Jimquisition: Lazy, Boring, Ordinary, Art Games
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You know, since Jim is familiar with "Cargo! The Quest For Gravity" a game made by Ice-Pick Lodge, you would think that he is familiar with Pathologic and Turgor (AKA The Void, AKA Tension) specially the last one since you cant get more interactive art game than that but for some reason he never mentions itjjofearth said:
The Void is set in what is assumed to be the afterlife, or at least an afterlife. The player is a Lost Spirit who has lingered briefly in the Void while their way to Absolute Death - in an act of mercy, a woman known as the Nameless Sister shares a Heart with the spirit, enabling him to hold Color, a substance vital to survival in the Void.
From that point on, the spirit must survive in the harsh realm of the Void, earning the favor of the naked, capricious Sisters and being careful not to anger the powerful and self-righteous Brothers, guardians of the Sisters. Other hazards abound in the Void such as Predators, strange and hostile beasts animated by errant color and the Void itself, which slowly drains the color out of spirits travelling through it - all while trying to figure out just what exactly is going on!
Ok. So developers are like - "Hey, people, we've got awesome thing! You're for once not the center of the game, and like watching on the story from outside - u know, like they did it in "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead". And it's like a book but in 3d! Isn't that great new expirience?" and Jim is like - "It's just like u were saying and i thought it will be something totaly different! Shame on u!".
This time Jim was just stupid.
This time Jim was just stupid.
I've been there. A long time ago, I was working on a game that put story over substance. Over the course of several rather violent discussions with our engine coders - which the art and story department won - I, as project manager would not give in.
Years later, it hit me: If you want to write a novel, write a novel. If you want to make a movie, make a movie. If you want to make a game - that is, something that is interactive and challenging - make a game. Sure, there are novels where game elements are used to support the novel itself (for example, the classical "whodunit" and most mystery novels), and films that use storytelling techniques that are more commonly found in literature. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with SUPPORTING the game experience with elements from another medium, as long as you keep in mind what a game actually is.
Years later, it hit me: If you want to write a novel, write a novel. If you want to make a movie, make a movie. If you want to make a game - that is, something that is interactive and challenging - make a game. Sure, there are novels where game elements are used to support the novel itself (for example, the classical "whodunit" and most mystery novels), and films that use storytelling techniques that are more commonly found in literature. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with SUPPORTING the game experience with elements from another medium, as long as you keep in mind what a game actually is.
Dear Esther is a corridor, its an exploration of story but you cant explore the scenery, merely walk past the ones that it wants you to walk through. The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time is an exploration game, Amnesia the Dark Descent is an exploration game, Dear Esther is not.DustyDrB said:
But I want to use that as a jumping point to defend The Path. No one talks about it, but Jim seemed to put in the same category as Dear Esther. I think its far more of an exploration-based game. Interaction is limited to running about and an "interact" button, but there is full range of movement and a huge amount of things one could see. that said, you are unlikely to find many of them, and some event will cause your character to get hurt. Also, the events you saw and the choices you made (for example, teh very basic choice of following the safe path or going into the dark woods) effect what you see in grandma's house.
As there are choices, freedom, and consequences, I hold that its still a legitimate game. It even has a scoring system based on what you found and unlocked.
What I want to know is why was Limbo in the footage? It's an arty game sure, but nothing like what he was describing - as a platformer it had plenty of things to do and is a marvellous game.
My feeling is Jim had no material for this week and just wanted to create controversy.
My feeling is Jim had no material for this week and just wanted to create controversy.
First off, Dear Esther isn't a game. It's literally a work of art made to be looked at on a pc. Video game websites reviewing it just doesn't make sense.
Also, as far as works of art go, it does pretty well. After all, consider modern day art and compare it to dear esther. It falls in with that very particular artyness that's ascribed to a blank canvas. The artist can go on at length at how it symbolises the human condition and make fistfulls of money off it, while the majority of the public just sees a blank canvas and the few people that defend the work are probably just repeating the same intellectual farts the artist let out in an attempt to come off as intelligent.
I'm firmly in the camp that judges a toilet seat glued to a tin can as "A very poor work of art". But if said work can get critical acclaim, it must be art. And if the creator makes money off it, it has to be successful art. And so: Dear Esther.
Yes, it's an incredibly poor game. Yes, as an artwork it might not even appeal to many people, it doesn't to me. But it's generated such discussion on the topic, that it must be art.
/shrug
Also, as far as works of art go, it does pretty well. After all, consider modern day art and compare it to dear esther. It falls in with that very particular artyness that's ascribed to a blank canvas. The artist can go on at length at how it symbolises the human condition and make fistfulls of money off it, while the majority of the public just sees a blank canvas and the few people that defend the work are probably just repeating the same intellectual farts the artist let out in an attempt to come off as intelligent.
I'm firmly in the camp that judges a toilet seat glued to a tin can as "A very poor work of art". But if said work can get critical acclaim, it must be art. And if the creator makes money off it, it has to be successful art. And so: Dear Esther.
Yes, it's an incredibly poor game. Yes, as an artwork it might not even appeal to many people, it doesn't to me. But it's generated such discussion on the topic, that it must be art.
/shrug
I know this has been said by a few people, but it needs to be said again.
THE STANLEY PARABLE is one of the best examples I can think of where an "art game" was done right.
The narration in that was truly outstanding.
THE STANLEY PARABLE is one of the best examples I can think of where an "art game" was done right.
The narration in that was truly outstanding.
I bought 'The Path' a couple years ago after one of the Escapist staff had it on their top 5 games of the year list. I don't begrudge the purchase, but it's not a game I've got saved on my hard drive. Now I get the neat concise little package that art games seem to be, and I can move on to other [more interesting] titles.
I saw Dear Esther and thought: "Hey, someone's trying to capitalize on Skyrim's popularity". Which maybe they are. From all the trailers it looks like an island that might as well be off the shore of Solitude with no enemies or treasure. It looks great, but that nagging feeling that it might be like Myst prevailed and I didn't get it. I never 'got' Myst. As Jim mentioned, Silent Hill is like Myst but with action. So why get the Lite version, just go for the whole shebang.
I saw Dear Esther and thought: "Hey, someone's trying to capitalize on Skyrim's popularity". Which maybe they are. From all the trailers it looks like an island that might as well be off the shore of Solitude with no enemies or treasure. It looks great, but that nagging feeling that it might be like Myst prevailed and I didn't get it. I never 'got' Myst. As Jim mentioned, Silent Hill is like Myst but with action. So why get the Lite version, just go for the whole shebang.
http://www.freewebarcade.com/game/the-company-of-myself/
Try this game, The Company of Myself. It's good gameplay and it really messes with the narrative, I highly recommend it.
Try this game, The Company of Myself. It's good gameplay and it really messes with the narrative, I highly recommend it.
Good. Talking about free games, I highly recommend Cart Life, it is a free game and it is so absolutely awesome and complex I couldn't even start to talk about it. Try it out, it's worth it. Most art games have really simple gameplay, Cart Life is quite complex in comparison, but it's very very much an art game.Moeez said:
Just found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE9IbKhQ3aw
It's a Dear Esther speedrun. Oh yes. Where's your messiah now?
It's a Dear Esther speedrun. Oh yes. Where's your messiah now?
Good points well made, Next year I get a chance to meet the guy who made Dear Esther, so perhaps I can ask him what his ideas for the game were.
Though if I remember correctly Dear Esther is pretty old and has just recently been remade, from mod to full-game.
Though if I remember correctly Dear Esther is pretty old and has just recently been remade, from mod to full-game.
Homefront would be better if they didn't wuss out and made China the enemy.
Also Jim nailed it again. Think of gameplay and artistic value as sliders rather than on off switches.
A game needs a certain level of gameplay first because it is a damn game. Then it can crank up the art around its mechanics.
Braid, World of Goo, Bastion, Limbo, and I would include Out of this World are all examples "art" games that still have sustaining gameplay mechanics.
I think the best analogy of art games would be comic books. With both types of media the creators have a story to tell. Comic books tell the story with visually compelling pages with snapshots and some mostly expository dialog. Art games tell the story with game levels which are snapshots like comic pages. The games have the hook that the player is in control of the protagonist increasing immersion.
Also Jim nailed it again. Think of gameplay and artistic value as sliders rather than on off switches.
A game needs a certain level of gameplay first because it is a damn game. Then it can crank up the art around its mechanics.
Braid, World of Goo, Bastion, Limbo, and I would include Out of this World are all examples "art" games that still have sustaining gameplay mechanics.
I think the best analogy of art games would be comic books. With both types of media the creators have a story to tell. Comic books tell the story with visually compelling pages with snapshots and some mostly expository dialog. Art games tell the story with game levels which are snapshots like comic pages. The games have the hook that the player is in control of the protagonist increasing immersion.
But what Mr Sterling has failed to see and even point out is that art is a cyclical thing like fashion. If it wasn't, we'd all still be painting Renaissance artworks. (Though given the quality of today's modern art, this may be something of an improvement - but this is moot.)
But art, like fashion goes through the motions like anything else until it's buyers or connoisseurs get sick of it and then the art changes to reflect the tastes of the future.
Even renaissance art such as the Sistine Chapel were done on a commissionary basis. Not because it was art for it's own sake - but because the church paid Michaelangelo to do it.
Art for it's own sake is a rare beast, the rest of it is art for money's sake.
I can understand why Mr Sterling fears stagnation in art but it doesn't give him the right to act immaturely toward those who disagree with his own artistic opinions.
If someone considers a can of soup, Victoria Frances pictures, abject sculptures covered in verdigree to be art, it's art - albeit to them. Acting like a petulant child will do nothing to change this.
This raises the following question: Why does Mr Sterling not respect other people's right to buy something they deem to be art? Especially when it doesn't harm or otherwise affect him.
But art, like fashion goes through the motions like anything else until it's buyers or connoisseurs get sick of it and then the art changes to reflect the tastes of the future.
Even renaissance art such as the Sistine Chapel were done on a commissionary basis. Not because it was art for it's own sake - but because the church paid Michaelangelo to do it.
Art for it's own sake is a rare beast, the rest of it is art for money's sake.
I can understand why Mr Sterling fears stagnation in art but it doesn't give him the right to act immaturely toward those who disagree with his own artistic opinions.
If someone considers a can of soup, Victoria Frances pictures, abject sculptures covered in verdigree to be art, it's art - albeit to them. Acting like a petulant child will do nothing to change this.
This raises the following question: Why does Mr Sterling not respect other people's right to buy something they deem to be art? Especially when it doesn't harm or otherwise affect him.