Jimquisition: Lazy, Boring, Ordinary, Art Games

[Therumancer]

Ever notice how the "feeling" most of these games seem to want to evoke is never happiness? Or rage? Or anything other than a kind of blase melancholy? Because those emotions aren't pretentious enough.

Happiness can be pretentious, see how many shitty "feel good" movies there are that are deemed Oscar bait. It's not like one emotion's better than the other.

Maybe it just so happens that the developers were inspired from a sad moment in their life to make the game. Sadder moments are more inspiring, because they make you reconsider stuff and change your perspective. Therefore, good material for artistic expression.

I've had the same thoughts as the OP here (and just posted about it). Truthfulyl I don't think those "feel good" movies trying to catch Oscar are paticularly artistic, and to be honest most of the movies that fall in that catagory are trying to be period pieces as their artistic merit rather than relying on an upbeat message.

That said, while you can find "feel good" movies out there, you'll notice that there aren't really any artsy video games that have tried this. If someone was to succeed, then it would at least be fairly original for the platform. Right now indie art games seem like the work of a bunch of goth coffee house poets hoping a new media will get them some exposure.

Anything can be pretentious crap when it's the result of too many generations of "follow the leader". Simply being upbeat wouldn't make an art game good in of itself, it would just be differant enough and outside of the current crowd where it would have a better chance of being good in the current climate.

To be honest I think part of it is that it's easier to inspire negative emotions than positive ones.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

The simple fact that it fails to clearly convey answers or a meaning... means that it fails to be any kind of artwork.

What? Who are you to decide if it conveys any meaning? There are many people on a number of forums exclaiming how meaningful Dear Esther was for them - shouldn't that be enough evidence?

Besides, Jim wasn't arguing it wasn't art. He said all games were art - the only thing in his latest video I agree with.

 

[Therumancer]

The simple fact that it fails to clearly convey answers or a meaning... means that it fails to be any kind of artwork.

What? Who are you to decide if it conveys any meaning? There are many people on a number of forums exclaiming how meaningful Dear Esther was for them - shouldn't that be enough evidence?

Besides, Jim wasn't arguing it wasn't art. He said all games were art - the only thing in his latest video I agree with.

That's the thing, good art conveys a specific meaning to everyone. If it's good art you shouldn't have to say "well, some people say it has meaning to them".

I agree with most of what Jim said this week, except for his bit about all games being art. I do not agree with defining art or artistic meric in such a way that pretty much anything can count. Video games are a medium capable of creating art, but I do not believe all video games are art.

 

[PrinceOfShapeir]

I love the excuses that are being made for Dear Esther being a shitty game.

"Wah wah, it's not a game, you can't criticize it for being shit." It gets marketed and sold as a game. It's a game. Sucking does not make a game not a game, it just means it sucks.

 

[Cheeseman Muncher]

To begin with, I hated the Jimquisition. But these past few episodes have been really good and it's started to grow on me. Jim may be a complete bellend, but he knows what he's talking about.

Well played, Sir.