Are we trying too hard?

[him over there]

So pretty simple question here in regards to the whole art games games are art mess. Are we trying too hard? When I say that I mean I think we shouldn't be trying so hard to make art just for the sake of games being art in and of themselves. We should make games that are art because we have something to share with the world and we think this is the best way to say it. Right now it's like we're making an experimental film, but instead of making one because we have an idea that hasn't been done before and we want to experiment we do it for the sake of calling our film experimental so we do a bunch of weird stuff just because it hasn't been done.

Also the whole self awareness of purposely trying to become art has led to a divide where simple, entertaining games are demonized for their lack of innovation and thought. The so called art games are treated like they and fun games are mutually exclusive. Everything is scrutinized and examined and discussed with such seriousness. I think we should just take a step back, talk about all the cool stuff we've played and let everybody do their thing.

(Yes, I know that this is a thinly veiled rant essentially amounting to "I don't give a shit about anything in the medium or industry anymore and I just want to be left with my magic smiles machine." Is that really such a big problem though?)

 

[him over there]

No

The threat of censorship is looming, making a fuss, even over trivial matters, is worth doing.

So this is what everything is all about? We don't really care about art? We're trying to further the medium for the sake of being called art for validation? We just want the first amendment rights for the sake of avoiding being censored?

 

[him over there]

No

The threat of censorship is looming, making a fuss, even over trivial matters, is worth doing.

So this is what everything is all about? We don't really care about art? We're trying to further the medium for the sake of being called art for validation? We just want the first amendment rights for the sake of avoiding being censored?

For me it is.

I don't give a toss about art but if being called art is a way to avoid games being censored then I'm all for it.

I see, removing that from the equation though do you think that developers and fans only want them to be called art for the sake of being art and validation? If we get to a point where they are considered art are we suddenly going to stop giving a toss about the label all together? I just think that everything we're doing feels so irrelevant because we're doing it for the sake of art and not because we have a legitimate urge to use games to express our messages, experiences or creativity.

 

[him over there]

I see, removing that from the equation though do you think that developers and fans only want them to be called art for the sake of being art and validation? If we get to a point where they are considered art are we suddenly going to stop giving a toss about the label all together? I just think that everything we're doing feels so irrelevant because we're doing it for the sake of art and not because we have a legitimate urge to use games to express our messages, experiences or creativity.

I think many developers and fans hate seeing some games which have a lot of depth and effort put into them be dismissed by the masses as a "kiddy game" when in fact they could rival many films and books out today.

I could be wrong but that's what I see. It's understandable for someone to be annoyed when a game like Metal Gear Solid 3 is dismissed as just a stealth/action game when it has such a good plot within.

So being called art is just a way to stop people from dismissing a great and creative game as just a game? I see the logic but I think it all comes back to us trying to hard. We're using art as a utility. We need them to be art to be taken seriously by people who don't care anyway despite the fact that we care about them. It isn't good enough to make something amazing and thought provoking, it needs to be "Art". We aren't making art because we want to, we're making it because we must prove that we are artists to people that quite frankly don't care.

It just feels like nobody wants to make something amazing in the industry because they care or simply because they want to but because we have something arbitrary to prove to people who are equally as arbitrary.

 

[him over there]

So being called art is just a way to stop people from dismissing a great and creative game as just a game? I see the logic but I think it all comes back to us trying to hard. We're using art as a utility. We need them to be art to be taken seriously by people who don't care anyway despite the fact that we care about them. It isn't good enough to make something amazing and thought provoking, it needs to be "Art". We aren't making art because we want to, we're making it because we must prove that we are artists to people that quite frankly don't care.

It just feels like nobody wants to make something amazing in the industry because they care or simply because they want to but because we have something arbitrary to prove to people who are equally as arbitrary.

Yes, I do think that but not exactly. It doesn't NEED to be art to be good but if games have the capacity to be seen as such it may bring more appreciation for the medium thus bringing in more talent and artists.

People do make games because they care, just look at the recently released "Lone Survivor" by Jasper Byrne. He made it over the course of a few years on his own and the game is just saturated by his (for the lack of a better word) personality. You can tell that it's really his game and he put in a lot of effort to tell a story and to show his world to us.

Lone Survivor huh? I'm gonna go check that out after this. I totally agree that not all games have to be art to be good. I just think that having the label "Art" for the sake of itself isn't that great. Plenty of games (Like Snake eater mentioned above) are full of creative amazement that deserves tons of appreciation. But when we're essentially changing nothing about the game but simply calling it art suddenly elevates it to another tier of quality altogether I feel that it's dismissing these sweet games that are equal in many ways to art simply because they aren't called art. Like I said regardless of quality or direction art has simply become a utility.

Holy fucking shit could I have said art any more in that post.

 

[him over there]

So pretty simple question here in regards to the whole art games games are art mess. Are we trying too hard? When I say that I mean I think we shouldn't be trying so hard to make art just for the sake of games being art in and of themselves. We should make games that are art because we have something to share with the world and we think this is the best way to say it. Right now it's like we're making an experimental film, but instead of making one because we have an idea that hasn't been done before and we want to experiment we do it for the sake of calling our film experimental so we do a bunch of weird stuff just because it hasn't been done.

Also the whole self awareness of purposely trying to become art has led to a divide where simple, entertaining games are demonized for their lack of innovation and thought. The so called art games are treated like they and fun games are mutually exclusive. Everything is scrutinized and examined and discussed with such seriousness. I think we should just take a step back, talk about all the cool stuff we've played and let everybody do their thing.

(Yes, I know that this is a thinly veiled rant essentially amounting to "I don't give a shit about anything in the medium or industry anymore and I just want to be left with my magic smiles machine." Is that really such a big problem though?)

Erm... the thing is though, as I said in the In Defence Of Dumb Gaming thread, it's not as if dumb, non-artsy games are rare or declining in numbers.

I fail to see why it's such an issue that some developers are perhaps trying a little too hard to make their games 'arty', when the vast majority of AAA games that get published are still brain-dead, thoughtless, derivative crap.

There will always be games that are truly art, and there will always be the knock-offs that try to be art without succeeding. With the industry that we have now, I'd still rather have developers at least trying to make their games a bit more intelligent, rather than shitting out yet more COD knock-offs and WOW imitations.

When gaming becomes swamped by a sea of pretentious, navel gazing art-games that have nothing to say, then I'll concede that you have a point. Until then, I think you're getting worried about a complete non-issue.

I understand that we are in no short supply of derivative bland crap. However I was more trying to say that art games seem to be trying to be art for the sake of being called art rather than because they have a legitimate message that they wish to share with the world. It just feels equally as cheap because while they may be few and far between especially compared to triple A titles they all seem just as cold and lifeless because they exist solely to be art. It seems like people have become so caught up in making sure they are art that simply being art is inherently superior to games that aren't, games do all this weird arty crap to stand out and say "Look at me and how wonderful I am!" even though the inspiration behind it is simply the ability to be called art, not because we thought the game we're creating is something we legitimately thought was wonderful and want everyone to have.

It isn't we have too many art games, it's just most exist for the wrong reasons.

 

[him over there]

I understand that we are in no short supply of derivative bland crap. However I was more trying to say that art games seem to be trying to be art for the sake of being called art rather than because they have a legitimate message that they wish to share with the world. It just feels equally as cheap because while they may be few and far between especially compared to triple A titles they all seem just as cold and lifeless because they exist solely to be art. It seems like people have become so caught up in making sure they are art that simply being art is inherently superior to games that aren't, games do all this weird arty crap to stand out and say "Look at me and how wonderful I am!" even though the inspiration behind it is simply the ability to be called art, not because we thought the game we're creating is something we legitimately thought was wonderful and want everyone to have.

It isn't we have too many art games, it's just most exist for the wrong reasons.

You think this is a unique thing?

Every single medium has its share of pretentious nonsense. When independent cinema started really taking off in the 70s and 80s, there were undoubted stone cold classics for cinema goers to see, but there were also about a million films released that were nothing more than pretentious, meaningless, psychobabble driven turds. If you want an example, go watch Liquid Sky sometime. One of the finest examples of a profoundly un-profound, Andy Warhol aping, piece of tripe ever committed to celluloid. And it was just one of a million pieces of final year film-student projects that were convoluted, pompous and entirely without substance.

For every great writer or novelist who makes it, there are about a thousand who try to cover up their lack of anything to say with purple prose and highly wrought metaphors. For every great band or musical artist, there is an entire genre made of nothing more than self-obsessed, pretentious gits.

That's the way it goes. It's not as if, once we accept that games are art, all games will become good art. There will always be great games that make great art, and there will always be meaningless guff that ultimately has nothing to say. That's the way the entire thing works.

I know that pretentious jaw flapping has been around for a while, that's why in the OP I used the example of "experimental films" that really just do weird shit for the sake of being experimental. That isn't exactly what I'm getting at here. Those are pieces of art that are covering up their shitty contrived lack of quality by going "nuh-uh you don't get it." I was trying to say that we are legitimately making art, but we seem to be doing it solely so that we can be called art so people won't belittle games and we feel validated playing them, regardless of the quality or triteness of what we're creating. I just think we're idealizing "Art" instead of idealizing actual quality. Not using art to explain away our lack of quality.