I played Between today. Equal parts blue and green didn't make cyan (Confident the other player has to do that,) so I closed it. This is somewhat related to the point. I went back and played Passage, made by the same person.
Passage is not a game. I am willing to make this statement because there is no objective definition of game.
It is generally agreed upon that Passage is art. I do not find Passage to be art. Blah blah, objective definition, blah blah.
I could make a case for toys versus games, and how arbitrarily making something interactive and slapping points onto it doesn't make it a game, but I would much rather spend that time playing on a Gmod server with arbitrary points and a time limit.
I see what I did there.
Between, as I read in an interview or the description of it somewhere, I don't recall which, is designed to evoke a feeling of isolation and loneliness in the player. If my previous parenthetical is correct, then it absolutely requires a second player to be played to completion. If, for example, there is no effect on your experience by the second player, as it was with every "game" of it I played, then it evokes the feeling of frustration when it is discovered that there is no possible way a single player can complete the "game."
This is assuming that Between is actually a game. I wouldn't know if there's an end, as it's nigh-impossible to reach. I'm not sure why I'm leaving that text-wall up without being able to fully analyze the game/art in question.
I wager it's because I was told there was a game. I accepted that the game had a given structure. I assumed, though quite incorrectly it seems, that the goal of the game was to match the colors. Even if the other player had the ability to assist me in completing what I perceived to be the goal, I have no way of communicating with that player and telling him or her how to assist me. This is what would be called bad game design.
But Between is supposed to be art.
But Between is supposed to be a video game.
But if Between is a video game, then it's a poorly designed one.
This raises an interesting question. Can the medium itself be used in art? Alternatively, what are the qualifications for art? Does a video game have to be a game or does interactivity automatically make it a game?
The issue with art and games is that neither one is really concretely defined. Is Passage art? Sure, whatever. I was told it was a game, approached it as a game, and was bored as a result.
Anybody else get that same feeling? Art is taking priority over the game part of things in "art games?" Anybody at all? Bueller? Bueller?
EDIT: This topic is art. Discuss.
Passage is not a game. I am willing to make this statement because there is no objective definition of game.
It is generally agreed upon that Passage is art. I do not find Passage to be art. Blah blah, objective definition, blah blah.
I could make a case for toys versus games, and how arbitrarily making something interactive and slapping points onto it doesn't make it a game, but I would much rather spend that time playing on a Gmod server with arbitrary points and a time limit.
I see what I did there.
Between, as I read in an interview or the description of it somewhere, I don't recall which, is designed to evoke a feeling of isolation and loneliness in the player. If my previous parenthetical is correct, then it absolutely requires a second player to be played to completion. If, for example, there is no effect on your experience by the second player, as it was with every "game" of it I played, then it evokes the feeling of frustration when it is discovered that there is no possible way a single player can complete the "game."
This is assuming that Between is actually a game. I wouldn't know if there's an end, as it's nigh-impossible to reach. I'm not sure why I'm leaving that text-wall up without being able to fully analyze the game/art in question.
I wager it's because I was told there was a game. I accepted that the game had a given structure. I assumed, though quite incorrectly it seems, that the goal of the game was to match the colors. Even if the other player had the ability to assist me in completing what I perceived to be the goal, I have no way of communicating with that player and telling him or her how to assist me. This is what would be called bad game design.
But Between is supposed to be art.
But Between is supposed to be a video game.
But if Between is a video game, then it's a poorly designed one.
This raises an interesting question. Can the medium itself be used in art? Alternatively, what are the qualifications for art? Does a video game have to be a game or does interactivity automatically make it a game?
The issue with art and games is that neither one is really concretely defined. Is Passage art? Sure, whatever. I was told it was a game, approached it as a game, and was bored as a result.
Anybody else get that same feeling? Art is taking priority over the game part of things in "art games?" Anybody at all? Bueller? Bueller?
EDIT: This topic is art. Discuss.
