next »

[Bree]

Sounds fair to me. On that note, anybody else want to hear about the meanings behind Braid?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

re Matthew: Jon Blow does a pretty good job of explaining that himself. He's known for talking a lot

re godatplay: I don't mind people quoting me if they attribute it. Quoting is generally considered fair use anyway, you don't really need to ask permission.

re Miroslav:

- I'd have to re-read the topic, I may be misremembering it.

- And I'm not saying written statements are a bad idea, just that author interpretations are often less useful than any random person's interpretation: i.e., this sounds counterintuitive, but just because you made something doesn't given you any special insight into what it is. Isaac Asimov famously said that reviewers of his novels often know more about his intentions, motivations, and themes than he does himself, because authors tend to know that stuff only unconsciously rather than consciously, whereas expert reviewers are specialized in figuring that stuff out and reading all the unconscious motives and subtle themes in something.

- I do think that love is actually a thing: it's a characteristic brain state in the species. So as such it's just as physical as a game is (a game, too, often being experienced slightly different for everyone who plays it).

-

If I correctly understand, you say that reason for multiple interpretations in some cases is because some games are overly complex to be understood as a whole. However, that does not mean that the process of creation is not explainable, right?

What I meant there was like -- I do think the process of creation is explainable, but the process of creation is different from the subject of creation. Also, again, the map is not the territory. That's a famous saying from epistemology. The explanation is not the same as the thing being explained. The science of biology isn't the same thing as life, for instance, and music notation isn't the same thing as the experience of the music itself. Seeing Mozart's sheet music, if someone doesn't know how to interpret it, won't be the same as hearing the music.

Likewise, explanations of a game can never be the game, so it makes sense for explanations to necessarily be simpler and symbolic and simplistic, since in order to put anything into words you usually have to simplify it to the point where you lose most of what makes it it. For instance, saying the word "cloud" doesn't give you the experience of seeing any particular cloud. The specifics of each cloud at each moment can't really be put into words (although it can be captured in a picture or a video, but even that isn't the same).

So there's always going to be this gulf between reality and explanations of it. And I think that that gulf is often the reason authors don't bother with written statements: because people would assume that the author's own simplified explanation of their work explains it completely, when it would necessarily be a simplification of it, in some cases a badly simplified one. So that's probably the reason you don't see a lot of author statements. It's not always laziness, as you implied in the original post. It's just that even an author's own statement about something could make a mockery of it by trying to reduce something so awesome (in the literal sense of something which produces awe to behold) into a trite theory or set of sentences that makes people believe they know what the game is about without having had the experience of it.

[Kneecaps]

Sounds fair to me. On that note, anybody else want to hear about the meanings behind Braid?

Only once the PC version is released.

- And I'm not saying written statements are a bad idea, just that author interpretations are often less useful than any random person's interpretation: i.e., this sounds counterintuitive, but just because you made something doesn't given you any special insight into what it is. Isaac Asimov famously said that reviewers of his novels often know more about his intentions, motivations, and themes than he does himself, because authors tend to know that stuff only unconsciously rather than consciously, whereas expert reviewers are specialized in figuring that stuff out and reading all the unconscious motives and subtle themes in something.

This makes sense.  After all, if everyone completely understood themselves and their actions, psychologists would be out of a job.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I find written statements the most interesting when they don't attempt to be "explanations" for something, but when they talk about the circumstances of creation, much like a postmortem. For instance, Jason Rohrer wrote a very nice written statement about Gravitation. But it wasn't an attempt to explain the game. It was just a few pages on his life situation and his motivations while making the game. Here it is, I recommend reading it as an excellent example of making a written statement about a game which isn't an attempt to explain the game: http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/gravitation/statement.html

Also, this really is a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing. When people make written explanations for their games, a lot of people complain that it shouldn't need it and that a game should stand on its own, and that the author is a failure if he has to explain it. If they don't make written explanations, a lot of people will complain that they didn't know what the heck the game was about and that the author should have told them what it all means. You can't win either way. I remember there was a lot of Rohrer hate about the lack of explanation in Passage, and equally a lot of Rohrer hate about the creative statement above (usually with people not even reading it and assuming it explained the game.)

[Craig Stern]

I can't care less when meaning is constructed - before or after the game is made. What I care about is whether creator is willing to make his game more accessible to people

But that's the point--if the meaning is constructed outside of the game, then it isn't "his game" that's being made more accessible, really. The meaning is being made accessible from a creator's statement, not from the game.

EDIT: Actually, on second thought, I take that back. Simply telling the player the meanings behind the game may very well make the game more accessible, much in the way that playing a game with a step-by-step walkthrough will make it more accessible. But it's not a substitute for good game design. The proper way to make a game accessible is to make it accessible by virtue of good design, not by virtue of telling the player what to do or think in order to make up for the game's shortcomings.

[Mikademus]

Hi Paul, nice argument

In contrast to language, art deals with reality through directly portraying something, in a "pointing" fashion. So it can convey a bit more complexity than language can, although it too has its limits.

Howevber, the quote above was where you lost almost all artists of art-oriented professionals. Very few artists, art critics or art theorists today would consider that art is interested in portraying something, much less something real. They'd agree that some art MAY be interested in this, but as a theory of art it has been... eh... "out of vogue"? since around the 1950s.

[mirosurabu]

Paul,

Yes, map and territory are two different but related things. Drinking water is not same as reading the explanation of that process. Playing the game is not as same as reading the walkthrough. And so on.

However, one interesting thing you didn't mention here is that in most cases experience of map does not infer experience of territory. When you listen to music and look at the sheet or read creator's statement in most cases you'll still enjoy music afterwards. If one doesn't, I'll have no other option to assume other than placebo effect. When doctor tells patient that he has been taking sugar pill and not the real medicine, the patient will get disappointed. Similar can go here. The bad side of placebo's is that they take minimal responsibility in creating effect. They don't have much of a value.

Regarding Asimov's statement, while the theory sounds interesting, there's still no way to prove it. Being able to judge one's intentions from one's creation is controversial to me. (it is too much like infamous unproven psychoanalytic theories).

But it's not a substitute for good game design.

Sure it's not. Back in 80's, you had to explain Mario to people. Today, that has become common sense.

[agj]

After so many pages of discussion, I'm sorry to go back to the first post, but here I go anyway. A very simple answer for you, Miroslav. If the game is indeed experimental, then, as in any experiment, the subjects involved should not know what the experiment is about, or you'd be influencing their reactions.

Also (and I'm basically saying something that has been mentioned before in this thread, but in different words), in all the fields of design, a general, tacit rule is that what you do should stand for itself. If you're an architect and want the visitor of your building to feel at ease, you don't get to ask them to feel at ease, you communicate that through your work. If you're a graphic designer and want to create a poster that conveys the rapid-fire lifestyle in the city, you don't get to add a note explaining what the images are trying to get the viewer to feel, because they should speak for themselves. If you're a game designer and you want your game to achieve something in particular, it's the same thing.

[Proc]

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

You just blew my mind sir.

[Tokyoma]

I didn't really read through all of the posts, I don't have time at the moment, so excuse me if it's been said. But I believe that if the creator has a statement and that statement is truly important to the creator, you'll see that reflected in his work. I believe the need to explain is reversely proportionate to how important it is to the creator in the first place. If he's trying to show you something very deep and close to him, his aim will be to project that into his work, not have his work be a segue to the point. Whether the creator has to state it specifically or not, if the point isn't too important the creator will be more focused on presentation, cute metaphors, and mental toying than clarity. Good example being Mother 2. With it's strong tones towards friendship and altruism, these are clearly laid out and spelled out for the player to see through the entire game, where as some of the lesser, but still important points, e.g., the 'ability' to become homesick and not recover until you call or visit home, tend to be a little more vague even down to extremely vague situations, that are generally more personal to the creator, to the point at which he doesn't want to spell them out because he only wants those who reciprocate his feelings on the subject to relate with him and his message. Similar to the concept of an inside joke.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Hi Paul, nice argument

In contrast to language, art deals with reality through directly portraying something, in a "pointing" fashion. So it can convey a bit more complexity than language can, although it too has its limits.

Howevber, the quote above was where you lost almost all artists of art-oriented professionals. Very few artists, art critics or art theorists today would consider that art is interested in portraying something, much less something real. They'd agree that some art MAY be interested in this, but as a theory of art it has been... eh... "out of vogue"? since around the 1950s.

You might be misreading what I mean there. How are you interpreting "portraying something" there? The way I meant it is like this: let's say you paint a picture of a flower. You're portraying a flower in that painting, no? Maybe an imaginary one, but that's still the primary point, to portray a flower, through the senses. Art works through the senses, whereas explanations work through words. Even novels, while they work through words, attempt to portray through the senses (they give you the feeling of actually seeing, hearing, etc., the scenes, they describe the visuals and sounds and all that), whereas nonfiction doesn't.

So what I meant was more like this: art communicates with a person's senses, whereas explanations communicate through abstract language, and not everything that can be communicated directly through the senses can be explained in abstract language (in a creator's statement), and when you try to translate a sensory experience into an explanation a lot is lost in the translation.

[Mikademus]

The way I meant it is like this: let's say you paint a picture of a flower. You're portraying a flower in that painting, no? Maybe an imaginary one, but that's still the primary point, to portray a flower, through the senses. Art works through the senses, whereas explanations work through words. Even novels, while they work through words, attempt to portray through the senses (they give you the feeling of actually seeing, hearing, etc., the scenes, they describe the visuals and sounds and all that), whereas nonfiction doesn't.

So what I meant was more like this: art communicates with a person's senses, whereas explanations communicate through abstract language, and not everything that can be communicated directly through the senses can be explained in abstract language (in a creator's statement), and when you try to translate a sensory experience into an explanation a lot is lost in the translation.

Again, many artists have intentionally tried to "free" themselves of the representative and depictational ideals of "classic" Art. Secondly, you seem to suggest that Art are somehow self-contained and self-explanatory? That they do not have to be understood through cogitation? Most art in fact uses symbols in a language-like way. Many artists would likely take offence when told that they're representing sensual things (while other would accept it as obvious truth). And it is problematic and questionable from psychological, philosophical as well as artistic perspectives whether anything can be "communicated directly through the senses". So I don't accept the simple division of communication between "direct sensory transmission" and "transmission through abstract explanation" you were suggesting.

Anyway, not my intention to be confrontational (it is late night here), and I always enjoy an academic discussion 

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I think that art doesn't have to be understood through cognition, yeah. It can be, but it doesn't have to be, and usually isn't. Most music for instance isn't conceptual at all, you don't need to understand a piece of music by thinking about it (although you can), you understand it mainly by experiencing it with your senses. It might have a cognitive component, for instance Bach once spelled his name in one of his songs (B, A, and C keys or something), but knowing that isn't too important and doesn't help you enjoy the music any more than you can by just listening to it.

Similarly in painting knowing the background history for a painting is different than experiencing the beauty of what's depicted in the painting, and the latter is usually why people look at paintings. Although there are exceptions, there are cognition-heavy paintings, like Landscape with the Fall of Icarus. But the main reason people look at most paintings is see something, not to understand something.

But yes, modernism focuses more on cognition and less on sensory experience, and that's fine, but I don't think that most art is modernist art or even that most artists subscribe to modernist views of art. Certainly most people who experience art don't experience it from the modernist worldview. Also keep in mind that I'm being fairly inclusive with the word art, it subsumes not only self-conscious people who would consider themselves artists, but all music, all illustration and decoration, all games, all movies, all theater, etc. -- all sensory communication, even stuff like children's drawings and monster designs in jRPGs. There is a subset in that that is primarily cognitive rather than sensory, where the cognitive aspect is crucial and the sensory aspect isn't why people like it. In games, the cognitive games are sometimes called "art games", because you have to think about it in order to appreciate it.

[Fuzz]

The key is "you have to think about it". "Art games" require you to think, not the creator to think for you. If there was a small white dot in the middle of a black canvas, would that be good art if the artist said it was about the futility of human existence?

FAKE EDIT: Wait, isn't that Weißer Punkt in der Schwarzlücke? :D

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Yeah, that's another reason I don't like the idea of a creator's statement -- with many games, the whole fun is in figuring out what it's about. If you're told it kind of ruins it, like spoiling a puzzle.

[Craig Stern]

Yeah, that's another reason I don't like the idea of a creator's statement -- with many games, the whole fun is in figuring out what it's about. If you're told it kind of ruins it, like spoiling a puzzle.

Well, that process of figuring out what it's about is cognitive, isn't it?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Yes, but it's pretty much the only cognitive part of the process. Even with highly cognitive games like Opera Omnia, the primary experiences -- the parts that make the game worth playing,  the memorable stuff -- are sensual rather than conceptual. The conceptual stuff is like the icing on the cake, not the cake.

[mirosurabu]

Curios to know - which senses are involved in Opera Omnia in your case? (couldn't play the game itself; tried it several times, but the learning curve (mechanic) is horrible enough to keep me from playing the game; one example where verbal assistance of any kind is must-have).

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Well, "which" senses isn't really a relevant thing: I mean, yeah, it was sight and sound, but that doesn't tell you much. What matters more is the sensory reality of it, not which sense organs are used.

And to describe the sensory reality of it in words would run contrary to my entire point about the distinction between the sensory/concrete world and the linguistic/conceptual world. My point was that you *can't* describe the first in terms of the second. You can't realistically convey a sensory experience through language. I mean I could describe the sensory experience with abstract words like "foreboding" or "uneasy" -- but they're just abstract words, they don't convey the experience. That's why art can convey stuff that words can't, because it can convey sensory reality, whereas words can't; words convey explanations, theories, etc.

My larger point was that even attempting to convey sensory reality through linguistic means is wrong-headed. So it's not just that there are many different "interpretations" of art, it's that *all* interpretations or explanations are simplifications, all of them are "wrong", because you can't really convey sensory experience through language. So why ask me to try to do something I don't believe can be done?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

A thought experiment often used to convey this is: you can't describe the color red to someone who was blind from birth. You can try to do it, but it'll fail. Similarly, you can try to explain art in words or to provide an interpretation of it, but it'll fail, for the exact same reasons, even if you are the author of the work.