of paper and then be disappointed when no one "understands" is, well, silly. That's an instance where you would need an artist's statement to attach any meaning at all; and because of that, it fails as a work, whether you call it "experimental" or something else.

[Hajo]

Could any interpretation of this painting be wrong?

If the artist was working towards a certain interpretation (i.e. if he wanted to spark just this interpretation in the visitors mind), then some interpretations might be wrong from the artists point of view.

From other points of view they might be valid - but I still think it'd be good to know if the artist aimed at something, or if it was just open for all interpretations.

In both cases I'd like to have a statement from the artist, telling me about his idea, and therefore being able to compare my idea with his.

I can well read it later, actually I want to make my idea first, but also like the comparison step - unfortunately many artists these days refuse to make such statements. I can understand that, though, also the intention behind it - I just say, I'd like it better if the artist communicates his ideas not only through the work but on another level, too.

[mirosurabu]

People can find meaning when there's none. That's proven several times before.

And experimental game must have a meaning. If it does not, then it's randomness. (placebo effect) Works open to interpretation cannot differentiate themselves from randomness, and creators which make such work cannot differentiate themselves from charlatans. That's why having an explainable design is a way to go.

So, since the game has one purpose, it must take care of gamer having right expectations about the game. When game introduces unique style which requires completely unknown mindset, it can be troublesome for players. Verbal assistance helps here, whether it's creator's statement or something else. It is not supposed to be game in verbal form, but rather assistance in adapting your mindset.

"Passage" works this way.

As said previously, I URGE YOU NOT TO REFER TO ART IN GENERAL. Do not either consider games as ART. Why? Because art is very tricky word for discussion and I don't want to discuss it here because I know that discussion will take totally different direction. Let's just start from fresh conceptual framework and use simple, core concepts to build our discussion around.