Arty Games
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Before I get into my points, let me state right away that I do not agree with Ebert and I do fully believe that games are capable of being art.
However, there is a problem with a lot of the games that all of you mention. They may be beautiful or well-written or have amazingly evocative music. And all of those are truly works of art. However, their artistic merit is irrelevant of their inclusion in the game medium. As such, a great artistic story in a game does not make the game a work of art. The story would be just as good if it were a book, or a radio play, or a movie. Likewise, just because a film uses Beethoven's Ninth, does not make that film art. Planescape is a great game with some of the best characters I have seen in any recent medium. However, it could be (and has been) argued that Planescape would be just as good if it were a book.
In order to present the idea of a game as art, we need stories that could not function any other medium. We need to present games that provide something more thought-provoking than entertainment. And most importantly, we need to find (or create) games that rely on the unique qualities of a video game (as opposed to a film or book) in order to enhance the story or experience being shared by the artist.
There are only a couple of games that I could say, while not artistic masterpieces in and of themselves, do show off the artistic potential of video games. One is Deus Ex, because the game presents you with several different political philosophies, allows you to shape the narrative as you side with the various groups in a manner that does not really present any one of them as better or worse than the other, but instead allows you to choose the one that appeals to you the most and then plays out the ramifications of those choices. The second would be Fallout 3, for it's use of morality to alter the story by changing the way characters interact with you based on your Karma. And the third would be Tender Loving Care, for the way it alters the details of the plot based on responses the viewer gives to psychological questionnaires.
In short, the art of the video game is it's ability to create an environment where the player is free to shape the narrative as they will, but still manage to maintain the artistic integrity of the creator.
Sorry for the length. I've been thinking about this one for a while.
However, there is a problem with a lot of the games that all of you mention. They may be beautiful or well-written or have amazingly evocative music. And all of those are truly works of art. However, their artistic merit is irrelevant of their inclusion in the game medium. As such, a great artistic story in a game does not make the game a work of art. The story would be just as good if it were a book, or a radio play, or a movie. Likewise, just because a film uses Beethoven's Ninth, does not make that film art. Planescape is a great game with some of the best characters I have seen in any recent medium. However, it could be (and has been) argued that Planescape would be just as good if it were a book.
In order to present the idea of a game as art, we need stories that could not function any other medium. We need to present games that provide something more thought-provoking than entertainment. And most importantly, we need to find (or create) games that rely on the unique qualities of a video game (as opposed to a film or book) in order to enhance the story or experience being shared by the artist.
There are only a couple of games that I could say, while not artistic masterpieces in and of themselves, do show off the artistic potential of video games. One is Deus Ex, because the game presents you with several different political philosophies, allows you to shape the narrative as you side with the various groups in a manner that does not really present any one of them as better or worse than the other, but instead allows you to choose the one that appeals to you the most and then plays out the ramifications of those choices. The second would be Fallout 3, for it's use of morality to alter the story by changing the way characters interact with you based on your Karma. And the third would be Tender Loving Care, for the way it alters the details of the plot based on responses the viewer gives to psychological questionnaires.
In short, the art of the video game is it's ability to create an environment where the player is free to shape the narrative as they will, but still manage to maintain the artistic integrity of the creator.
Sorry for the length. I've been thinking about this one for a while.
Psychonauts. It's a well-designed game with interesting and wildly creative environments, a clever story, and easily grasped mechanics.
I also like Lumines. The combined music + puzzle/arcade gameplay is enjoyable and it's visually appealing without losing its underlying simplicity.
I think most adventure games would serve as good examples, because they're the closest facsimile of a movie experience. Also, they tend to have less of an obvious WIN component as compared to FPS or RPG games.
I also like Lumines. The combined music + puzzle/arcade gameplay is enjoyable and it's visually appealing without losing its underlying simplicity.
I think most adventure games would serve as good examples, because they're the closest facsimile of a movie experience. Also, they tend to have less of an obvious WIN component as compared to FPS or RPG games.
I just finished Portal for the first time a few hours ago. I can happily agree that its writing and psychological effect are absolutely phenomenal.
Also - Okami, but I wouldn't start someone there. It's gorgeous and moving, but it gets bogged down in its storytelling...and telling and telling.
World of Goo is one of my all time favorites, of course. Haven't played the other games mentioned, although Jade Empire looks to be right up my alley.
Also - Okami, but I wouldn't start someone there. It's gorgeous and moving, but it gets bogged down in its storytelling...and telling and telling.
World of Goo is one of my all time favorites, of course. Haven't played the other games mentioned, although Jade Empire looks to be right up my alley.
The more and more I think about it, the more and more I think this is a futile debate not because it's worth arguing games are art (it is) but because we're looking at the wrong things. I think games like (sigh) Heavy Rain and the like are more likely to convince people that they're capable of art not because they're good or art (I don't think they are) but because they're more familiar to established artistic forms.
So, I guess, Heavy Rain, maybe Mass Effect or Jade Empire or those types.
Most definitely not Ico, Shadow of the Colossus or Far Cry 2. Or even The Path, Passage or any of the other games that evoke their artistic sentiment through their gameplay.
So, I guess, Heavy Rain, maybe Mass Effect or Jade Empire or those types.
Most definitely not Ico, Shadow of the Colossus or Far Cry 2. Or even The Path, Passage or any of the other games that evoke their artistic sentiment through their gameplay.
I wouldn't want Ebert playing games. I don't understand why gaming has to be for everyone. Painting or poetry isn't for everyone, why should gaming be?
The mass-marketing of video games will become a problem for the hobby, I think, because it is art and measures success by much more esoteric standards than business.
I mean, we remember very little of all the commercial crap they put out there, either in games, visual arts or music. Sure there are markets for it, but I really don't think investors in the game business have realistic concepts of what kind of profits and assets really are there.
All these short-term money sieves of projects driven like IT-consulting firms aren't producing art, that I agree on, but neither are air-brush sweatshops in SE asia painting wolves and native-american women on cardboard. That doesn't disqualify air-brushing as an art-form.
So I'm just gonna come out and say it:
This guy Ebert is wrong, he's obviously making erroneous assumptions stemming from ignorance. As an expert in a humanities subject, especially one as reflective as film, he should understand that he simply isn't qualified to make that kind of statement. I mean really, it's like me saying "Film isn't Art" after seeing two episodes of Days of Our Lives.
The mass-marketing of video games will become a problem for the hobby, I think, because it is art and measures success by much more esoteric standards than business.
I mean, we remember very little of all the commercial crap they put out there, either in games, visual arts or music. Sure there are markets for it, but I really don't think investors in the game business have realistic concepts of what kind of profits and assets really are there.
All these short-term money sieves of projects driven like IT-consulting firms aren't producing art, that I agree on, but neither are air-brush sweatshops in SE asia painting wolves and native-american women on cardboard. That doesn't disqualify air-brushing as an art-form.
So I'm just gonna come out and say it:
This guy Ebert is wrong, he's obviously making erroneous assumptions stemming from ignorance. As an expert in a humanities subject, especially one as reflective as film, he should understand that he simply isn't qualified to make that kind of statement. I mean really, it's like me saying "Film isn't Art" after seeing two episodes of Days of Our Lives.
Why do I get that sense that you not liking SotC is basically at the heart of your snubbing it from this conversation?Suskie said:
I play SotC at least once every 2-3 months. Something about a broken young man utterly betraying his people and committing clear sins against nature, all to save a lost love he won't even see in the end, strikes a chord with me. That they told the story with such subtlety and restraint absolutely floors me.
Then again, I'm of the mind that 90% of today's major motion pictures would be fantastically improved by deleting outright the majority of the dialogue.
Has anyone played Sanitarium? The story, characters and setting are almost peerless, in my opinion. It goes about as deeply into one character as it is possible to go, focussing on the psychology of that one character. Ludicrously well thought out.
Not that it's not without fault: it's an adventure game, so the puzzles are sometimes fairly obscure; the pre-rendered settings you traverse sometimes cause a little confusion over where you're actually supposed to go; and the voice acting is pretty sub-standard.
I suppose it's maybe not the best 'art' game to use to convince someone games can be art, since the level design is fairly flawed and the immersion factor fails to deliver at times, but it's most definetly worth playing for anyone else who might be interested in this discussion.
Not that it's not without fault: it's an adventure game, so the puzzles are sometimes fairly obscure; the pre-rendered settings you traverse sometimes cause a little confusion over where you're actually supposed to go; and the voice acting is pretty sub-standard.
I suppose it's maybe not the best 'art' game to use to convince someone games can be art, since the level design is fairly flawed and the immersion factor fails to deliver at times, but it's most definetly worth playing for anyone else who might be interested in this discussion.
I haven't heard this argument before, but it raises a very interesting point that I totally agree with.godbrain said:
Not much else to say, just thought you should know I appreciate your point of view.
Portal, Silent Hill 2, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, and Brainpipe.
Like World of Goo... whatever the hell Brainpipe is based on, it works.
Like World of Goo... whatever the hell Brainpipe is based on, it works.
This. I thought that, if you want to initiate someone on games as art, you have to start with Adventure games (as you said, yourself). And Grim Fandango is one of the prettier ones, with great writing and whimsical characters, as well as a grand tale of Death, love, and corruption.hendersonl said:
Incidentally, I agree with Ebert that games are not, in fact, art per se, but different from him, I think that neither are movies. They are generally entertainment. As they seep into our culture, they can become art. That stems, however, from a peculiar definition of art that I have.
Because we're specifically talking about introducing non-gamers to "artlike" games, I have to go with Myst (or one of its sequels or clones, but why not start with the beginning of the story?) Its pretty. It tells a story. And most importantly for the uninitiated, its forgivingly easy to learn to play.
For someone who liked a little more action (and why is it that any game with action or violence in it seems to be immediately dismissed when people start talking about games-as-art?) I'd be tempted by System Shock 2. It has a variety of playstyles, so it should be slightly more forgiving to the novice than a straight shoot-em-up. It tells an interesting story. And if those damn headless screeching monkeys don't make you jump out of your seat with skin a-crawling, then you're dead. And made of stone. There is at least as much art to it as a well-made horror film - take that as an argument for or against as you see fit to define art today.
For someone who liked a little more action (and why is it that any game with action or violence in it seems to be immediately dismissed when people start talking about games-as-art?) I'd be tempted by System Shock 2. It has a variety of playstyles, so it should be slightly more forgiving to the novice than a straight shoot-em-up. It tells an interesting story. And if those damn headless screeching monkeys don't make you jump out of your seat with skin a-crawling, then you're dead. And made of stone. There is at least as much art to it as a well-made horror film - take that as an argument for or against as you see fit to define art today.
Nice first post godbrain. I pretty much agree with you, and for that reason I'd add Heavy Rain to your list. I played through it last weekend, and even with all its bugs I was fairly moved. The game presents you with not just a lot of quick-timey action (that can be turned down for beginners I think) but also a lot of actual choices with some moral depth. I found myself pausing the game more than once to contemplate important decisions, and the nice thing is that no matter what you choose the story continues and it's difficult to go back to change things (unlike a standard choose your own adventure story). So the short of it is that I think Heavy Rain would fit your view of an artistic game.godbrain said:
Full Pipe
It is an indy title by Ivan Maximov, who is famous for leading a new wave of Russian animated films. The game plays like an interactive version of one of his surrealist shorts: the charmingly depressed characters, the minimalist backdrops, the lack of speech. The concept, story and gameplay are as simplified as possible.
It is an indy title by Ivan Maximov, who is famous for leading a new wave of Russian animated films. The game plays like an interactive version of one of his surrealist shorts: the charmingly depressed characters, the minimalist backdrops, the lack of speech. The concept, story and gameplay are as simplified as possible.
Okami looks, sounds and innovates the part to fit as an artsy game, but the controls are quite hard to master for someone not used to modern-day-gazillion-button-controllers.
I'd probably sucker someone in with Prince of Persia. While its stages are a lot alike qua visuals, it's actually very nice on the eye. Level design and camera angles combined show you all the possibilities and where to go upon entering a new area.
Enemies and areas they control are visually dark and smudged, giving one the natural feeling that there's a stain that needs to be wiped off the land. After cleansing, everything turns pretty, green and colorful. Inviting you to go discover the secrets of the world.
While playing the game, it feels very natural, sliding, climbing, jumping, falling. It's directed enough to keep you going, but free enough to make you feel like you're in complete control of all that happens.
And of course, the game is extremely forgiving, fall down and you'll be pulled back up ad infinitum, trial and error gameplay with no form of punishment, just encouragement to try again.
Personally, I think PoP was an enjoyable timekiller, but I don't care much for it. Nor do I believe games can be considered 'art' just by themselves.
Games are interactive; decisions made by the player, and whatever input is received affects the way a game plays and is displayed.
The God of War example in the article can be applied here. Where one player can make GoW feel like a game of running around smashing things and buttonmashing through fights, another can turn it into a perfectly orchestrated masterpiece of massacre.
You can beat the game by spamming one attack over and over again, but you could also chain together endless combos, combining the flashiest moves in perfect harmony and feel like you're actually playing the game rather than exploiting it.
That may be a vague example to some, but I'll believe that my point is pretty clear. Games aren't art, and no matter how hard anyone tries, they'll never be.
Canvas and paint aren't art, it's what the painter does with them that makes it art.
I'd probably sucker someone in with Prince of Persia. While its stages are a lot alike qua visuals, it's actually very nice on the eye. Level design and camera angles combined show you all the possibilities and where to go upon entering a new area.
Enemies and areas they control are visually dark and smudged, giving one the natural feeling that there's a stain that needs to be wiped off the land. After cleansing, everything turns pretty, green and colorful. Inviting you to go discover the secrets of the world.
While playing the game, it feels very natural, sliding, climbing, jumping, falling. It's directed enough to keep you going, but free enough to make you feel like you're in complete control of all that happens.
And of course, the game is extremely forgiving, fall down and you'll be pulled back up ad infinitum, trial and error gameplay with no form of punishment, just encouragement to try again.
Personally, I think PoP was an enjoyable timekiller, but I don't care much for it. Nor do I believe games can be considered 'art' just by themselves.
Games are interactive; decisions made by the player, and whatever input is received affects the way a game plays and is displayed.
The God of War example in the article can be applied here. Where one player can make GoW feel like a game of running around smashing things and buttonmashing through fights, another can turn it into a perfectly orchestrated masterpiece of massacre.
You can beat the game by spamming one attack over and over again, but you could also chain together endless combos, combining the flashiest moves in perfect harmony and feel like you're actually playing the game rather than exploiting it.
That may be a vague example to some, but I'll believe that my point is pretty clear. Games aren't art, and no matter how hard anyone tries, they'll never be.
Canvas and paint aren't art, it's what the painter does with them that makes it art.
Come on, kids always have a better time adapting to new technology. Adults tend to lag behind. Teenagers always end up having to set up their parents DVD players, or fixing the email/facebook page up etc. The whole appeal of the Wii is its simplicity, making it easy to pick up by adults. Having a grand total of two buttons simplifies things a great deal. Hence why Point and click adventure games are also easier for people to get into.Woodsey said: