next »

[Guert]

Science is the reason of life, art is it's explanation. In other words, science strives to find the reason behind a certain behavior while art tries to explain the behavior to someone else. Both are extremely important in our mortal lives so art is partly science and science is partly art.

Now to anser your reply, Rinku (there's alot of text to read in this thread, Yay! )...

You pretty much answered what I thought you would. You said that one topic could be viewed in different ways by others. In my opinion that's the key to what you want to do... Interpretation.

In both Ico's and Starcraft, the player will interprete the sets of rules and actions he takes during the experience. Interpretation between those two particular games lies in the purpose of the game as well. Starcraft is a competitive game with some light emotional elements slapped to it. Ico on the other hand, is a game that tries to be emotional using competitive elements.

Starcraft is hard to interprete emotionaly speaking because it allows very little emotional behavior. There is only one answer to any question, kill or be killed, and the player doesn't have to think about morality during the game (killing your own unit and sacrifices are a common thing). The game on the other hand can be interpretad in many ways in terms of rules and all those rules are created to follow the purpose of the game: allow the player to be competitive without moraly challenge him. Of course you can't stop a player to be moraly involved in a game, but it's a lot harder when the game doesn't leave any rooms for feelings.

Ico on the other hand is almost the opposite of Starcraft. Ico uses many metaphores and forces the player to be emotionaly involved using the rules. Forinstance, having to hold the girl by the hand can be interprated emotional in many ways. Some will see it as a sign of friendship, others as a sign of submission (the girls needs the boy to do anything, hence a pro-male chauvinism philosophy). I interprated Ico as a big analogy of the virgin couple. The young virgin boy of a tribe comes to an age of sexual maturity (the horns and the stick always in hand) and is forced to find a mate. When he finds her, scared, fragile and helpless, easily injured and innocent, the boy must prove her his physical capacities by performing various parades and eliminating foes. At the same time, he forces her to follow him, he pressurizes into his physical needs.

But I disgress from the main topic here. The idea that I wanted to tell you was that, in order to obtain you goal of multi-layering, you must first find a subject that you want to explain to the world (art intent) and then research this goal thoroughly to find it's meanings (scienctific intent). Then, layout what side of this topic you want to explain to the world and then find ways (actions to be taken by the player, words to use, situations, etc...) to precisely show the message to the player. Then, split all of those in two column: emotional (what has something to do on how the player will feel when viewing in some way the action) and competitve (what the player will physicaly do and for what purpose he will do it). It will not be a clean division. Some may be in  both but in the end, you will some sort of division.

Then, all you'll have to do is plug them all togtehr in a coherent way and always make sure that the first goal of the game is always repected. Mutli-layering will come naturaly. Why? Because you will have obvious statements in the game, such as the main topic, and secondary messages that were found throughout your research. Some may not be able to see the secondary topics or intents, but those who will stop and look at the game will.

If I must give you an example of this, I would use the Matrix. The first movie is at first sight an action movie (wich could be roughly concidered in a game environment a competitive element) but it's also an analogy of our modern society about us doing what we do without asking questions. It is also another analogy of religious mythology: a chosen one of great power to bring the world to utopia. The creators researched both topics, competitive and emotional, and brought them together coherently. If one decide to marvel upon the fight scene and teh special effects, he can. If another is looking for a story about philosophy and our purpose in the universe, he also can.

I think that's what you are aiming at with your game: allowing all players to enjoy the same game on different levels.

So, I don't think it's truly up to the game, it's rather up to you to make the game. In the end, don't try to create a game with multiple layers, just try to show us a piece of your soul through the medium of "videogame" (I feel like the word is innapropriate here but I don't have anything else that truly feels right). Humans are multi-layered by definition.

Well, that's my opinion. Hope it makes sense Besides, there are as many ways to approach a suject of any kind (including this one) as there are people in the world. Nobody's right and nobody's wrong: some simply apply to a broader audience.

Well, later!
Guert

[Alec]

For instance, a lot of us would say that something without rules or goals (like The Endless Forest) isn't a game in the strict sense of not having gameplay, although it's a game in the sense of something that you can play with.

Its a game that you can play... therefore gameplay! I just think gameplay has been too rigidly defined by some people. (and possibly, "game")

If rules and goals in part define a game, then the lack of rules and/or goals can also define it. (or any gradient thereof)

I think the thing that most excites me about games is that the player has a tangible way of expressing themselves through them, in addition to the author. In fact, players can often support or undermine the author's intended vision. (i.e. in a movie you can't while you're experiencing it affect the way the actors act, but in a game you can make the main character, who is supposed to be a badass marine, bunny hop around like a total nutjob)

One thing to consider is how much and what kind of "expression" the player has within the game.

[Chris Whitman]

One thing Chris Crawford wrote that has stayed with me is that a sign of sophistication is smaller or more fine sensory or cognitive distinctions.

First of all, I think you're beginning with an exceptional fallacy, which is the attempt to fit the full spectrum of human views and tastes into a discourse of sophistication.

The idea of 'fine sensory or cognitive distinctions' is non-rigorous and, for all intents and purposes, defined only by example. I'm sure a case could be made that Rambo is unrefined in comparison to, say, The Seventh Seal, but the judgement is based on a priori concepts of social value. Look at it this way, I can set out to create a game or movie or book which communicates certain things, which evokes a response, and I can make use of a full range of feelings and social functions to do so, whether they are basic instinctual reactions or cognitive concepts or both, but when I discuss these things within the context of sophistication, I am doing nothing more than deferring to a power relation which marginalizes some elements in favor of others, socially.

Refinement is not an intrinsic value of a particular work, it's just an attempt by an interpreting party to separate works into distinct social strata. I'm not saying it's morally wrong to do so, but I do think it isn't useful or meaningful to use this as an academic discourse: it isn't useful in the sense that it polarizes everything with respect to a social order, and it isn't meaningful in the sense that it gives no information other than social bias. I think an attempt to make something 'refined' is inherently disingenuous. It is an attempt to assume the mantle of a certain genealogy, which amounts to a lot of self-important back-patting.

If done correctly, every element in a game should be interesting both to a 5 year old new to things like this and a 50 year old with refined tastes who has seen tens of thousands of works before yours.

Here is where, in my opinion, the lack of utility and meaning of the concept of refinement shows its weakness. What you're talking about is mass appeal. You're asking if you can make something that everyone will enjoy and find interesting. I'm not saying it's an unworthy goal, but I think you're crippling yourself with the assumption that enjoyment and interest are a function of a social quality of refinement. The problem is that an attempt to make something which appeals to both 'refined'  and 'unrefined' tastes may only appeal to someone who self-identifies as a member of one of these social castes. The part you leave out is that a player is free to interpret something which was designed within the schema of refinement on the grounds of any of a vast number of alternate ideologies.

I think this is an oversimplification, and if employing this design concept is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve some kind of real world goal, I just don't think this discussion is going anywhere.

One thing Chris Crawford wrote that has stayed with me is that a sign of sophistication is smaller or more fine sensory or cognitive distinctions. For instance: kids like candy, adults like food that isn't as obviously sweet but where they can enjoy the interesting things about food tastes that kids would miss.

As an addendum, and just to be nit-picky, you start to enjoy more subtle foods as you age because of gradual changes to the functioning of taste receptors. There's evidence that this is biological rather than educational, so it's kind of a weak analogy, even though I understand what you're getting at.

[Chris Whitman]

You know, I have another point on this entire matter, which also relates to the whole idea of a definition of 'game,' and I'm going to have to say that I'm on the side of Alec on this one.

All this talk and drive to develop a rigid academic discourse on games simply isn't useful. Nothing good has come out of this so far. We don't need to discuss what a game is because we can all recognize one anyway. It's a waste of time to talk about it. We simply don't need consensus on that point.

I'm not saying it's impossible to develop a critical theory of games, I just think we're barking up the wrong tree here. When an author starts to construct a new novel, he employs techniques  of story structure and literary device which are effective in some sense. He doesn't need to sit down and think very hard about what a book is (unless maybe he's from Toronto).

If we already know what we're doing, that's awesome; I don't think we need a manual to tell us to do what it is we already do. If the job is to teach and educate,  what we need is more akin to Strunk and White on video games. Specific, straightforward information on how to achieve real-world goals: to present information effectively and with clarity in a multimedia format, to avoid common technical errors, etc. Cookbook-style stuff.

But to evoke an emotional response? We don't need to develop literature to teach ourselves to be human beings, because we already are human beings. We already know things that will make people laugh or cry, and if we fuck up on that, typically corrective advice is specific in nature. Why is no one laughing at your jokes? Improve your pacing and cut down on pauses. It isn't necessary to develop some kind of theoretical framework in order to deal with these issues.

[Michaël Samyn]

Thank you, I Like Cake. Your responses are very insightful. And I agree with most of them.

I even agree with your anti-academic stance. But for different reasons. I dislike the academic dissection of games because it feels like they're looking at a dead corpse. From where I stand, games are a single celled organism, that have a long way to go. And academics seem to be trying to analyze the psychology of a complex mammal based on the behaviour of a single primitive cell. It's too early.

I don't think a cookbook is of much use if we don't even know whether we're herbivores or carnivores. Or whether we even eat at all. I think it is detrimental, in this stage of evolution of the medium, to think of games as an established art from. There's a lot of stuff that remains to be done.

So, while I may not agree with rinku's theory -or even with his theorizing- I do applaud his willingness to go beyond the current status quo. To try to ceate new things. To explore!

And indeeed, let's not define "game". But let's also not assume that we know what it is. Or can be. Let's remain open. And play!

[Alec]

And indeeed, let's not define "game". But let's also not assume that we know what it is. Or can be. Let's remain open. And play!

What's also annoying is when people assume that other people have rigid definitions of games.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

There's a bit too much to reply to, so I'll just touch on a few points.

Guert,

I'm not sure I agree with the science/art dichotomy (and most of the rest of your post is based on that, so I can't really sensibly apply to much in it since I don't understand how you're using the words there).

I also don't agree that what I should go for is to show others a piece of my soul -- I don't think my soul is anything special, I don't create games to communicate personal things with others (although that's a side effect), I create it because I like making things that others would get some value out of. In other words, I don't see games as a love letter to the world that I pour my soul into, I see them more as something which allows people to have interesting experiences.

So by layering I mean packing several different types of experience in a package in a tight way, where nothing is wasted because the things in it can be experienced from several different angles. There's an idea in writing that says to use no useless words, to make every paragraph and every word count; I think this is one form of that idea. Of course the focus shouldn't just be on how much experience you can pack in, but what that experiences are and why, but after you've decided on that, a lot of the work of it is to put it in as neatly as possible.

Alec,

I agree that games and gameplay don't have to include rules, for instance when kids play "pretend" there are no rules but it's still a game. But it is true that a lot of people don't call something a game if there are no rules (such as Will Wright not calling his games games, and preferring the word toy). So I don't think Michael is swatting at imaginary flies or something.

I Like Cake,

I didn't mean refined and unrefined as social strata, I meant them on a more individual level, being experienced or inexperienced with a particular type of experience.

I agree about the exceptional fallacy. But this wasn't intended to be an academic paper or a theoretical framework, it was just a set of thoughts I wrote down one day, and should be taken as such. I'd be much more rigorous if I were going to publish it or something. That doesn't excuse the problems with it, but what I hoped for is for people to use it as a springboard, rather than just to find what's wrong with it and point it out; so I have to ask, despite all the problems in what I wrote, did you find anything useful in it? Any of the examples, etc.?

[Guert]

Rinku:
I believe that, if you want others to live a unique experience, you must first have lived it in some way and you must also understand it: why did you feel this way and do you always feel the same way if it happens.

Call it soul, call it mind, call it your essence, call it your personality, call it your whatever you want, whenever you create something, you pour it inside. The fact that you create a game "because you like making things that others would get a value out of", is a message in the end.

Anyway, I don't believe that the key is about packing alot of experience together, but rather make sure that the experience is complete. If my post had insinuated this, I have wrongly formulated my words

Later!

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I agree that it's a good idea to have experienced what you wish others to. But I don't want others to experience something *just because* it's important to me or that I experienced it. For instance, I still have nightmares of elementary and high school often. But I wouldn't want to make a game where you're in a nightmarish school just because it's something I've experienced. I would prefer that I give others more enjoyable experiences.

I'm not saying there's no message or that there's no soul in it, just that those are secondary. What's primary for me is (for lack of better words) beauty and aesthetics. I don't mean that I never want to deal with ugly subjects, just that my goal when creating a game is not 'express as much of rinku as possible through this game' but 'have this game give/allow the player as beautiful an experience as possible'.

Of course I can't avoid expressing myself through it because it'd embody what I find beautiful. I'm not trying to avoid it. Perhaps a more concrete way of saying this is, when I have to decide what to put in a game, I don't do it by "which element of the possibilities do I think fits me the best", I do it by "which element of the possibilities do I think fits the game the best".

[Eden]

I think that a more "refined" piece of art will automatically be able to be able to be looked at in an unrefined way, too.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

That's true, but sometimes what what an inexperienced person looking at a more sophisticated work thinks is "I don't like this" or "I'm confused by this" or "this makes no sense". So it's not that they see *nothing*, it's just that what they do see they don't like. An example would be an old grandmother who never played games before trying to play Halo, or a 3 year old trying to watch the news. They see *something*, but nothing they can appreciate as relevant to them.

[Eden]

An example would be an old grandmother who never played games before trying to play Halo, or a 3 year old trying to watch the news. They see *something*, but nothing they can appreciate as relevant to them.

But how can we Aesthetically layer the news so it's meaningful to a 3 year old and an 80 year old?
Maybe that's what distinguishes art from non-art. Art is meaningful/relevant to anyone. Or is it?
Maybe it isn't because something can still be considered art for someone, and be totally meaningless for someone else. But that doesn't devaluate the worth of that work to the person who considers it art.
So I think this is a bit like the "can games be perfect for everyone?" debate. You're either limiting yourself (and therefore games as a whole) by doing Aesthetic Layering, or attempting the impossible.

At this point I'm led to the conclusion that you should just do whatever the hell you want. Limits are limiting

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

How we can do it depends on what type of game it is. There are certainly games that appeal to 3 and 80 year olds (Pokemon Snap would be a good example, although it may not appeal to a lot of people somewhere in the middle of those two ages).

I don't think something has to appeal to everyone to be good, but I think that it has a better chance of being appreciated if there are more than one way to appreciate it. So I'm not looking at it as 'make the audience as large as possible', although that's a side effect, but rather I look at it as 'make it so that it's enjoyable in many different kinds of ways'.

[Michaël Samyn]

In my experience, this is not necessarily a matter of adding features ("for all ages" or "for different demographics"). Players can be very creative. They play in many different ways. If the game design allows that, allows for different kinds of play, the game will appeal to different kinds of players.
So, to me, it's a question of openness, rather than explicitly adding layers of gameplay. Making the rules less strict, allowing things to happen. In some cases, even the bugs can become part of the fun.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I see what you mean, but it's also worth noting that that closes it off to the people who likes rules and goals and challenges and limits and all that typical stuff (a not insignificant number of people)

[Eden]

make it so that it's enjoyable in many different kinds of ways'.

Even the news is enjoyable to a 3 year old then
But not in the the same way that it is to an adult.

I suppose a "good" piece of art is inherently enjoyable in many layers. But the artist isn't thinking about this when they make it.

I see what you mean, but it's also worth noting that that closes it off to the people who likes rules and goals and challenges and limits and all that typical stuff (a not insignificant number of people)

Meh. Don't care about those people :p
Make art for you. Be genuine. Etc etc.

[Michaël Samyn]

I see what you mean, but it's also worth noting that that closes it off to the people who likes rules and goals and challenges and limits and all that typical stuff (a not insignificant number of people)

I don't think so. People are very creative. And if they like challenge and contests, they develop their own. As a game designer, you only need to give them a few elements, and they will build their own rules. It's pretty amazing how that works. In designing The Endless Forest, one of the most difficult things for us is to avoid the potential for antagonistic gameplay. Almost anything you put in can be used by the players to compete with each other.

[Michaël Samyn]

Make art for you. Be genuine. Etc etc.

I personally think that that is too simplistic. Art, to me, is a form of communication. It makes no sense to communicate without caring for the audience.
Especially not when making interactive works, where the player is the center of the experience.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Eden,

I wouldn't say the artist isn't thinking about it. I think a lot of artists do think about these issues. I've occasionally read the working notes or the diaries of novelists I admire. I've also watched those "making-of" bonus features on DVDs, whenever I get the chance to.

And I think a lot of the time the artists in those had a lot more in mind than the audience expects, or at least a lot more than I expected. The thought that goes into each decision or the use of different words is often pretty amazing. Not all artists are like that, but I think a lot are; people have this image of artists just jotting things down directly from inspiration or their Muse, and then adjusting it until it feels right, but I don't think it's like that for most of them.

Michael,

You might be right. But you're still excluding the less creative people, the people who need to be guided by the hand and are uncomfortable making up their own games within your game. And I'm not saying you shouldn't exclude them, just that a very open game tends to appeal to the more artistic sort of person.

[Eden]

I personally think that that is too simplistic. Art, to me, is a form of communication. It makes no sense to communicate without caring for the audience.
Especially not when making interactive works, where the player is the center of the experience.

I think of art as a way of communicating myself, or parts of me. So the audience is me- and I'm going to care about myself!