Mistouze said: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 said:And I just tried to share something that moved me...
You're a joke.phil_fish said: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.
Dolphin said:You're a joke.
I don't care what he has, that was one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen.Campster said:That joke has a game in the IGF. What are your qualifications?
Sqorgar said: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.
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.Campster said:That joke has a game in the IGF. What are your qualifications?
Sqorgar said:Passage is not art because the message is not innate to the game itself. It has to be explained to you.
Graphics Horse said: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.
It is indeed, because it is. Very ingeniously.Sqorgar said:Passage is not art because the message is not innate to the game itself.
Only if you're an idiot with a defective emotional imagination.It has to be explained to you.
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.jgkspsx said:It is indeed, because it is. Very ingeniously.
Only if you're an idiot with a defective emotional imagination.
Dolphin said: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.
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?phil_fish said: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.
Bildi said: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: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.
Bildi said: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.
Hey, I wouldn't have been so harsh if it hadn't been for the unwarrantably derogatory tone of that poster:DavidDayton said: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.
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.Sqorgar said: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...
JodyAnthony said: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.
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..dmc said: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'.
Mistouze said:And I just tried to share something that moved me...
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.sp0rsk said:Guys, art doesn't have to be entertaining or even fun.
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.jgkspsx said: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.
Sqorgar said:Nothing was gained by making it a game, and nothing would be lost by making it, for example, a flash movie.
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.
Mgoblue201 said:Like someone said, games do have to be entertaining and fun..
sp0rsk said:NOOOOOOOOOO THEYYYYYYYYYY DOOOOOOOOOON'TMgoblue201 said:Like someone said, games do have to be entertaining and fun..
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.sp0rsk said:NOOOOOOOOOO THEYYYYYYYYYY DOOOOOOOOOON'T
Mgoblue201 said: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.
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?Campster said: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.
Campster said: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.
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.
Mr. Lemming said: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.