Jimquisition: Lazy, Boring, Ordinary, Art Games

[JohnnyDelRay]

People get concerned of the "direction things are heading", like how shooter's are now stale because of how things are. Unfortunately, although I still like health bars and leaning more than cover based health regen, that's the direction they've taken - people still buy them.

I was also saddened by the demise of the Sierra Quest game era, I found those to be very artistic, poetic, interactive, and for the first time in a while I feel appropriate use for this word: Epic. Those were like adventures in beautifully crafted worlds, but with a great deal of interaction - as good as any fairy tale read to me as a child. But adventure games themselves have also taken a very different steer, not much you can do about it.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

"Sheep-leading" actually makes a lot of sense, as a concept.

I too in games, want to get involved, excited, in the world and entertained. I've mostly avoided art games, because they look pretty fucking boring. I also do not play call of duty.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

...And now that I think about it, by your logic, Dark Souls is probably one of the most arty games ever made. Very little contact with other people, and only for fleeting moments as you fight over an important resource or team up against a tough enemy. And you do get to do stuff - at least, fighting monsters and dodging traps is more than just walking in a straight line.

And it's definitely a lot longer than Braid, even if you don't die much.

 

[trooper6]

Oh no I wasn't saying that I don't want to be put through an emotional wringer as you call it, One of my all time favourite films is grave of the fire flies which I reference in my post. In fact I think my second point (in the last paragraph) put this thought better than the first one did. Usually when you see a film or read a book that is sad you come out not enjoying but appreciating it, disturbed but in a good way y'know? I'm saying that since you have to actually play and progress through the game rather than experience it passively it actually makes you feel like crap legitimately, not just while you're involved with the medium.

Right...but some people like to be make to feel like crap legitimately, not just while you're involved in the medium. The thing I value about video games is the way in which implicates the player in a more active way--both for positive and negative things. Well, that and the fact that I can have really long form narratives that you just can't get in film.

My other comparison about a game that is no fun I feel made some more sense, it's hard to craft a story dealing with the theme of something like routine or the futility of the rat race or something similar because you experience it first hand and not while involded yet detached, the game is literally a chore to get through, not stimulating or interesting to watch or read or listen to like other mediums where you come off it wondering about things intrinsically.

I, too, dislikes games that are a chore to get through, games that are not stimulating or interesting...but for me the genre that does that for me is the Fighting Game genre. Yet I wouldn't say that the fighting genre is inherently lazy, boring, or ordinary. It just doesn't make me excited. I like turn based historical strategy games like Europa Universalis...but I'm sure for many people that game is boring and just a grind. Heck some folks love the grind of World of Warcraft. My only point is that this is subjective...wait...I'll say this point after your next point...

The way I could best put it is like I said before, instead of a painting that is unpleasant on an emotional level to look at because of the subject matter it is physically unpleasant and painful to look at because of how gaudy and ugly it is.

One person's gaudy and ugly is another person's vibrant and fabulous. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

quote="him over there" post="6.353919.14055946"]I'm really just rambling now and what I said probably doesn't make sense but I hope I sort of got my point across.[/quote]

You're all good! I see your point. I also don't like boring games. I just don't find art games boring. I find Fighting Games boring. I haven't been all that excited about most of the racing games I've played either...though I did really enjoy Need For Speed 2: Hot Pursuit...but that has been the only one. And...I am pretty bored by most sports games...especially if I don't follow the sport. But those just don't push my personally buttons in the right way. There is nothing inherently bad about the genre.

 

[silent-treatment]

Loved [http://www.alexanderocias.com/loved.php]

, and

Dang this is the game I was thinking of when I watched this vid, thanks for digging it up!

 

[thiosk]

Jim grows on me a little more each week.

Thank GOD.

For he.

(an interesting captcha-- requesting that I say any words about the CVS pharmacy brand. Butt drugs.)

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Jim's a bit of an idiot on this one. He forgets that "interactive" doesn't mean "doing stuff". What he calls "looking around" *is* interacting, provided the player is sensitive and intelligent enough to respond to the environment. Players who just like to kill, throw, climb, and touch stuff are the ones who are stopping games from "moving forward", because they find fulfilment only in the actions of their avatar and its progression in the plot. No Jim, Dear Esther and The Path are not like books - they are very different, and this is what you have not understood. Next time spend some more time thinking before throwing out your crude and undeveloped opinions.

 

[Seneschal]

I would agree with this in a general sense if I thought any one person had the authority to claim what games are and aren't. Which I don't. I myself find JRPGs uninvolving, but I'm not overbearing enough to deny them the status of "game". People like them! People enjoy the way they tell a story.

And I personally enjoyed the way Dear Esther told its story, lack of "interactivity" and all. Perhaps we're all too mired in incessant combat gameplay to realize that "walking around and looking at stuff" is a type of interactivity, albeit more passive and contemplative than what we're used to. And I really resent the comparison to movies - as if there is NO player agency whatsoever in Dear Esther.

The book comparison is more accurate - Dear Esther proceeds at the player's pace, and requires participation and imagination to make sense of the story. And there is a big difference between claiming that something just isn't your thing and wanting to coerce it into being your thing, regardless of whether it suits the format or not.

 

[onepeach]

Two words: "Dinner Date."

A game so pretentious is suggests which kind of wine to drink with it. I played through about three times before I realized that the experience changes only slightly depending on what you do. I have a feeling that if you let it be, not only would it continue play without you there, it would make no difference to events. That's how unimportant the role of the player is in that game.

http://stoutgames.com/innerDate

 

[Zeckt]

I can see why somebody would find enjoyment out of such an art game, but after 5-10 minutes I myself usually get bored of these types and just want to smack something with a crowbar or riddle it with bullets.

 

[daxterx2005]

I love your fake accent of the snoody man at the end, I loled hard.

 

[DioWallachia]

The Stanley Parable. There's an artgame that does stuff with the medium - playing on the inherent obedience and helplessness of game-players. Well worth a couple of hours of your time.

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 it

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!

 

[DeadCoyote]

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.

 

[Monsterfurby]

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.

 

[maxben]

Huh, and from gameplay videos I've seen, I thought there seemed like there was too little to Journey. I've not heard of Dear Esther, but it has even less to it? Yeesh.

I thought devs were more trying to tap into the audience of gamers who just love pure exploration in games. Not being that at all, those games just do not appeal to me. But then you have people like David Cage who are so transparent in their motivations. They wish they were film-makers and view gameplay as a thing the medium should grow out of. And I actively wish failure upon them.

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.

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.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

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.

 

[PH3NOmenon]

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

 

[Spud of Doom]

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.

 

[Strazdas]

i tried them once... alice game..... dont try them again. they jut seem so pointless to me. then again there are people that enjoy chicle romantic comedies, so i guess you need something for everyone.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

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.