next »

[Neonlare]

Isn't the guy kind of missing the point that Art is subjective? There's a fair amount of Modern Paintings out there that pushes the boarder of taste, but they're considered art as much as Picasso and Van Gogh.

It is a humourous, but dragged out joke though. I'm not sure if the person who made this is trying to double bluff. The creator also seems to exagerate the "non-gamer" divide of things aswell, as there's been plenty of people I know who have been wowed at the graphics of games, intrigued at the plotlines or even curious as to the gameplay mechanics even though they don't personally play the games themselves. This piece seems like a sweeping generalisation in this point.

[Koholint]

It's a joke. The whole game is a joke. There's a reason the notes are called "fake."

[Radix]

It's a joke. The whole game is a joke. There's a reason the notes are called "fake."

I got the impression that was just an attempt at plausible deniability in case someone called him a pretentious fag.

[agj]

To me, the game simply symbolizes the state the industry is currently at. Aggrandizing juvenile games (involving thugs and 'space marines') as works of art left and right, and endlessly discussing the finer points of what are really blunt and gross mass entertainment products, to somehow raise the artform to something 'important'. Also:

I really like this, how it makes a point, only to ridicule this point a few moments later, and then do it again. Good fun how it constantly works against itself to a point where the whole thing borders on schizophrenia.

[Shade Jackrabbit]

I thought it was funny how the artist's statements admitted how pretentious they were.

[Curseman]

To me, the game simply symbolizes the state the industry is currently at. Aggrandizing juvenile games (involving thugs and 'space marines') as works of art left and right, and endlessly discussing the finer points of what are really blunt and gross mass entertainment products, to somehow raise the artform to something 'important'. Also:

Yeah, I *think* (it's hard to say what with it calling its own statements fake) that what jumpbox is saying, among other things, is that gaming aficionados are too ready to call their media of choice an art form.  That they jump at any chance to say that games are art, even if to do so they need to lower the bar of entry to being an art form to the point that it doesn't matter anymore.

[Shade Jackrabbit]

To me, the game simply symbolizes the state the industry is currently at. Aggrandizing juvenile games (involving thugs and 'space marines') as works of art left and right, and endlessly discussing the finer points of what are really blunt and gross mass entertainment products, to somehow raise the artform to something 'important'. Also:

Yeah, I *think* (it's hard to say what with it calling its own statements fake) that what jumpbox is saying, among other things, is that gaming aficionados are too ready to call their media of choice an art form.  That they jump at any chance to say that games are art, even if to do so they need to lower the bar of entry to being an art form to the point that it doesn't matter anymore.

Only problem is that your "message" there was in one of the artist statements, which are fake.

I think it's just some really meta humour. Hilarious... 

[hugoCarnavale]

A good friend of mine has made an FAQ guide to JumpBox.
If you hated the game, you'll probably still enjoy the FAQ since it is better than its subject. Give it a read:

http://www.filedropper.com/jumpboxfaq12

[superflat]

I loved it, even though I am a believer in games with subtext... although rarely without the playability to back it up, and it had suitably horrible playability levels to lend validity to its (not overly serious) dis.  I felt it was tongue-in-cheek enough and was possibly a necessary statement to keep the art-games movement in check (simply meaning that we learn to know the difference between Shakespeare and student poetry.)  I know there's a large divide on this issue so I'm not surprised to see a lively debate here...

[Rock D]

I feel like I've read a story where the main character describes the book he's reading with statements such as, "these metaphors are really striking!" and, "this pun is hilarious!". Would that be a message about how there's something wrong with books or people who read them?

I think the best message you can take away from it is that unless we dare to go deeper and be more critical in our analysis of games they will never mature beyond where they are now. The fact that the maker himself doesn't dare to analyze his own game seriously, out of fear of being called pretentious is a clue that something is wrong there.

Artists and critics in other mediums don't feel the need to justify their medium or glorify it like we like to do in games. Just dare to say games suck, even your own games. When critical reviews of games becomes more commonplace we will lose the fear of being called pretentious.

[Bennett]

I didn't see this as a critique of 'art games' at all. I saw it as a critique of a particular kind of art game - no, a particular kind of artwork - that overexplains itself. In particular, it's a critique of artists' statements.

Never use an artist's statement. If you do, you've made the game wrongly.

[mirosurabu]

Artist's statements WITHIN game - maybe.

[Fuzz]

Artist's statements WITHIN game - maybe.

I'm fine with the vague sort you used in Mistakes. Is this what you're referring to?