David Jaffe Dumps on "Art Games"

arealperson

New member
Oct 1, 2009
91
0
0
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

Wharrgarble
Nov 23, 2010
44
0
0
Jabberwock xeno said:
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

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
The Morrigan said:
(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

New member
Apr 16, 2009
333
0
0
...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

Wharrgarble
Nov 23, 2010
44
0
0
Jumplion said:
The Morrigan said:
(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*
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
The Morrigan said:
Jumplion said:
The Morrigan said:
(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*
Darn, I was reading through that rant with the voice of Morgan Freeman, now what do I do?
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
Sir John the Net Knight said:
Praise you, David Jaffe. That's everything I've been trying to say for the longest time...
And what did he say? Seriously, I have no idea what he was yappin' and rantin' about, so could someone give a short, concise summary of what he went on about?
 

drummond13

New member
Apr 28, 2008
459
0
0
I might be more inclined to weigh in on his statements if he mentioned even a single game he's referring to. How can anyone agree or disagree when we don't even know what titles he's referring to?
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
Sir John the Net Knight said:
Jumplion said:
Sir John the Net Knight said:
Praise you, David Jaffe. That's everything I've been trying to say for the longest time...
And what did he say? Seriously, I have no idea what he was yappin' and rantin' about, so could someone give a short, concise summary of what he went on about?
http://criminalcrackdown.blogspot.com/2011/03/shit-or-get-off-pot.html

Check it out for yourself., Better to hear in his own words, than in mine.
Yeah yeah, I read it, I just have no idea what he was talking about.

From what I understand, Jaffe doesn't like "poser art" games that people praise, claiming that it is detrimental to the developers (though he did not give any examples, which I think he did to save himself from the wrath of the games fanbase). Jaffe said something about chess and mancala, then said something about "traditional" games suffering because of all this, and there was a picture with the Thinker statue on a toilet.

Jaffe's rants are good for a laugh, though it's hard for me to take them entirely seriously when they slip off on a tangent.
 

fierydemise

New member
Mar 14, 2008
133
0
0
Jumplion said:
Sir John the Net Knight said:
Praise you, David Jaffe. That's everything I've been trying to say for the longest time...
And what did he say? Seriously, I have no idea what he was yappin' and rantin' about, so could someone give a short, concise summary of what he went on about?
I think the best summary of his argument is "Just because your game's surface elements shout from the rooftops that 'this is important and artistic and meaningful' doesn't make it so."

Basically the objection is not the concept of games as art on principle but rather to how the gaming community has been going about it. A very similar viewpoint was expressed by someone interviewed by the EC team at GDC (I saw it at PAX I suspect it will be up this week or so), something like art games cannot be their own genre and use that to hide their lack of gameplay. An artistically worthwhile game is not one that eschews gameplay to make an emotional or philosophical point but rather one that embraces gameplay to use it to tell that point. Consider Bioshock, it told an engaging story with heavy philosophical ideas almost entirely through gameplay and through visuals.

The other part of his argument is that many indie developers push the games as art line and proclaim their game high art to excuse the gameplay flaws. Good art doesn't need trumpeting, the power of an artistic work should be self evident. Jaffe isn't saying that games should not attempt to be art but rather that games should drop the beret wearing pretentiousness of art school grads and focus on making good games that happen to be artistic not artistic games that may happen to be good.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
fierydemise said:
I think the best summary of his argument is "Just because your game's surface elements shout from the rooftops that 'this is important and artistic and meaningful' doesn't make it so."
Okay, would have been helpful if he had listed an example, though I'm sure he wanted to spare himself the fan rage of the game.

Basically the objection is not the concept of games as art on principle but rather to how the gaming community has been going about it. A very similar viewpoint was expressed by someone interviewed by the EC team at GDC (I saw it at PAX I suspect it will be up this week or so), something like art games cannot be their own genre and use that to hide their lack of gameplay. An artistically worthwhile game is not one that eschews gameplay to make an emotional or philosophical point but rather one that embraces gameplay to use it to tell that point. Consider Bioshock, it told an engaging story with heavy philosophical ideas almost entirely through gameplay and through visuals.
I'd be interested to see how the panel responded. I doubt the entire thing would be posted here.

The other part of his argument is that many indie developers push the games as art line and proclaim their game high art to excuse the gameplay flaws. Good art doesn't need trumpeting, the power of an artistic work should be self evident. Jaffe isn't saying that games should not attempt to be art but rather that games should drop the beret wearing pretentiousness of art school grads and focus on making good games that happen to be artistic not artistic games that may happen to be good.
Right now I don't think any developer is skilled enough to deliver both "high art" and "entertainment" to their games on a consistent basis. This medium still has a lot of room to grow, so we're bound to get our version of those "pretentious" foreign films with random symbolism and imagery.

The notion that "art" must somehow mean "pretentious/arty/high concept" or whatever is something that the industry will need to overcome sometime. Art in a game could easily be getting the central theme in the game across to the player. Whether or not games like The Path, Flower, or Braid are "art" doesn't really concern me, but I am always grateful that games like The Path, Flower, and Braid are being made. The Morrigan's response at the end of page 2 says it well, most innovations are going to be crap, but some will really push the envelope.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
emeraldrafael said:
Does it bother anyone else that our "industry giants" cant agree amongst themselves on the whole are games art thing?
I think that's probably the least concerning part. To me, it bothers me more that guys like this are our industry "giants," as I think Jaffe's response does quite a bit to trivialise mainstream games in and of itself.

But again, that could just be me.
 

The Morrigan

Wharrgarble
Nov 23, 2010
44
0
0
Sir John the Net Knight said:
Oh yeah, I definitely agree with all of your points (and you expressed them much more clearly and succinctly). I just think that if that's what Jaffe was really going for, he did not express it well.
 

realslimshadowen

New member
Aug 28, 2010
143
0
0
I think he's confusing cinematic polish on presentation with marketing departments screaming "This is art! I swear it's art! If art were people, the Venus de Milo and Mona Lisa would be on their knees blowing the massive throbbing paintbrush tool of this art!" And, as mentioned, he cites no examples. He just says that there are people screaming at the top of their lungs that they have created ART! while they have in fact created a mere game.

Also, he mention Birth of a Nation. We've already had our Birth of a Nation--i.e., a game that was both incredibly un-PC and didn't even have the excuse of being a good game. It's called Custer's Revenge. We may have even had our Citizen Kane, but I had a long period of not playing new games that only ended last year, and much as I love, say, Planescape: Torment, it didn't really use the medium to its best advantage to tell its amazingly inventive and in-depth story.

So why haven't we arrived? Here's a hint: take a look at films produced in any given year. I guaran-damn-tee you don't get better than 10% films that are a) original (i.e. not a sequel or adaptation) and b) actually worthy of the term "art". And of those, I'd guess 1% do well in box office.

We have arrived. But the games industry has the same pitfalls with regards to producing art as the film industry. Profit first, quality and innovation second. You would think someone working on the latest Twisted Metal game might realize that. That he somehow unironically compares "his" side to scientists and the "opposing" side to fundamentalist Biblical literalists, when he's the one resting on his laurels and saying he doesn't care if games ever become art, almost fucking offends me. And you do not want to know what kind of shit it takes to offend me.

Oh, and he adores Marvel comics. Now I'm a bit of a Marvelite myself, but if you adore Marvel after the past four years or so, your privilege to have opinions on what is and isn't art have officially been revoked.

In short: he managed to go on for pages without actually saying anything. Kind of like how he accuses game developers trying to make art of doing (oh dearie me, I think the kids would call that a burn).
 

KafkaOffTheBeach

New member
Nov 17, 2010
222
0
0
Slightly off topic, but related to the thread and other posts, but I can't believe that there are still people arguing about "are games art?"
Grow the fuck up.