David Jaffe Dumps on "Art Games"

[veloper]

Pretentious anythings are always bad. Aiming for Art is always pretentious.

Games especially are supposed to be fun. The high brow people never care about actual quality, let alone fun.


Jaffe proves once again he is a smart man.

 

[Puzzlenaut]

Dear David Jaffe, I have seen your God of War 3 sex minigame.

Any opinion you have on anything is now totally invalid, so stfu and go make a good game.

seriously though, when Ken Levine comes out and says that "art" games are a load of crap, I'll listen, but when David Jaffe, proud creator of the horrendous, meaningless gore-fest that is God of War, I'm inclined to take it a little less seriously.

 

[Mouse One]

Pretentious anythings are always bad. Aiming for Art is always pretentious.

Games especially are supposed to be fun. The high brow people never care about actual quality, let alone fun.

Yanno, I'm married to a classical flute player. There's probably a fair number of people who would turn their noses up at orchestral music for being "snooty and pretentious". But that's a label applied by others, not the performers. You know why orchestral musicians play what they play? Because they absolutely love the music. Sure as heck ain't for the money.

Just because you don't find artistic games enjoyable and meaningful doesn't mean others don't. Not sure what you mean by "Aiming for art", but if by that you mean trying to say something other than "Kapow! Hey look at that zombie explode" is automatically pretentious, you're only talking about your personal tastes. Some of us enjoy Left 4 Dead AND the narrative of Braid. It's not an exclusive/or.

 

[veloper]

Pretentious anythings are always bad. Aiming for Art is always pretentious.

Games especially are supposed to be fun. The high brow people never care about actual quality, let alone fun.

Yanno, I'm married to a classical flute player. There's probably a fair number of people who would turn their noses up at orchestral music for being "snooty and pretentious". But that's a label applied by others, not the performers. You know why orchestral musicians play what they play? Because they absolutely love the music. Sure as heck ain't for the money.

Just because you don't find artistic games enjoyable and meaningful doesn't mean others don't. Not sure what you mean by "Aiming for art", but if by that you mean trying to say something other than "Kapow! Hey look at that zombie explode" is automatically pretentious, you're only talking about your personal tastes. Some of us enjoy Left 4 Dead AND the narrative of Braid. It's not an exclusive/or.

A designer can instead aim for making a game bigger, prettier, more balanced, more diverse, etc. etc. All concrete areas that can make a game, a better game.
This isn't what Jaffe was railing against.

The problem is with trying to elevate gaming with nebulous qualities, which are best described as Art. The only reason for it being, proponents worrying what other people think about them playing games or working in the game industry, so let's just pretend the stuff is hard to understand.

 

[Doclector]

I agree that there should always be a place for purely fun games on the Market. Stuff like bulletstorm, capcom fighting games, and saints row. But there should also be more games that add more depth to their experience. Not necessarily art as such, but at least more 3 dimensional characters, a plot that feels important, and so on.

Basically, we don't need brainless games exclusively, and we don't need alot more "art". We need a full spectrum of games, ranging from mindless fun to intelligent epics.

 

[Durananrananrananran]

All that matters to me is I know what games I like and what I don't. I like to get metaphors, I like beautiful art design, I like shooting things, I like holding a mute girl's hand and running around with an oversized helmet on, I like the solemnity of the death of a colossus, I like nice sprite design, I like intelligent pacing, and I like the absurd nonsense of previous generations (I hold games like Klonoa, Rayman 1 and Dynamite Headdy in very high regard).

I don't like this argument, it's tiresome. Games are art because they are a creative human endeavour whose success is defined subjectively (apart from the commercial side, natch). Marketing particular games as 'art games' is a thing for marketing departments to decide on - if this descends into using cliche to decide how to design a game for marketing it to a particular (perceived) consumer segment, then that's usually not a good thing for the gamer.
But of course poor design due to limited creativity can apply to games targeted at any segment, be it the 'art gamer', 't & a & explosions gamer', 'girls night in gamer' or whatever... just what I think.

 

[Katana314]

I can't help but agree with him. When I saw that game about the grandmother walking into the graveyard, sitting down, reminiscing, then leaving (and sometimes dying), I did not see the point. When I played Blueberry Garden and had no idea what was going on, I did not see the point. When I played Cave Story and was repeatedly shown "unintended consequences" of my railroaded actions, I fucking QUIT.

"Art", or evoking emotion, is a little cherry on the top of a cake. If you're trying to go purely for that, you're missing the point. The idea is that if you really want that emotion to come through, you need to draw the player into your game world and immerse them; something you can only do through all the other standard elements of design (good gameplay, world design, character). THEN, maybe you can punch them with some sort of meaning.
An example of an art game I DID like (bar its stupid "plot sequences" via books) was Braid. It was genuinely fun, and the calm atmosphere worked somewhat. It's not everyone's intense cup of tea, but by the end of it it's incredibly engaging, and the ending definitely evokes emotions as it's meant to.

 

[KalosCast]

I think the point he's trying to make is that "artsy" games aren't magically art. You only need to swing over to Newgrounds to see the kind of limited color-palette, minimalist soundtrack, pretentious garbage that people are claiming it totally taking down the big boy developers.

 

[The Morrigan]

And again I state that Kill Doctor Lucky is freakin' awesome. >D

On that, I most heartily agree!

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

I generally agree with Jaffe's full point, although I am curious about which art games he thinks are just "smoke and mirrors".

Pretentious anythings are always bad. Aiming for Art is always pretentious.

Games especially are supposed to be fun. The high brow people never care about actual quality, let alone fun.

Yanno, I'm married to a classical flute player. There's probably a fair number of people who would turn their noses up at orchestral music for being "snooty and pretentious". But that's a label applied by others, not the performers. You know why orchestral musicians play what they play? Because they absolutely love the music. Sure as heck ain't for the money.

Just because you don't find artistic games enjoyable and meaningful doesn't mean others don't. Not sure what you mean by "Aiming for art", but if by that you mean trying to say something other than "Kapow! Hey look at that zombie explode" is automatically pretentious, you're only talking about your personal tastes. Some of us enjoy Left 4 Dead AND the narrative of Braid. It's not an exclusive/or.

A designer can instead aim for making a game bigger, prettier, more balanced, more diverse, etc. etc. All concrete areas that can make a game, a better game.
This isn't what Jaffe was railing against.

The problem is with trying to elevate gaming with nebulous qualities, which are best described as Art. The only reason for it being, proponents worrying what other people think about them playing games or working in the game industry, so let's just pretend the stuff is hard to understand.

I think the problem here is that you assume people only want to make art games in order to "validate" their pastime. That just simply isn't true.

Like the poster above you mentions, most classical musicians don't get into that type of music because they want to be "artsy" or pretentious; they simply like that type of music. I would argue it's the same with developers and indie art games. The creator of Braid once said that he made Braid because he didn't think any other medium could adequately express what he wanted to say. He didn't artificially try to inject art into his game so that he could put on a beret and claim he's better than others. He simply was looking for the best way to carry out his vision.

I don't think that people shouldn't make games like Flower, The Path or Braid. But I don't think it's a model that should be encouraged, at least not on the level it's getting now. Because it de-emphasizes gameplay in favor of exposition.

I don't really see how you can make that claim of the above games. Much of their storytelling is done primarily through gameplay, much more so than in either Bioshock or Mass Effect.

 

[veloper]

Pretentious anythings are always bad. Aiming for Art is always pretentious.

Games especially are supposed to be fun. The high brow people never care about actual quality, let alone fun.

Yanno, I'm married to a classical flute player. There's probably a fair number of people who would turn their noses up at orchestral music for being "snooty and pretentious". But that's a label applied by others, not the performers. You know why orchestral musicians play what they play? Because they absolutely love the music. Sure as heck ain't for the money.

Just because you don't find artistic games enjoyable and meaningful doesn't mean others don't. Not sure what you mean by "Aiming for art", but if by that you mean trying to say something other than "Kapow! Hey look at that zombie explode" is automatically pretentious, you're only talking about your personal tastes. Some of us enjoy Left 4 Dead AND the narrative of Braid. It's not an exclusive/or.

[/quote]
Classical music can be simply GOOD. Classical music doesn't need any pretense. I can appreciate it on it's own merits.

If you say, I want good games, then everyone can get behind that.

The art games crowd appears to want something else though.
The best of them want a great story. I say to them read a book or watch a movie instead. I understand the appeal of a fully interactive story, like 100 times as many branches as Obsidian and Bioware allow, but that's just not going to happen.
The worst of them want stuff like moving an old granny who'll die at random in a graveyard.

A designer can instead aim for making a game bigger, prettier, more balanced, more diverse, etc. etc. All concrete areas that can make a game, a better game.
This isn't what Jaffe was railing against.

The problem is with trying to elevate gaming with nebulous qualities, which are best described as Art. The only reason for it being, proponents worrying what other people think about them playing games or working in the game industry, so let's just pretend the stuff is hard to understand.

I think the problem here is that you assume people only want to make art games in order to "validate" their pastime. That just simply isn't true.

Like the poster above you mentions, most classical musicians don't get into that type of music because they want to be "artsy" or pretentious; they simply like that type of music. I would argue it's the same with developers and indie art games. The creator of Braid once said that he made Braid because he didn't think any other medium could adequately express what he wanted to say. He didn't artificially try to inject art into his game so that he could put on a beret and claim he's better than others. He simply was looking for the best way to carry out his vision.

Braid to me is a clever puzzle platformer, that can stand on it's gameplay value alone. So a good game, that doesn't need the "art" label to cover for any flaws.

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

Pretentious anythings are always bad. Aiming for Art is always pretentious.

Games especially are supposed to be fun. The high brow people never care about actual quality, let alone fun.

Yanno, I'm married to a classical flute player. There's probably a fair number of people who would turn their noses up at orchestral music for being "snooty and pretentious". But that's a label applied by others, not the performers. You know why orchestral musicians play what they play? Because they absolutely love the music. Sure as heck ain't for the money.

Just because you don't find artistic games enjoyable and meaningful doesn't mean others don't. Not sure what you mean by "Aiming for art", but if by that you mean trying to say something other than "Kapow! Hey look at that zombie explode" is automatically pretentious, you're only talking about your personal tastes. Some of us enjoy Left 4 Dead AND the narrative of Braid. It's not an exclusive/or.

Classical music can be simply GOOD. Classical music doesn't need any pretense. I can appreciate it on it's own merits.

If you say, I want good games, then everyone can get behind that.

The art games crowd appears to want something else though.
The best of them want a great story. I say to them read a book or watch a movie instead. I understand the appeal of a fully interactive story, like 100 times as many branches as Obsidian and Bioware allow, but that's just not going to happen.
The worst of them want stuff like moving an old granny who'll die at random in a graveyard.

A designer can instead aim for making a game bigger, prettier, more balanced, more diverse, etc. etc. All concrete areas that can make a game, a better game.
This isn't what Jaffe was railing against.

The problem is with trying to elevate gaming with nebulous qualities, which are best described as Art. The only reason for it being, proponents worrying what other people think about them playing games or working in the game industry, so let's just pretend the stuff is hard to understand.

I think the problem here is that you assume people only want to make art games in order to "validate" their pastime. That just simply isn't true.

Like the poster above you mentions, most classical musicians don't get into that type of music because they want to be "artsy" or pretentious; they simply like that type of music. I would argue it's the same with developers and indie art games. The creator of Braid once said that he made Braid because he didn't think any other medium could adequately express what he wanted to say. He didn't artificially try to inject art into his game so that he could put on a beret and claim he's better than others. He simply was looking for the best way to carry out his vision.

Braid to me is a clever puzzle platformer, that can stand on it's gameplay value alone. So a good game, that doesn't need the "art" label to cover for any flaws.

The art crowd wants good games too. The only difference is they want a game where the mechanics are used to support a specific artistic vision rather than just being used to make the game more fun.

People who like art games can't simply "go watch a movie or read a book" because movies and books can't do what games can. Some people like to think that art games are nothing more than a normal game with a "deep" story and classical music slapped on, but there's a lot more going on than that. The best art games (like Braid, The Path, and Flower) use their mechanics to convey more thematic information to the player than the game's text/cutscenes/etc. That's why sometimes art games are "less fun" than a mainstream game. Sometimes a mechanic will have to be made less exciting in order to mesh with the overall message of the game.

 

[Sporky111]

"Shining the powerful media light on these sorts of games - that tell you they are important but are not really all that engaging/interesting play wise and are nowhere near as emotional or meaningful as most B rate, night time dramas on network television - means that the media light and publisher cash gets taken away from traditional games," he explained. "And because of this, traditional games are disrespected, devalued, and shown a lack of appreciation, understanding, and love for the very things the medium does so well, so effortlessly, and so successfully."

"To shed copious print and e-ink (not to mention publisher marketing dollars) on a title just because it shouts loudly that it is art/important (where - upon closer inspection - said title is usually 'simply' a game (and usually an average one at that) cloaked in artistic robes created for - and custom tailored to fit - another medium) is a real problem," he continued. "To be going on and on about how games need to be/can be/should be/already are 'more' than 'just games' to me disrespects the joy and happiness traditional games bring to the world."

I think he was talking about Dante's Inferno here. In which case, I have to agree with him.

But he's just being overdramatic. "Traditional" games get no shortage of acclaim. Look at GTA, Bulletstorm, the cavalcade of CoD games, Street Fighter, etc. Games aren't becoming some pretentious art gallery.