David Jaffe Dumps on "Art Games"

[funguy2121]

Does it bother anyone else that our "industry giants" cant agree amongst themselves on the whole are games art thing?

No, not at all. We need diversity, not homogeny. I had a friendly debate on here the other day with a guy who thought that gameplay isn't necessarily as important as story and presentation. I told him that for me gameplay is absolutely king but I also said that without opinions like his the medium would never be elevated to the same level of respect as movies or good tv shows.

Depending on what games he's referring to, I may well agree with him. If he's talking about Dante's Inferno, I couldn't agree more. If he's talking about Heavy Rain, screw him.

 

[cystemic]

the way they were trying to make Kratos chase around some bullshit in the dark at the end of 3 wasnt artistic? he couldnt have just bashed the crap out of zeus with the overly long realization that he's been slaughtering people for 3 games? i am confuse

 

[teknoarcanist]

Gotta say I agree with him. He's not dissing your art form. He's not saying his kind of games are the best kind of games. He's just saying trumpeting your game as a forward-thinking aesthetic immersion simulator -- when actually it's just a shitty platformer with a physics engine, set to trance techno -- is pretentious bullshit.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

I like this guy. He makes a good point.

 

[captaincabbage]

This man is a one man controversy machine. He should team up with Pachter, Kanye West, and Yahtzee to make the most controversial gaming statement of all time.

And they would all be lead by Bobby Kotick. XD

OT: Just ignore him people. What he's saying is essentially the same as saying that arthouse movies are damaging the film industry.

 

[Viik]

Agree with Jaffe. Industry is already loosing complexity of game mechanics due desire to mass-appeal. Take into considiration that resources are limited. So, if you want more "arty" games, be ready to market flood with Heavy Rain 2-3-4-5 and so on, more The Path "games", more scripted FPS shooters (or rather FPS interactive movies). How about "arty" implementation of Dirt4 - 2 hours of arcade racing and 12 hours of background cut scenes with pilots relationship dramma?
Do you realise that industry can't just add MOOOAR stuff? You need to loose some titles or even whole genre to raise new one. Who will be funding next "The Settlers" game if public wants more of deeply artistic product that would try to teach people something that movies or books already failed to do?

I'm not against art, I'm against loosing experience and knowledge of game design and game mechanics because of the attention shift to stories and "deep meaning".

 

[Vrach]

I think he's just pissed because everyone instantly takes a shot at GoW titles whenever they talk about what games can be (and consequently what they can be more than). See the recent video from the Destructoid dude (Extra Credits linked it in their last episode).

I can't be arsed reading his entire article. It doesn't sound that interesting and it certainly sounds biased because he's basically saying "you're taking the spotlight/respect/money away from me - whaaa". I do agree creating a game for artistic expression and nothing else is in no way completely superior to creating a decent... let's call it regular game. They're just two things that can co-exist and should both be made, because there's demand for both.

On a personal note, I'm not a fan of pushing art for art. If you're going at it thinking "I want an artsy fartsy game", that's not a fantastic goal in my eyes. I think it's much better for the design process that you set the goals of your game and then simply fulfill them in the manner that makes a game have artistic value. To put it simply, I prefer art being the means, not the end as I find it more meaningful and impressive that way.

 

[DustyDrB]

I don't see the controversy here. He's not really saying much beyond the obvious. Yes, a game can't get by just on atmosphere or just by trying to address a mature issue. I think most people would agree.

Maybe he should just come right out and name the game he has in mind.

 

[Dogstile]

Ugh, does this guy have an opinion on freaking EVERYTHING?

Erm, yeah. Just like you or me do. Second someone asks you about something, you form an opinion, its how we're wired.

OT:

Agreed with the man. "Art" games nowadays aren't art, they're just boring.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Whether games are art is besides the point here.

Jaffe seems to argue that we shouldn't praise games that take a different approach or that try to set themselves apart from the mainstream. The reason why we praise these games and put them in the spotlight is because no one else does. Mainstream games get more than enough exposition through markting, and enough recognition through other game studios trying to copy it.

And seriously, name me one highly praised "artsy" game that has ever been copied due to it's succes? Those games tend to crash and burn sales wise, you know. Even the highly praised ones.

I'm honestly getting a little tired of Jaffe's lip. He hasn't made a good game since God of War, yet he's constantly on his soapbox like he knows how the industry should be.

 

[SenorNemo]

Well, when I started reading that blog, it was light out. Now I look up, and all of a sudden it's pitch black. Fascinating. He has a lot of interesting opinions - some better supported and explored than others, albeit - so I'm not sure where I'd begin if I were to write a full response. That's not to mention all the stuff that's been said here...

Anyway, I think we pretty much all agree that many (probably most) games touted as "art games" aren't anything of the sort, and that the culture surrounding them creates an atmosphere ultimately harmful to game developers. However, it sounds almost like he's saying games aren't art, making games art isn't a worthwhile endeavor, but it may somehow be "different" in x number of years. This sounds almost like a Catch 22; by that logic, games can never be art because they can never be allowed to develop that way. I don't think that's quite what he's saying (I dearly hope that's not what he's saying at least), because his underlying theme seems to be that game designers don't seem to be aware that they're making games, and aren't exploring the inherent qualities in the medium: he implies there is room for development as a medium.

However, I think he lost his connection to his own argument for a bit when he bashed the people claiming "games are in their infancy, you'll see, we'll develop into a respectable medium." Now, if he were just claiming that the people who say these things in relation to "art games" are off their rockers, it'd be fine, but he goes on to claim the need to have games validated as an art form stems from insecurity. It may be true to some extent or another, based on the person, but for almost all of them - including some of the ones who'd defend "art games" - would say they see what he sees: a genre with potential that's badly in need of development, possibly one that's headed in the wrong direction. He also makes the mistake of attributing a single attitude to a group very diverse in opinions when he describes proponents of games as art as "hell bent on convincing the world that GAMES. DO. MATTER."

In a lot of ways, this seems almost a direct response to The Escapist's very own Extra Credits. I kind of hope they'll respond to this in some way.

I think he also makes a misstep in discounting atmosphere as being a component of what could make games art. While I don't think atmosphere alone makes a game art, it can likely do wonders to enhance a game that already understands its own medium. In other words, atmosphere can't make a bad game artistic, but it can help make an artistic game a masterpiece.

He also really needs to stop using all caps. I felt like I was reading a long, unusually lucid youtube comment...


On a tangent, there seem to be some games that do at least partially meet his criteria. Mass Effect, for instance, on the surface is a game that exists for the story. To some extent, this is true. In some spots, it's "cinematic," mimicking movies in exactly the way he decries. However, I'd argue that the success of games like Mass Effect isn't reliant on the fact that you spend many hours interacting and getting to know the characters interactively, discovering things about the galaxy through its exploration. It's a triumph of the adage "show don't tell." So yes, it tells a hollywood scifi story, but the empowering force behind it isn't cinematography or narrative in the sense of a movie narrative, it's the interactivity of the genre.

Of course, Mass Effect still has a pretty wide gulf between gameplay mechanics and atmosphere; I'm not claiming it's quite art, but it has the right idea, and I don't see it or games like it mentioned much in debates like this.


Oh, and hi everybody!

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

I can see his point as I truly do not care about a game as "art." I care whether or not it's any fun to play. Sure, some people may claim that Game X that I happen to be playing is "art," hell, I may even think the game is art. But what is most important to me is that the game gives me any enjoyment and reason to bother playing in the first place.

Art is subjective, so I do not see why trying to prove that something is in fact art is even worth the time when inevitably someone will disagree. This leads to the question of how does one even prove what constitutes as art beyond the Oxford Dictionary's definition.

Movies are another great example because not every movie is viewed as art, but I guarantee that someone out there thinks that Disaster Movie was fan-tastic! and by their standards "art." Yet again with movies, I would prioritize a film's merit for entertainment because that is ultimately why it is around in the first place.

I do happen to find God of War to be artistic, but what draws me to it in the first place is the excellent gameplay and overarching elements involved. Any "art factor" is the byproduct of game's successful points.

 

[Nerdnumber1]

Art does not need to strip away fun games and, in fact, likely never will. Look at some other artistic mediums. Take cinema: how many action-packed thrill-rides with more attention placed on special effects than plot come out for every artsy drama? How many ear-splitting rap or tone-deaf popstar tops the charts (or at least gets a following) for every musical masterpiece? How many bad comics are there for every "graphic novel?" There will always be critics that point out the artistic merits of certain works that focus on that realm, but there will always be demand for less refined tastes or just plain, mindless fun!

Art is risky though, as it targets a certain tastes and there is always the chance that things just don't work. Tried and true game genres don't have to fear extinction as they are the least risky. Idealy, one could make a game that is both fun and has a complex, deep, artistic story. The only problem is that explosions and violence seem to be safer investments than writing, so budget gets allocated accordingly.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Hmmm.. let's go back a couple years, shall we?

----

http://www.1up.com/news/david-jaffe-psp-god-war

"What's keeping Jaffe busy these days, however, concerns the PSP game he's working on. While other designers have used handhelds as a means of exploring some of their simpler game ideas, Jaffe isn't holding his ambition back - he wants to make you cry. "The end goal is that players at the end of the game are actually choked up - if not crying - because we've done our job so well," he says."

----

Well, I'll be... if I'm reading that wrong, and I certainly must be given Jaffe's apparent view on things, I'd say that sounds pretty pretentious and arty just for the sake of being arty.

 

[wammnebu]

Thank you mr jaffe, thank you.

 

[arealperson]

I agree with Jaffe's view.  He's saying that gameplay, or "THE PLAY MECHANICS" is the art of a game.  If you don't agree that chess, basketball, or "Trials HD" are art, I'm sorry, but you just don't get games.

This doesn't mean that you don't get interactive story telling or enjoy the gameplay in an interactive story, but you can't hold it above the artistic merit of gameplay in a game, just because it suits you better.  Just like I don't appreciate paintings, the most globally recognized form of art, that doesn't mean it's not art.

That's why the idea of games "maturing" is totally abhorrent in his view.  I too, think storytelling, or multiple meanings of actions could progress in their presentation in a game, but that doesn't mean one without it isn't artistic, or even less artistic.  It just means it's a game without storytelling or disguised meaning.

His rant may have been indistinct (his clarification did a lot better), but I think the point he was trying got make is that the gaming press will eat up a game that heralds itself as artistic because it holds storytelling or metaphors.  He's not saying that games can't do this.  He does infact appreciate it himself.  He's just saying that gameplay comes first in a game - every single time.

Personally I like the idea of storytelling in "Heavy Rain" or the metaphor in "Braid" (outside of the bomb part; Wtc?).  But I'm not going to go out of my way to call "Heavy Rain" a game.

 

[The Morrigan]

If every movie is art, and every narrative is art, then every video game, stupid or not, IS ART.

Yes, but is every movie really art? Because I don't really want to apply that label to Year Zero. *grins*

I have a lot of problems with this post, so this is going to be a long response. My first problem is that he provides absolutely no evidence to back up his argument. I see no examples of games that he thinks were acclaimed as art undeservedly, nor do I see acknowledgment of the games that I would legitimately call art. This immediately makes it more difficult for me to accept his arguments.

I also don't see him acknowledge a fact that this type of art/not art argument can be found in any artistic medium - just think of controversies over whether an entirely white canvas is "art," or a tower of sponges is "art," or a dog presented chained up and slowly starved to death is "art" (my personal opinion is an emphatic no to all three). There's a lovely and provocative Neil LaBute play called The Shape of Things that takes on this very question of where, if anywhere, we should draw the line between what is and isn't art. What Jaffe is seemingly unable to accept is that there is no easy answer for any medium. By railing against "artistic" games without giving us examples of strides that have been made or games that are holding us back, he really just paints himself as a guy who is against the evolution of games.

Now, let's take this quote from his post, which is around where I started to get very annoyed:

"If artistic/meaningful games were even semi-close to being what so many 'games as art' supporters claim, many true believers would be saying, 'you either get it or you don't and it doesn't really matter to me because you not getting it doesn't take away my enjoyment of and my response to meaningful, artistic games'. "

First of all, is he honestly trying to tell me that there is no one holding the belief that games can be art who would, when prompted, express this opinion? Because that is patently false, and somewhat ridiculous. If he really thinks that the true believers are the ones keeping quiet about their opinions, then that means that for ever one shouting moron, there are potentially 10 intelligent people who believe that games can be art, who are just keeping themselves out of the public debate.

Secondly, has he stopped to consider that every single art form has idiots in it who will try to push anything and everything on the public as "artistic"? And yet, just because I don't believe that a blank white canvas is "art" does not suddenly invalidate every other painting in existence. Why should the presence of people who, as he says, "seem hell bent on convincing the world that GAMES. DO. MATTER." invalidate the existence of games that I really would consider art?

Thirdly, why the hell should a person being passionate and vocal about a subject that they love automatically lessen the value of that subject, or indicate someone who doesn't really believe in his/her opinions? If I decide to write a blog about folk music (a passion of mine), and talk about all of the amazing music in the genre, and the rich historical background, and all of the other aspects that make it art in my eyes, should somebody reading the posts really come to the conclusion that I don't really believe any of this, and that I'm just pushing my opinion so hard because I'm trying to convince myself of the validity of folk music as an art form? I don't think that this would be a logical reaction at all. So how come, if I want to talk about the potential of video games as a form of art, am I suddenly just "protesting too much"?

Then we come to this lovely section:

"You don't see folks who love traditional paintings going on and on about how their favorite medium needs to step up and get better at doing car chases and action scenes. You don't see folks who love reading books going on and on about how books need a symphonic score that plays while you read (and changes based on the page you are on) in order for literature to reach its full emotional and artistic potential... And in all that time, if STORIES could have used more interactivity to make them more meaningful to readers, don't you think at least a handful of stories (beyond CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE books) would have hinted at this? Don't you think readers from thousands of years ago would have naturally come to this conclusion/desire?"

I find this section inane beyond words. First of all, "stories," as he calls them began as a verbal art form (you know, because of the whole "the written word hadn't been invented yet" thing). They started as an interactive idiom; entire villages would gather for the telling of stories; there were frequently call-and-response section; it was an opportunity for a community of people to come together and engage in the act of telling a story. Every art form, regardless of the mystical "core purpose" that Jaffe talks about, has evolved over time as new tools and new innovations have come into play. Verbal stories beget written stories, which beget performing stories as theatre (another medium that was actually far more interactive in older eras; the idea of the "fourth wall" is, given how long theatre's been around, very recent). Musical styles evolved as different instruments were invented, or as new ways of using the voice were conceived. Art moved from cave drawings to Egyptian hieroglyphs to; shading was introduced; the concept of perspective came in and dramatically changed the way people created paintings; Picasso came in and brought us an innovative return to something approaching 2D. To make the claim that other art forms have in no way grown or evolved since their creation is ludicrous.

Jaffe then makes a football field-sized leap, and seemingly implies that since video games are in some ways the descendants of board games, they aren't supposed to be "about" anything, since analog games don't have a narrative. I absolutely disagree with this. Every game has a narrative, even if it's one that the player is creating for him or herself; otherwise, why the hell would we play them? Any board/card/etc game, from Go Fish to chess to, yes, Mancala, contains a battle; two or more players are trying to beat all of the other players. Is this not a narrative, albeit a simplistic one? Bring in games like Bridge, and your battle tale suddenly has a buddy story to it, as two sets of friends vie to help their partners and defeat their opponents. And as board games have developed, they absolutely have gained larger narratives. Look at Life, or Monopoly, or Clue, or Kill Doctor Lucky (a wonderful game that I was introduced to at this year's PAX East). All of them have narratives. Is Jaffe going to really deny the same ability to evolve and change to video games?

Now, I will say that I do agree with his point that undeserved praise is definitely dangerous to true development of a craft and/or art form (thank you, well-intentioned but ill-advised Self Esteem movement). This is, again, a problem that is not endemic to video games; a lot of things that I might consider to be crap are touted as "art" by people trying to be on the cutting edge, or people trying to jump on the bandwagon. And I think that just because a game is different doesn't automatically make it "art." But just because people can inaccurately label one game as art doesn't mean that another game isn't art; and it doesn't mean that the entire genre is suddenly doomed to stagnation because people aren't appreciating and investing in "traditional games."

The bottom line for me is that we need people to try new things in games, to make those huge leaps in all directions. Some of the stuff will be crap; actually, a lot of the stuff will be crap. But some of it will be mindblowing, breathtaking; some of it will take us to places that Jaffe and I have never even imagined. True innovation and evolution doesn't come from putting the blinders on and refusing to focus on anything but story, or gameplay, or weaponry. It comes from giving designers the freedom to suck sometimes. Will there be plenty of pretentious idiots claiming that every new game is "art"? Absolutely. But to me, it's worth it for the moments when we get to see something truly, honestly, inventive.

(if you actually read to the bottom of this, I salute you)

 

[Jumplion]

(if you actually read to the bottom of this, I salute you)

I did, do I get a cookie? I honestly couldn't really tell what the hell Jaffe was arguing about due to the ranty nature of it, but if there's anything I can agree with your own rant it would be the final paragraph.

Well played good sir.

 

[Elesar]

...The fact that he created Gears of War invalidates everything he ever says about games as art. He could say that Shadow of the Colossus is the greatest artistic achievement of all time, or say that games can never be art. Doesn't matter. All anyone has to say to invalidate his opinion is 'You made Gears of War.'

Because Gears of War is the artistic equivalent of PORN!

 

[The Morrigan]

(if you actually read to the bottom of this, I salute you)

I did, do I get a cookie? I honestly couldn't really tell what the hell Jaffe was arguing about due to the ranty nature of it, but if there's anything I can agree with your own rant it would be the final paragraph.

Well played good sir.

It's ma'am, actually, but thanks. *grins*