Extra Credits Addendum: Discussing the Role of the Player

[walsfeo]

To call most video game players artists is akin to calling a completed connect the dots puzzle art created by the person who completed the project. They aren't true expressions of the 'artists' thoughts or desire. Instead the are completions of someone else's vision.

People who play games are participating in an exploration of someone else's expression. In some rare cases like Minecraft there is enough freedom and opportunity to allow for the same kind self expression we commonly recognize as art. However in most cases video games are little more than multiple choice tests that fail to provide any real creative freedom of expression. Even in MMOs where people try to tell their own story they usually have to incorporate so much of the worlds lore that the final product is more like a collage that nobody observed.

Being observed, that's another key part of art that your premise of 'players as artists' entirely neglects. Art requires viewers to be Art otherwise it is just an activity. Art is performed, or created, to have emotional impact and engage the intellect of the viewer. Playing the most games is an exorcise of having your emotions impacted and your intellect engaged, instead of creating art to do that for others to observe.

I understand that each artistic medium has its own restrictions, watercolor artists cannot produce the exact same art that sculptors, dancers, singers, or even authors, can. However it may be possible for those to evoke the same kind of strong emotions.

I have seen video games inspire art. From rich fiction based on the Sims or Everquest, or car art imported to games so people could pimp their own rides, all the way to the creation of entirely new theme packs and skins for Doom. Art is so closely tied to video games that it is easy to think of the players as artists but most of the time that just isn't the case.

 

[walsfeo]

On even further reflection, if a player is anything in the artistic process it is really more of a tool or implement being used by the game designer to create something. Why do I say this? Because a game is really incomplete unless it is being played.

 

[Unclever title]

Erm, what examples can you give of "second-person" gameplay? Practically every game I can think of plays through either first-person (through the eyes of the main character), or third-person (the main character is a separate, identifiable person). Second person implies seeng the player character through the eyes of another game character (that character being in the position to call the main character "you"). The only example I can think of is the brief section in God Of War 3, where you follow prompts to beat the crap out of Poseidon while seeing everything through his eyes. In that particular case, Poseidon has become 'I' and Kratos has become 'you', but the controls still focus on Kratos as the main character of that brief scene.

That's the defining thing about the different perspectives of narration:

First person is 'I'
Second person is 'You'
Third person is 'He/She/They'

I'm not talking about persons as shown through visual perspective and I'm undoubtedly stretching terms here, so feel free to scold me on my misuse of definitions.

Interactive immersion makes a third/first person experience indirectly second person.

The game is telling you, the player, a story about "you", the character. As you play through the game the game tells you things about "you," what "you're" capable of, and you do these things by discovering and doing these things yourself/"yourself". "You" might be in first or third person in viewpoint or narration compared to you, but by virtue of the fact that you are in control of "you" that makes the story indirectly second person in experience.

When characters in the story are talking to "you" doesn't it sometimes feel like they are talking to you? Or regardless of how it feels, do you not occasionally respond how you would or do you strictly respond only as how "you" would?

Regardless of all that above though, a game might not only tell you about "you" but will tell you some things about you, simply by participating. Some of it you already know, but some of it might be stuff you don't know.

Like I said, I'm likely using all the wrong words here, but video games are uniquely designed for this in a way that I have not seen in other media simply because it involves active participation, whether or not that makes you, the player, an artist.

I have read a 2nd person story before. It didn't feel like it was about me, but more as though the story was addressing some invisible person standing behind me. With games, though, it feels different, because I am interacting with the game.

If you look directly in a mirror you see an image. Because that image moves in tandem with your own motions you conceptualize it as an image of yourself. In that way, reflections are second person representations of yourself. You see you by seeing "you".

(Though I guess you could call that third person as you see "you" as other people see you. Sight isn't exactly a thing that classifies into the second person is it?)

Similarly by observing "you" while you control "your" interactions in a virtual world you learn about you, while simultaneously learning about "you" even though in this case "you" is not a perfect reflection of you.

So while the story of a game is about "you" in effect it is also about you.

Regardless of "whose" eyes you're looking through, your interaction and involvement with the story cause you to, in part, also be looking at yourself.

----------------------------------------

Sorry if this is confusing, and if I'm missing the point on perspective. Truth be told, I'm actually giving myself a headache, and I (supposedly) know what I'm trying to say.

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

I'm with James and the EC guys on this one.

The football analogy is the most clear to me. Despite Grip's arguments to the contrary, a game of football (or any sport) is dictated by rules just as strict as its virtual equivalent. The rules of play define the space in which the players create the game.

Grip seems to say that the rules of a video game are stricter; I have to say that I have yet to find a video game with rules that are more rigidly enforced than gravity and conservation of momentum, which are two of the rules that govern most sports...

So then according to Portnow's argument, can Joe Montana or Michael Jordan be considered amazing artists? What about the announcers describing the game? That's one of the problems I have with that line of reasoning.

Michael Jordan is not necessarily an artist, but he is playing an integral part in creating the basketball game in which he is playing. Whether that constitutes artistry depends on whether you view basketball as art (which I don't). The point wrt to the "Role of Player" discussion is that the game of basketball is co-created by the rule makers and the participants.

In a game, there are varying degrees of restriction on player freedom (along what one could call the Minecraft-to-FinalFantasy spectrum), but to whatever extent the player has freedom to control the activity within a game, they are a co-creator of the specific instance of the game that is being played.

Half-Life is a very linear game, but it is still not a passive medium. Whatever artistry exists in Half-Life comes into existence when the game is played, and the exact details of the game will be different for every player (even within the linear storyline). Thus the player is integral to the artistic value of Half-Life.

Interesting you should mention that because it brings me to my next problem with Portnow's argument.

While I agree with all that you say above, I don't see how video games are special in this regard. People often say that literature only comes to life when there is someone to read it, and that audiences can often directly affect how a musician performs their songs. True, in video games the player sometimes has a direct hand in shaping the plot, but how often do those changes actually affect the themes of the work itself, and even more importantly, how often are those changes not the result of mechanics already set in place by the game designer.

To use your HL2 example, yes, certain details of "what happens" will inevitably be different from play through to play through, but how many of those details actually matter when you consider the whole of what HL2 is trying to do as a work of art? Even in a more "open" game like Mass Effect, player choice is mostly just a facade to get the player more immersed in Shepard's character and the challenges he faces. It's no different from a novel being written in the first person or a film's use of closeups on characters we're supposed to sympathize with.

 

[mikespoff]

snip

snip

snip

...While I agree with all that you say above, I don't see how video games are special in this regard. People often say that literature only comes to life when there is someone to read it, and that audiences can often directly affect how a musician performs their songs. True, in video games the player sometimes has a direct hand in shaping the plot, but how often do those changes actually affect the themes of the work itself, and even more importantly, how often are those changes not the result of mechanics already set in place by the game designer.

I don't necessarily hold games as special in this regard (except perhaps in the degree to which the player/reader/viewer must be considered). But this very discussion seems to reveal differences in how people perceive art. I think it is vital in a video game to consider the player as a participant in the art being created, but I also believe that the same is true for the viewer of movies or reader of books or audience of plays or the person appreciating sculptures and paintings. I don't see artistic merit in something which has nothing to convey, and that criterion necessarily involves a "consumer" of the artwork who participates in that conveyance.

A painting or game or movie created solely for the enjoyment of the creator is not art, it's masturbation. Art is communication.

 

[Ramzal]

Is it possible for that communication to occur on accident? Even if a creator does it for his/her own enjoyment and it just happens to mean something to another, does that not count?

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

snip

snip

snip

...While I agree with all that you say above, I don't see how video games are special in this regard. People often say that literature only comes to life when there is someone to read it, and that audiences can often directly affect how a musician performs their songs. True, in video games the player sometimes has a direct hand in shaping the plot, but how often do those changes actually affect the themes of the work itself, and even more importantly, how often are those changes not the result of mechanics already set in place by the game designer.

I don't necessarily hold games as special in this regard (except perhaps in the degree to which the player/reader/viewer must be considered). But this very discussion seems to reveal differences in how people perceive art. I think it is vital in a video game to consider the player as a participant in the art being created, but I also believe that the same is true for the viewer of movies or reader of books or audience of plays or the person appreciating sculptures and paintings. I don't see artistic merit in something which has nothing to convey, and that criterion necessarily involves a "consumer" of the artwork who participates in that conveyance.

A painting or game or movie created solely for the enjoyment of the creator is not art, it's masturbation. Art is communication.

I wholeheartedly agree, though I'd also like to point out that your last paragraph seems to preclude players of most single player games from being considered "artists" as well (unless they document or communicate their experiences in some way, that is).

 

[mikespoff]

snip

snip

snip

...While I agree with all that you say above, I don't see how video games are special in this regard. People often say that literature only comes to life when there is someone to read it, and that audiences can often directly affect how a musician performs their songs. True, in video games the player sometimes has a direct hand in shaping the plot, but how often do those changes actually affect the themes of the work itself, and even more importantly, how often are those changes not the result of mechanics already set in place by the game designer.

I don't necessarily hold games as special in this regard (except perhaps in the degree to which the player/reader/viewer must be considered). But this very discussion seems to reveal differences in how people perceive art. I think it is vital in a video game to consider the player as a participant in the art being created, but I also believe that the same is true for the viewer of movies or reader of books or audience of plays or the person appreciating sculptures and paintings. I don't see artistic merit in something which has nothing to convey, and that criterion necessarily involves a "consumer" of the artwork who participates in that conveyance.

A painting or game or movie created solely for the enjoyment of the creator is not art, it's masturbation. Art is communication.

I wholeheartedly agree, though I'd also like to point out that your last paragraph seems to preclude players of most single player games from being considered "artists" as well (unless they document or communicate their experiences in some way, that is).

I'm glad we're on the same page with this.

wrt the single-player games, the artistry is in the communication between the developers and the player. Art can be experienced solo if it was created by someone else. Writing a novel for yourself to read is pretty lame, but if even one other person reads it (by themselves) and is edified by the experience of doing so, art has been created.

 

[Chris_Devl]

JP has been right throughout this whole arguement.. The painting analogy was perfect, that you credit the painter, not the companies that made the materials even though the materials are what's limiting the creation. Otherwise, nothing would be art, because everything that we create are limited by materials in some way or another. If we discredited the player from contributing to the storytelling of a game, we'd have to discredit the designers from making the game because they didn't make the tools, software, and materials themselves. But even then, you'd have to discredit the makers of the tools, software, and materials because THEY used someone else's tools, software, and materials. Eventually this would boil down to nothing being created by anyone because everything we've made came from the world around is, making the... true creator of ANYTHING/EVERYTHING the big bang.

So automatically, players already have been contributing to the storytelling of all games.. It's what makes them games (interactive entertainment). Unlike movies and novels, where you can experience them differently, it is not only due to perception, it is due to your interaction and how it literally shapes the story (and sometimes the climax of it). What Extra Credits said was that there can be more games that take advantage of this, which I totally agree with, why not take advantage of the 'interactive' part of interactive entertainment? If I wanted to play through a perfectly linear experience it wouldn't really be a game as much as a movie that you have to constantly hit the play button to keep watching.

As far as calling the player an artist for this, nobody should've ever even gotten into that. What is and isn't art has ALWAYS been up for debate (look up dadaism). Because of this, what I define as art, is anything that was intended to be art. It just makes it easier.

Finally, saying that tetris isn't about stacking boxes and that farmville isn't about actually farming has nothing to do with the arguement. Games aren't made to simulate real life, there'd be no need for them then. Games are about experiencing things that we could not (or don't want to) experience in the real world. For example, I wouldn't like being a terrorist/counter-terrorist in real life, because I'd risk being killed. I play counter strike so I can experience the FUN and THRILLING part of being in CT vs T combat. If games were meant to simulate reality, that would mean that after I die in counter strike, (or any game for that matter), I'd be dead for good.. I wouldn't ever be able to play the game again because my character is 'dead' and you don't come back to life after death..

So games are made to experience things we can't in real life, or to experience the fun part of things in real life without all the drag (like risking your life). Tetris is based off stacking boxes, but it's not supposed to be a reality simulator, it's supposed to simulate the fun part of it. If your game isn't fun it has nothing to do with what it's about.. ever.. It'd be because you don't know how to make fun games. TG's whole arguement was heavily flawed.

 

[TitanAura]

This is the only EC post left on the account. Not sure what's happening but would like an explanation. Thanks.

 

[Gameonicon]

Hey guys! What's happening? This is the only post left and what happened to all the videos and pages?
Don't tell me there is some kind of legal dispute

 

[Gameonicon]

Ok for you guys that will end up here there is a legal dispute google it to find out more.