Passage : So they say games can't be art?

phil_fish said:
i do: art is in the intention.

art is in the intention.

supreme definition.


jcr says it's art. So it's art.

Seems simple.

phil_fish said:
if you dont like, dont say its not art.
say you dont like it. call it bad art.
I don't see how anyone could disagree with this.

edit: Like, for instance, I think Tracy Emin's work is collosal wank, but you don't see me going up and down ouside the gallery with a sign saying "this ain't art", because it fucking well IS art, it's just shitty art (or: art that I can't comprehend).
Mar 9, 2005
The Zone
Sqorgar said:
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.
Fair enough. Your stuff is really cool, thanks for sharing it.
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.
I still disagree. I didn't look at the note until I had played it a third time, and I didn't get anything out of the note I hadn't already understood from the game. Sure, it's a trivial concept for any other medium, but video games are young. I still think Passage is more emotionally nuanced and conceptually rich than, say, Beowulf, which for all its "ancient epic poem" status today reads like two little kids making up stories about their favorite superheroes while they're falling asleep. There's humanity in this (embedded in the moral choices of the gameplay itself) that isn't in that. It's a baby step, sure, but these things take time.

Sorry for calling you an idiot. You're clearly not. But you're still wrong :)
Aug 2, 2006
It has a message, a mode of conveyance, and it isn't intended to be purely for informative or entertainment value.

Jesus, some of you have a constrained sense of reality. Thanks for posting this, it has already found appreciation from several of my non-gamer friends.
Jul 7, 2004
I just played this, and found it touching (lol, I found it at touch arcade, as it has apparently made it to iPhone).

I think it is not really a game, but a piece of software that is meant to be art. I disagree that art is 'by definition, passive'. Art is whatever the audience makes of it.

As many people here have already demonstrated, different people have different experiences with this software.

Some find it totally boring.
Some find it pointless.
Some find it pretentious.
Some try to find meaning in it, and are angry when they can't.
Some find it touching, and reflect on their real life.

Whatever it does to you, it seems that the reaction itself is just as metaphorical about life as the 'game' is supposed to be. In this regard, that everybody is debating and discussing, I do find it art.