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!
