Art Games: Your Opinion

[tthor]

Art games. I Freaking hate them. Most of them, at least.
Art games used to be a rare lot of games filled with "arty" things. Braid, World of Goo, Aether. It's more of an aesthetic choice, but there was still gameplay.

Now, it's just a cornucopia of 8-bit games where you walk right. And that's it. And I can predict that the main guy killed someone/everyone is going to die. Like "One Chance". It's a front page game on newgrounds.com. It's based on choice, and once you "beat the game", there's no replay. I know it's supposed to be, like, symbolic but it seems like a dick move on the creator's part.

Is it wrong to like gameplay over artiness?

Edit: By the way, I'm not hating on the art games. I'm hating on how they have become over saturated and disregard the "game" aspect.

i think art games are a good thing, tho most of them suck.

you see, pretty much no videogame has yet to realize how to become art. sure,some games may have artworthy cinematics, storylines, etc. HOWEVER, the only way the game itself can be considered art is if the gameplay itself is art. Thats why i think these sucky art games are good, because they are seeking to approach videogames from a different perspective. most of these art games fail in their attempt to create art. however, with every failure we are getting a step closer to having our first artworthy videogame

 

[Traun]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but most video games with any replay value still share a message. Super Mario Bros. tells a story of a humble plumber who overcomes adversity to save the woman he loves from a monster; that's an story that goes back to the days of knights slaying dragons. Civilization looks at where we are and where we come from, and where we may be going. It gives us an overview of what we are as a species and what could have become if things had gone a little differently...and what we still might become in the future.

With all due respect, SMB story is irrelevant to the game. It isn't mention or explored in any possible way within the game. We never receive any explanation on why this is a mushroom kingdom, or why we are saving the princess. The story is there to give us a "go" sign and everything outside of Bowser is relieved of any heavy emotional engagement. It was a child world created for children. This doesn't devaluate the game in any way, mind you.
Same goes for Civ. If the game was set in a distant world where you controlled a group of colonists, would the game be any less? Of course not...

Mind you, video games are not a story telling medium, although the could be used as such, a game can be great without having a story. Although you already noted that on your own...

Are books art? No, they are literature.
Is math art? No, it's mathematics.

You see, past the post-modernism movement, you can't actually call those things art, and the post-modernism isn't something people take seriously. We shouldn't push for games to be accepted as art, but as their own medium, just like literature, math and cinema (yes, I said it).

^This wasn't directed towards you specifically, buy towards every "games are art" supporter".

 

[G-Force]

Great points you list so don't take these posts as me going "YOU'RE WRONG AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY!" It's just that even going by this definition Heavy Rain does have a chance of being categorized as a game.

Note that I've left a very broad area for interpretation in something quick time event heavy (like Heavy Rain or the "art" parts of a Metal Gear Solid game.) The problem with using these to defend art games as "games" is that in the case of a game like Heavy Rain, the quick-time event is the ONLY means by which the player can fairly interact with the worldspace, meaning that Example Number One of the pure art game has as its sole gameplay element the single worst, laziest piece of game design in the entire developer's arsenal. And furthermore, the art of the game is sacrificed, if only for a moment, during the use of that gameplay mechanic.

But does a player have to be in competition with a game for it to interact. While the QTE segments do have the most "gamey" aspects there are other ways the players actions are seen played out in the game. The dialogue system presents players with several different type of responses that the NPCs react to naturally all where the consequences are unknown. If a player takes too long making a decision the conversation ends and opportunity to learn vital information is over. These segments reward players who pay attention to the narrative by asking the right questions in a prompt manner. This is not like making selections in a DVD menu where someone can simply take their time to analyze all of their clues. A decision must be made and it must be made quickly.

Then there's the actual choices a player makes that affect the story paths the game goes down in subtle manner. The first chapter has Ethan going through his morning chores listed by his wife. The player is free to follow or ignore the list and gets the appropriate reaction. Now such a small part does not play out in the final ending but it does show how the players actions do impact the narrative outside of scenes where you're making a direct choice.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

And when they try to be art, they cease to be games (hello Heavy Rain and hello, Hideo Kojima.)

How do you define what a game is? Not trying to troll I'm just genuinely curious. Many would consider Heavy Rain as a game as it does test a players skill and there are clear moments when the game can defeat them and when the player can triumph.

SimuLord misspoke a little here. Change the quote a little and you get the correct statement.

And when they try to be art, they cease to be good games (hello Heavy Rain and hello, Hideo Kojima.)

With the caveat that some Kojima games are quite good.

At any rate conveying messages or telling stories is a massive waste of what videogames can do. As such every movement toward that idea is a decline.

That's my opinion!

I know a big, mean spirited, nasty and wonderfull essay that condemns the "art game movement."
I'll posted it if someone's interested.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

No, it's not wrong. "Artiness" should grow out of gameplay. If it hinders it, the designer is kind of missing the point.

If someone wants to create art, awesome. But choosing the correct medium for the story is important. A game can be the best choice for conveying a particular story/experience. But other stories/experiences will match best with other artistic mediums. If they message doesn't work well in the medium, it will ultimately just reflect badly on both of them.

This. This. One-thousand times this.

It's great if a game wants to have an stylized art style, fantastic writing and plot, and some incredibly well-designed sound. But these aspects do not make a game art. The "art" aspect of a game should come from the gameplay aspect, or rather it's interactivity. Games, and interactive software in general, should not skimp on providing a meaningful interactive experience if they want to be art.

Chris Crawford's The Art of Interactive Design [http://www.amazon.com/Art-Interactive-Design-Euphonious-Illuminating/dp/1886411840/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293634283&sr=8-1] should be required reading for this subject. Alas, I know it's not going to happen.

(Also, Richard, I'm quite sure we've already met. Or am I imagining things?)

EDIT:

Time to bust out the forum code and deliver my catchphrase:

Roger Ebert is still right.

This headlong rush toward being taken seriously as an art form (James Portnow and Daniel Floyd, I'm looking directly at you---hang your heads in shame) has led to a lot of game developers forgetting what makes this medium great in the first place. You'd never hear someone like Miyamoto or Iwara prattling on about games-as-art because they're too busy making memorable, compelling experiences through gameplay (and printing money for their company in the process).

And just speaking personally I for one am glad that unapologetically "game" games like the Total War series and the entire city building and simulation genres exist, because if every wannabe Tim Schafer coming out of DigiPen or the Guildhall had their way, there'd be nobody left to start studios like Creative Assembly or Paradox Interactive.

Games are not art. And when they try to be art, they cease to be games (hello Heavy Rain and hello, Hideo Kojima.)

And now I wish I read every reply here first before replying. While I don't agree that Roger Ebert is right (although I will concede that a lot of games aren't art, like Portal and everyone's favorite, Shadow of the Colossus), I do feel the rush of games to be art is rather silly and forced.

You also mentioned Western RPGs as "masterful" examples of interactive design. While I wouldn't exactly call them masterful, I do agree that they are taking steps in the right direction for providing a fully interactive experience, but still fall short in making a lot of decisions matter beyond the actual quest where the decision is made (I've only really played Oblivion, though, so I'm not exactly an expert on the subject). Sandbox and strategy games are also a good chioce, mainly because players can fulfill open-ended objectives in multiple ways, so they're providing a good interactive experience. Strategy games in particular, because a player's actions at the start of a campaign can dramatically effect how the player plays the middle and the end of that campaign. Again, unless the decisions carry over between campaigns, it's merely a good step in interactive design, not a full-blown interactive experience. (My experience is limited to The Sims, the Tycoons Rollercoaster and Zoo, and Heroes of Might and Magic II and III, so correct me if I'm wrong).

I do want to propose one game that I think captures the essence of interactivity quite nicely, and that's Minecraft. Okay, so the interaction isn't incredibly deep, and on the whole, small decisions don't really matter in the long run. But it's really a fantastic step in terms of interactive design: for one, it's pretty much guaranteed that no two playthroughs will ever be exactly the same. The world is constantly changing, and the player's own creativity, or lack thereof, constantly changes to create the vestiges of a narrative based solely on the player's experiences. It's a game that allows players to do pretty much whatever they want within the confines of the games own mechanics: creating Rapture, or even creating whole cities [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujlf3agRtuc] with a group of people. Is it incredibly deep, though? Not really, but it's an incredible work that utilizes interactive design theory quite well.

(Also, I do agree about the Extra Credits comments--they were good at first, but there recent videos have seemed to amount to nothing more than having video games imitate other forms of media as a poor excuse to make games into "art.")

 

[More Fun To Compute]

One Chance wasn't that great. Don't shit your pants remains the high standard for this sort of flowchart driven mini adventure.

 

[rockymedure]

I don't think that anyone would argue that the art direction a games takes should have precedence over gameplay. Art and Gameplay are two sides of the same coin. The art of any game can be something as simple as the pure aesthetics of Farmville, or the high-brow choices of Flower. But, it is the Gameplay that keeps you going through the levels. The Art direction is what makes the feel of those levels equally as memorable. When content is created with a balance between beautiful art direction and innovative/enjoyable gameplay then I believe that a great game has been made.

 

[Ashcrexl]

people express their art in different ways. im sorry you expect all games to be enjoyable to play. sometimes thats just not the point. i personally loved one chance because my colossal failure is that much more colossal when it's permanent. the whole game was just horribly depressing and i thought that was brilliant.