• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

phil_fish
Member
(12-12-2007, 03:41 PM)

Originally Posted by Mistouze

And I just tried to share something that moved me...

yeah but you used the a-word.
that's what happen when you use the a-word.
Mistouze
user-friendly man-cashews
(12-12-2007, 03:47 PM)
Mistouze's Avatar
You get a visit from this guy :



To come back to the subject, I have absolutely no problem understanding that some people don't "get it". You kinda receive what you put into the game, if you are willing to play along with it, fine. If not, I don't really see the need to bash as it is obviously not trying to satisfy the more twitch reaction addicted gamers out there.
lilltias
Member
(12-12-2007, 04:07 PM)
it really moved me. it made me thinking. is this it? i have my girl now, and i'm hunting the treasures. then i'm gonna die :(
Dolphin
Banned
(12-12-2007, 04:20 PM)

Originally Posted by phil_fish

its so sad to see idiots trying to make sense of art.
you know, not go out and make myself look like a giant elitist asshole, but many, MANY of you simply do not have the qualifications to hold a discussion about art, or god forbids, a debate!

many of you simply arent qualified enough to make sense of art just like im not qualified enough to form an opinion about...marine biology, or quantum physics...shit i know next to nothing about.

its kind of sad.
ive studied art for years.
ive produced art for years.
with about every single medium imaginable.
and i can safely tell you that passage is definitly a work of art.
it meets all the criterias and then some.
jason rohrer is many things, one of them is an artist. because he made art.
what qualifies as art ISNT subjective. you, as the illiterate internet idiot dont just get to decide what is or isnt art.
art is in the intention. and jason most definitly set out to make art.
and he did.
end of story.

You're a joke.
Campster
Do you like my tight white sweater? STOP STARING
(12-12-2007, 04:23 PM)

Originally Posted by Dolphin

You're a joke.

That joke has a game in the IGF. What are your qualifications?
Sqorgar
Banned
(12-12-2007, 04:23 PM)
Sqorgar's Avatar
Yeah, it moved me too. Because it is a combination of two similar ideas I had (#22 and #23), but implemented with a complete lack of style or substance and paired with a pretentious "message" and it gets all sorts of publicity and respect. It really makes me think that gosh, if I spent 15 minutes making crappy implementations of my ideas and making up arrogant stories about them, I too could be at the forefront of the "games are art" discussions...

Guys, games are art when games are true to what they are. Super Mario Bros is even though is never tries to be anything more than a game. What makes it art is that it inspires people to see the potential of the form - to have them seek to create and build form and value out of nothing. Something is art when is helps the creation of new art, even if momentarily and quietly to yourself.

Passage is not art because the message is not innate to the game itself. It has to be explained to you. Playing the game with no instruction is a boring, stupid affair with nothing to recommend it. You don't walk away from it thinking, gee, it's a great idea, but it'd be even better if... But once you hear the "message", then you start thinking. So I argue that "momento mori" post is the art, and Passage is just crap.
Dolphin
Banned
(12-12-2007, 04:25 PM)

Originally Posted by Campster

That joke has a game in the IGF. What are your qualifications?

I don't care what he has, that was one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen.
Like the hat?
Member
(12-12-2007, 04:34 PM)
Like the hat?'s Avatar
i played through the game on my laptop, sitting on the couch with my wife next to me reading a book. after playing the game, it made me feel down. i looked over at my wife reading her book and just seeing her there made me smile, and made me think to myself that even though we're going to die eventually and lose eachother, we are here now. it made me realize how much I love her.

i dont care if the game is art or not. i don't care if it forced its point down my throat. i like how it made me feel.
haowan
Member
(12-12-2007, 04:46 PM)

Originally Posted by Sqorgar

Yeah, it moved me too. Because it is a combination of two similar ideas I had (#22 and #23), but implemented with a complete lack of style or substance and paired with a pretentious "message" and it gets all sorts of publicity and respect. It really makes me think that gosh, if I spent 15 minutes making crappy implementations of my ideas and making up arrogant stories about them, I too could be at the forefront of the "games are art" discussions...

Guys, games are art when games are true to what they are. Super Mario Bros is even though is never tries to be anything more than a game. What makes it art is that it inspires people to see the potential of the form - to have them seek to create and build form and value out of nothing. Something is art when is helps the creation of new art, even if momentarily and quietly to yourself.

Passage is not art because the message is not innate to the game itself. It has to be explained to you. Playing the game with no instruction is a boring, stupid affair with nothing to recommend it. You don't walk away from it thinking, gee, it's a great idea, but it'd be even better if... But once you hear the "message", then you start thinking. So I argue that "momento mori" post is the art, and Passage is just crap.

ulch, see, wow, just... ulch
Graphics Horse
graphics horse
graphics horse
does whatever a
graphics horse does
(12-12-2007, 04:56 PM)
Graphics Horse's Avatar
This game makes me question why some members of the internet's preeminent video game industry discussion community are so unadventurous that they'll hold down a single button for 5 minutes without even attempting to move in a different direction.

And for that, I officially declare it art.
Dolphin
Banned
(12-12-2007, 04:57 PM)

Originally Posted by Campster

That joke has a game in the IGF. What are your qualifications?

Okay, I went and looked at his game and I've changed my mind a little. Yes, his game looks really cool--but that doesn't validate his claims at all. Thousands of people post at Neogaf, many who have less experience and credibility than Phil, many who have more. His statement was audacious and presumptuous. He may not be a joke, but his thinking is certainly misled. He reminds me of contemporary European African art dealers--the kind that claim that Colon isn't African art because it doesn't meet their criteria for African art, namely that African art has to be the traditionalist noble kind of animistic art that most people find familiar. Art is very old, and transcends genre and culture. One indie videogame designer isn't about to convince me that he has all the answers that art historians and anthropologists have been pondering for generations.
joelseph
Member
(12-12-2007, 04:58 PM)
joelseph's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sqorgar

Passage is not art because the message is not innate to the game itself. It has to be explained to you.

I disagree completely.
Mr. Lemming
Member
(12-12-2007, 04:59 PM)
Mr. Lemming's Avatar

Originally Posted by Graphics Horse

This game makes me question why some members of the internet's preeminent video game industry discussion community are so unadventurous that they'll hold down a single button for 5 minutes without even attempting to move in a different direction.

And for that, I officially declare it art.

To be fair I did move backwards on occasion. I still say its not really showing a game as art but an interactive multimedia experience as art.
jgkspsx
Member
(12-12-2007, 05:00 PM)

Originally Posted by Sqorgar

Passage is not art because the message is not innate to the game itself.

It is indeed, because it is. Very ingeniously.

It has to be explained to you.

Only if you're an idiot with a defective emotional imagination.
MMaRsu
Banned
(12-12-2007, 05:11 PM)
MMaRsu's Avatar
this game is sad :(
lastendconductor
Put your snobby liquids into my mouth!
(12-12-2007, 09:22 PM)
lastendconductor's Avatar
Ok, this managed to make my eyes a little watery.
I need to go play some Contra.
DDayton
(more a nerd than a geek)
(12-12-2007, 11:44 PM)
DDayton's Avatar

Originally Posted by jgkspsx

It is indeed, because it is. Very ingeniously.
Only if you're an idiot with a defective emotional imagination.

I think folks are being too harsh on both sides of this -- I think it's a cute and neat little idea (and that's NOT an insult), but I'm not sure that someone failing to "get" the game suffers from such a condition.
Vashu
Member
(12-13-2007, 12:08 AM)
Vashu's Avatar
This piqued my neverending curiosity, and I downloaded the small file to see what all the ruckus was about. But to my dire knowledge, this game will not start on my PC equipped with XP.

It only shows me an empty DOS-box, which disappears almost instantly. What folly is this?
Xeke
Banned
(12-13-2007, 12:16 AM)
Xeke's Avatar
I've always wondered why games like Gears, Halo, CoD, Half life, Starcraft and just about any RPG would translate into crappy high budget hollywood movies yet they are the best of their trade...

Games =/= movies but until things like writing and storytelling improve beyond high budget hollywood movie levels...I dunno where I am going with this.
Oblivion
Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
(12-13-2007, 12:27 AM)
Oblivion's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dolphin

Okay, I went and looked at his game and I've changed my mind a little. Yes, his game looks really cool--but that doesn't validate his claims at all. Thousands of people post at Neogaf, many who have less experience and credibility than Phil, many who have more. His statement was audacious and presumptuous. He may not be a joke, but his thinking is certainly misled. He reminds me of contemporary European African art dealers--the kind that claim that Colon isn't African art because it doesn't meet their criteria for African art, namely that African art has to be the traditionalist noble kind of animistic art that most people find familiar. Art is very old, and transcends genre and culture. One indie videogame designer isn't about to convince me that he has all the answers that art historians and anthropologists have been pondering for generations.

Well said. Agreed 100%.

And did that guy just praise his own work? o_0
Bildi
Member
(12-13-2007, 12:27 AM)

Originally Posted by phil_fish

its so sad to see idiots trying to make sense of art.
you know, not go out and make myself look like a giant elitist asshole, but many, MANY of you simply do not have the qualifications to hold a discussion about art, or god forbids, a debate!

many of you simply arent qualified enough to make sense of art just like im not qualified enough to form an opinion about...marine biology, or quantum physics...shit i know next to nothing about.

its kind of sad.
ive studied art for years.
ive produced art for years.
with about every single medium imaginable.
and i can safely tell you that passage is definitly a work of art.
it meets all the criterias and then some.
jason rohrer is many things, one of them is an artist. because he made art.
what qualifies as art ISNT subjective. you, as the illiterate internet idiot dont just get to decide what is or isnt art.
art is in the intention. and jason most definitly set out to make art.
and he did.
end of story.

So the masses can no longer discuss or form an opinion about art? When did art discussion and appreciation turn into something you can only do if you're suitably qualified?

I see people like you as a large part of the reason people have a disparaging view towards a lot of art nowadays. Instead of engaging in a discussion with people and maybe imparting some of your knowledge on them, you turn around and call them idiots. Well done.
.dmc
Banned
(12-13-2007, 01:04 AM)

Originally Posted by Bildi

So the masses can no longer discuss or form an opinion about art? When did art discussion and appreciation turn into something you can only do if you're suitably qualified?

Mamesj said it best..

Originally Posted by Mamesj

For some weird reason, people who don't understand art always have to throw out the words "elitist" or "pretentious." I think it's because art appears to be something super easy to understand. but is it really elitism when people are able to discuss something that you can't discuss on their level? When there are programmers or journalists on gaf discussing games at their level or correcting people's view on a game, does that make them elitist? No. I wouldn't accuse my friends in engineering or psychology of being elitist for discussing the stuff they are working on. and if I tried to talk like I knew anything about the stuff they are into, then they told me my assumptions about their subject were shit, I wouldn't exactly be in a place to call them elitist, would I? Nope. So why would it be any different for art.


Originally Posted by Bildi

I see people like you as a large part of the reason people have a disparaging view towards a lot of art nowadays. Instead of engaging in a discussion with people and maybe imparting some of your knowledge on them, you turn around and call them idiots. Well done.

Look, art is a cultural industry with an immense wealth of history + critical discourse. Just an political science PhD student would belittle someone with a wikipedia-derived knowledge of Adam Smith, or an economist would belittle someone who has read No Logo + Moby's cd inserts and fancies themselves as understanding the freekmarket, so someone from the art community/industry is going to belittle some kid on the internet who thinks that Assassin's Creed is 'art' because it's 'beautiful'.
jgkspsx
Member
(12-13-2007, 03:25 AM)

Originally Posted by DavidDayton

I think folks are being too harsh on both sides of this -- I think it's a cute and neat little idea (and that's NOT an insult), but I'm not sure that someone failing to "get" the game suffers from such a condition.

Hey, I wouldn't have been so harsh if it hadn't been for the unwarrantably derogatory tone of that poster:

Originally Posted by Sqorgar

Yeah, it moved me too. Because it is a combination of two similar ideas I had (#22 and #23), but implemented with a complete lack of style or substance and paired with a pretentious "message" and it gets all sorts of publicity and respect. It really makes me think that gosh, if I spent 15 minutes making crappy implementations of my ideas and making up arrogant stories about them, I too could be at the forefront of the "games are art" discussions...

towards a "game" that realizes the creator's vision perfectly. It sucks as a game, no doubt, but it does what he wanted it to do. To attack the skills and vision of a person who *did* something because it reminds you of something you *talked about* isn't just rotten, it's stupid. The personal attack against Passage's creator pissed me off.

P.S. Sqorgar, your blog there has many amazing ideas, but your sour-grapes "He's only getting attention 'cause he actually made it!" attitude is anything but constructive. If you actually implement some of this stuff instead of just thinking/talking about it/drawing it, you might well be at the forefront of indie gaming. But until we can experience it, it's just talk.
highspeeddub
Member
(12-13-2007, 04:24 AM)
This is a game as art. The message is expressed through the interactivity.
PepsimanVsJoe
(12-13-2007, 04:38 AM)
PepsimanVsJoe's Avatar
Whatever the message I see no reason to argue about these games on whether they're art or not.

The way I see it the games contain feeling and expression(two of the most important elements of art imo). Not only that but since they're free and easily accessible(due to the simple controls) they can be appreciated by a wide range of people.

Oh and something something personal attacks something.
Last edited by PepsimanVsJoe; 12-13-2007 at 04:41 AM.
rollingstart
Member
(12-13-2007, 05:04 AM)

Originally Posted by JodyAnthony

i played through the game on my laptop, sitting on the couch with my wife next to me reading a book. after playing the game, it made me feel down. i looked over at my wife reading her book and just seeing her there made me smile, and made me think to myself that even though we're going to die eventually and lose eachother, we are here now. it made me realize how much I love her.

i dont care if the game is art or not. i don't care if it forced its point down my throat. i like how it made me feel.

you were soooo close to making that really sappy, all you needed to do was say "then I asked my wife to go for a walk" or something.

and it was a nice 'game' with a good message.

however, it really stretches the idea of what a game actually is. It did have the mechanic where you are your wife can go visit these stones and gain more points (uhh, amount you guys love each other or something?), it also was a semi-puzzle to reach these points, but for the most part you could walk straight and finish. I think it would have actually had the same impact if it was a flash video, the only thing gained by control are the slight game elements and the point where your wife dies and you wonder to either press on or wait at her grave. My only real complaint is with how the game tried to do this modern-retro thing with the pixel graphics and music...it was a tad bit cheesy for me, it seems like a bunch of 'indie' games try do that, although that could be due to it being easier to work with the style.

I dont know if its art or not, im not one of those people who tries to go around and give a definition of art thinking im special and other people cant appreciate or get it. If some guy wearing a burlap sack says its art, then it is art to him atleast.
Bildi
Member
(12-13-2007, 05:20 AM)

Originally Posted by .dmc

Look, art is a cultural industry with an immense wealth of history + critical discourse. Just an political science PhD student would belittle someone with a wikipedia-derived knowledge of Adam Smith, or an economist would belittle someone who has read No Logo + Moby's cd inserts and fancies themselves as understanding the freekmarket, so someone from the art community/industry is going to belittle some kid on the internet who thinks that Assassin's Creed is 'art' because it's 'beautiful'.

I know what you're saying. I guess it's more a personality thing. There's the people who belittle others with knowledge they have, and there's also people who belittle others even when they don't have knowledge on the subject. I find both types are pains in the ass.

If someone is going on about something I know well and they obviously have no idea what they're talking about, I prefer to just let them drone on. Correcting those kinds of people is pointless - it's in their personality and they are extremely unlikely to listen anyway.

But I do find it helpful when people who are knowledgeable on a subject can contribute something that others don't know to help them understand better (without belittling them). Getting peeved and calling people stupid for not understanding doesn't help the cause.
Tim-E
Member
(12-13-2007, 05:59 AM)
Tim-E's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mistouze

And I just tried to share something that moved me...

It moved me, aswell. Thank you for posting this.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
(12-13-2007, 06:56 AM)
Mgoblue201's Avatar

Originally Posted by sp0rsk

Guys, art doesn't have to be entertaining or even fun.

Like someone said, games do have to be entertaining and fun. Anything that requires interaction also must engage the player. Art by definition is a more passive experience. Typically something is being communicated to you, and it's up to you to untangle the message in your mind and in most cases reach a conclusion. That is the very opposite of what a videogame is. You're in the experience. So your mind must be engaged with the act of playing. In that respect it is no different from a sport or board game. That's not to say that videogames can't be art or contain art. But there's a reason Pacman and Space Invaders were just games. That was the bare minimum requirement of what a game had to be. And they most certainly had to be entertaining. Strip that away and you're left with a dull exercise of playing a purely passive experience, and by definition that isn't much of a videogame at all. Perhaps it doesn't have to be, but there better be some gamplay to speak of if I am to be interested.

With that said, it was mildly amusing. You can just press right the entire time, but you can also look around. Someone on this thread explained it well: it's more about the rules of the game than the game itself. However, I think that once the rules are discovered, it loses some of its luster.

The biggest problem I see is that it doesn't seem to be a full on analogy. Perhaps I'm just missing something, but what does the terrain mean? It seems to be akin to gibberish. The time limit is neat, and so is the perspective, but if he is going to do it that way, then why can I move back? Life is more than about growing old. It's about moving forward. So it's not like you have all the time in the world to explore around. You have to make choices. Sacrifice some things when you choose others. You see that vaguely when you pick up a wife, but not even that feels like it has real consequences. It's cool, but it's not necessarily impactful. I also don't know about being able to see what's in front of you from the start. Life blindsides you. It doesn't give you hints of what's to come. I think it should only scroll behind you.

However, I do like one thing. It's not necessarily a game about events. It's a game about analogies. I just wish there was more there. Music was nice though. Simple graphics actually seem to benefit the game.

As an aside, I'm reminded of something that Roger Ebert said. He mentioned that lack of authorial control denegrated artistic merit. Of course most videogames rely heavily on authorial control, but this one does not. You can play the game a hundred different times in a hundred different ways, and it feels like all consequence is sucked from it. You do end up dying, though, and that's one thing you can't avoid, so perhaps that's the point. But even a game like Sim City, which is fairly open ended, has plenty to risk, namely an entire city that you've built up (outside of save points of course). This game doesn't feel like there's anything to risk. It doesn't feel like there are a lot of choices. Just a lot of wandering around. I don't know, maybe that's the point. Just wandering around. Or maybe it truly is missing something. I'm just trying to throw several points out that I can chew on.
Red Scarlet
(12-13-2007, 07:03 AM)
Red Scarlet's Avatar
The art in some games is cool.
Sqorgar
Banned
(12-13-2007, 07:09 AM)
Sqorgar's Avatar

Originally Posted by jgkspsx

P.S. Sqorgar, your blog there has many amazing ideas, but your sour-grapes "He's only getting attention 'cause he actually made it!" attitude is anything but constructive. If you actually implement some of this stuff instead of just thinking/talking about it/drawing it, you might well be at the forefront of indie gaming. But until we can experience it, it's just talk.

That wasn't sour grapes, though I admit it certainly came across that way. I was trying to slyly link to my own stuff while making a point, though I'm not much of a morning person so I wasn't paying attention. Frankly, if I was paying attention, I wouldn't have linked to my stuff, for I fear NeoGAF's divine judgement.

My point was (or I guess more correctly, should've been) that if he had simply written the idea down on paper, it would still retain all the "art" it ever had. There is nothing artful in any way about the game itself (other than the more obvious 256 pixel style). Nothing was gained by making it a game, and nothing would be lost by making it, for example, a flash movie. You take away the blog entry, and the game loses meaning. But the blog entry loses nothing by never playing the game.

However, because he made it a game - one that I think poorly represented his momento mori intent - it becomes a "games as art" thesis? Frankly, I find the concept insulting. If we are going to talk about games as art, we should be focused on games where the "art" is not something that can be taken out and immortalized in something else, like a movie, blog, description, or whatever. Games as art is only valid when there is an artform that ONLY exists in games.

Just like no description can do justice to a painting, we need to be talking about games where no screenshot or video can do it justice. Surely, there is room for all kinds. But the discussion will be made only on the virtues of gameplay alone. Until then, you'll get chaps like Ebert suggesting that games can USE art, but they aren't art themselves. When we get to the point where we can describe a rocket jump as art or a power up as art, then we've entered the discussion for real and we're in it to win.

I linked to my website (stupidly) because that site is filled with gameplay mechanics that don't exist. They aren't games, and yet they cannot exist in any other form. They are blueprints for interaction. They are not complete ideas by themselves. They require a player - even if that player is simply running through the motions in the back of his head while he stares at mock ups and reads overly long descriptions. Haven't you ever looked at a screenshot and played the game in your head? It's like you just invent this entire structure and form in your head. The art of gaming isn't in the games that are already made, but in the games that are created each and every time a gameplay mechanic is described.

That, to me, is the art of gaming - and I wish I had a less selfish way of sharing it. Sorry for sounding like a dick earlier.
dark steve
Banned
(12-13-2007, 08:10 AM)

Originally Posted by Sqorgar

Nothing was gained by making it a game, and nothing would be lost by making it, for example, a flash movie.

okay, I'm going to bring in the dreaded personal anecdote.

I went in to the game with only a vague idea that it was supposed to have some emotional depth, without having read the statement or paid much attention to the discussion that followed the link on another forum.

And I played it.....I met the girl, and I looked around, and looked for treasures, and I thought about the time limit that was becoming apparent, and I started thinking about how I wanted to spend my time. I wanted to go after treasure chests that were in my way, because I could tell from the blooming star and the points rising that this was an action meant to instill a sense of reward. But I also wanted to keep going, seeing new landscapes, because I find that also rewarding, and ultimately I became more curious about what was ahead of me than what was around me.

And then the girl, who had walked with me that whole time because that's the way she was programmed and because that is what I ran into her for, died. And I realized at that moment that, in this video game world and as a shade of who I am as an actual person, I was not going to leave her grave behind. At that moment I didn't care for what it meant to be attached to a bit of code or what it might imply about me that I didn't want to let go, even though I thought about those things later.

From that moment, and to the moment my character died, I stayed at the grave. I walked around a little bit, but I didn't want to leave it. And it honestly didn't matter why I felt that way.

You couldn't do that in a flash movie.


This will draw either ire or ignorance but, seriously, fuck the notion that a game has to entertain me every moment, that it has to be fun all the way through. If it engages me, and makes me think.....even if I'm not enjoying myself as much as I would be playing something else, it makes for a worthwhile experience. This may not be art, but it is a game that can be meaningful without being fun. I interact with it and it changes at least the smallest part of who I am at the moment I play it.

Video games are a form of media we are just beginning to understand the potential of, and they do not have to be fun to be worth creating and playing.
Chipopo
B E L I E V E
(12-13-2007, 08:31 AM)

There is nothing artful in any way about the game itself (other than the more obvious 256 pixel style). Nothing was gained by making it a game, and nothing would be lost by making it, for example, a flash movie.

This is a huge stretch. The game relies on an intimacy between you and your 'avatar' in the game, that's where it derives nearly all of its impact. I'm picturing it as a flash movie and I'm totally bored.
sprsk
force push the doodoo rock
(12-13-2007, 08:33 AM)
sprsk's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mgoblue201

Like someone said, games do have to be entertaining and fun..


NOOOOOOOOOO THEYYYYYYYYYY DOOOOOOOOOON'T
DDayton
(more a nerd than a geek)
(12-13-2007, 08:44 AM)
DDayton's Avatar

Originally Posted by sp0rsk

Originally Posted by Mgoblue201

Like someone said, games do have to be entertaining and fun..

NOOOOOOOOOO THEYYYYYYYYYY DOOOOOOOOOON'T

...but they are more favorably received when they are fun! Or at least rewarding...which, I suppose, you could argue that this thing is to a certain extent.

I need to get data on that text adventure / sci fi award thing again.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
(12-13-2007, 09:44 AM)
Mgoblue201's Avatar

Originally Posted by sp0rsk

NOOOOOOOOOO THEYYYYYYYYYY DOOOOOOOOOON'T

Well okay then. But just to make sure, I'll go over this again. Interactivity still requires enjoyment. Finding meaning only in the work you've done is called a chore. To the point: there has to be some sort of mechanic there to facilitate the rest of the game. That's called gameplay. Complex level design. Mastery of controls. Progression. Rules that grow and expand. A playground of sorts where the action takes place. A videogame must have some of these basic elements. It's what makes the product entertaining. Entertainment doesn't mean constant action. It means that there are elements in place that foster a creative and complex environment that the player must work through and ultimately overcome (not necessarily overcome, since not all games end, but certainly improve upon). Without that, you don't have a videogame at all. You have a movie that you can play. There are plenty of things that you can get from art that are not entirely wholesome or happy. And those have their places in videogames. But the gameplay still has to be an enjoyable experience. If the gameplay is not entertaining, then there is nothing to attract you to the actual play experience. And if there is nothing to the actual play experience, then it probably doesn't need to be a game at all.
border
wears the band's shirts to the band's concerts
can't comprehend the origin of terms
(12-13-2007, 05:03 PM)
border's Avatar
Was I the only one who thought the girl would come back to life if I just turned around and started walking the other way?
Campster
Do you like my tight white sweater? STOP STARING
(12-13-2007, 05:16 PM)

Originally Posted by Mgoblue201

Well okay then. But just to make sure, I'll go over this again. Interactivity still requires enjoyment. Finding meaning only in the work you've done is called a chore. To the point: there has to be some sort of mechanic there to facilitate the rest of the game. That's called gameplay. Complex level design. Mastery of controls. Progression. Rules that grow and expand. A playground of sorts where the action takes place. A videogame must have some of these basic elements. It's what makes the product entertaining. Entertainment doesn't mean constant action. It means that there are elements in place that foster a creative and complex environment that the player must work through and ultimately overcome (not necessarily overcome, since not all games end, but certainly improve upon). Without that, you don't have a videogame at all. You have a movie that you can play. There are plenty of things that you can get from art that are not entirely wholesome or happy. And those have their places in videogames. But the gameplay still has to be an enjoyable experience. If the gameplay is not entertaining, then there is nothing to attract you to the actual play experience. And if there is nothing to the actual play experience, then it probably doesn't need to be a game at all.

Yeah, and movies can deal with serious subjects but if I'm not experiencing either an awesome adventure or a comic laugh riot than I don't see why I should subject myself to two hours of the filmmaker's crappy "art." The audience needs something to make it worth their while! If I ain't enjoying it, it ain't worth it.

I don't go to the movies for "art" I go to escape and be entertained. That is the priority of the filmmaker. Whatever the hell he wants to do comes second. If a movie isn't entertaining it fails as art because no one wants to bother with it, and what's a work without an audience?

Same goes for pictures, music, books, and any other disposable pleasure.
Hellsing321
Member
(12-13-2007, 05:34 PM)
Hellsing321's Avatar

Originally Posted by Campster

Yeah, and movies can deal with serious subjects but if I'm not experiencing either an awesome adventure or a comic laugh riot than I don't see why I should subject myself to two hours of the filmmaker's crappy "art." The audience needs something to make it worth their while! If I ain't enjoying it, it ain't worth it.

I don't go to the movies for "art" I go to escape and be entertained. That is the priority of the filmmaker. Whatever the hell he wants to do comes second. If a movie isn't entertaining it fails as art because no one wants to bother with it, and what's a work without an audience?

Same goes for pictures, music, books, and any other disposable pleasure.

You're missing his point. He's not saying all games need balls to the wall action, but the gameplay mechanics have to at least be interesting enough to keep you playing. I love point and click adventures mostly for their story and writing, but they often have puzzles that must be solved to progress. These puzzles can take different forms but really if you didn't have some kind challenge and the only player interaction was just moving through dialog trees then what would have been the point of making the game in the first place?

Movies and games are different beasts because of the interaction that takes place. If games are ever going to be art, they sure won' be art in the same way that movies are art.
dark steve
Banned
(12-13-2007, 05:43 PM)

Originally Posted by Campster

I don't go to the movies for "art" I go to escape and be entertained. That is the priority of the filmmaker. Whatever the hell he wants to do comes second.

So, just checking....you're saying that media should not try to live up to it's potential?

Media does not have to entertain. It can inform. It can invoke emotions and feelings not associated with entertainment, such as discomfort or rage. These are perfectly valid uses of the media, and if someone chooses to make media that does these things, they should not be criticized for not doing what they never meant to do.
Halvie
Banned
(12-13-2007, 05:46 PM)
Mamesj my comment wasn't directed towards you, but if you are trying to equate a dude with an art degree to a physicist or a game programmer I think your crazy.

edit: ah dudes French..explains it...
phil_fish
Member
(12-13-2007, 06:10 PM)
french canadian, that is.

i think a lot of people here have a very narrow idea of what games and art are.
i think a lot of people have this idea that for something to be considered art, they
have to like it. which is bullshit. you often hear stuff like "omg, that was so amazing! it's art!" a lot of people equate art with quality or greatness. as if for something to be art, it has to rise above all sorts of crap to reach this mythical level of truth and beauty we call art.

that's not how it works.
if you dont like it, just call it bad art.
art dosent not imply absolute genius or mastery.
art can be very simple, easy, accesible.
art does not equal masterpiece.
art does not implies greatness.

passage is art.
if you dont like, dont say its not art. you dont get to decide that.
say you dont like it. call it bad art. whatever.

this is paramount to looking at an ugly building and saying "this is not architecture! this is not a building! its crap!"

and

Instead of engaging in a discussion with people and maybe imparting some of your knowledge on them, you turn around and call them idiots. Well done.

i call them like i see them.
border
wears the band's shirts to the band's concerts
can't comprehend the origin of terms
(12-13-2007, 06:28 PM)
border's Avatar
I think a lot of people simply don't like some self-appointed arbiter telling them what is and is not art.
phil_fish
Member
(12-13-2007, 06:33 PM)
hey, i dont walk into a butcher's a start telling him what is and isnt meat.
he woulndt like that either.
meat isnt subjective.
border
wears the band's shirts to the band's concerts
can't comprehend the origin of terms
(12-13-2007, 06:39 PM)
border's Avatar
Everyone knows what meat is. There isn't as much of a consensus about what art is. If you claim to have the sole, supreme definition you are just going to come off like a snotty jerk (and I guess insulting anyone who disagrees doesn't help either).
phil_fish
Member
(12-13-2007, 06:41 PM)
i do: art is in the intention.

there you go.
random shit isnt art.
nature isnt art.
accidents arent art.
art is in the intention.
supreme definition.
PepsimanVsJoe
(12-13-2007, 06:46 PM)
PepsimanVsJoe's Avatar
Well it's obvious that I made a mistake reading this thread.
border
wears the band's shirts to the band's concerts
can't comprehend the origin of terms
(12-13-2007, 06:56 PM)
border's Avatar
I wasn't asking for a supreme definition of art (there really can't be one).

I was saying that anyone claiming to have a supreme definition of art is going to look snotty and undermine whatever viewpoint they are trying to promote (you have).
Bert
Member
(12-13-2007, 06:59 PM)

Originally Posted by Mr. Lemming

The way the game portrays these ideas is fairly novel. However the game itself is banal outside of the spouse. I'm not really sure what this says about games as art when the most interesting aspect is the concept and graphic presentation and not the gameplay.

Interesting point. Although the question "are games art?" is old and tired, really the question should be can gameplay be artistic? I don't know what the analogy for gameplay in film, music etc would be. Does art have to be entertaining?

I liked the game, it was nice. I found it no less boring or repetitive than your average JRPG.

Threads like these attract sixth-form philosophers.

Thread Tools