Jimquisition: Lazy, Boring, Ordinary, Art Games
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, not really, I don't enjoy Starcraft 2 at all and it's not Blizzard's fault, I just don't happen to enjoy strategy games. Dear Esther is very enjoyable, just not as a game, but as an aesthetic experience. If you want a game, you won't like it.ElPatron said:
That's not a good analogy at all.The Cheshire said:
I recommend backtracking on Jim's coverage on "art games". He wasn't "playing it right" because the game never instructed him how to "play it right". Therefore it's not his fault.
Then it could be argued it's not a game and we are back at square one.The Cheshire said:
If someone reviews a game, then if it's not a game it deserves a bad score. You can't argue that the reviewer was not "playing it right".
An "artsy" game should be like The Stanley Parable. A fantastic mod for Half-Life 2 (Any source game, really. Even the Free-to-play TF2)
I'm not going to reveal too many things about the game, but I will say that there are many, many endings and the narrative voice is awesome.
I'm not going to reveal too many things about the game, but I will say that there are many, many endings and the narrative voice is awesome.
I agree very much with you Jim. I love 'arty' games, I'm glad they exist - but they are just as capable of being boring and generic (rightly said, like a CoD clone). I played Dear Esther....actually that's incorrect, I WATCHED Dear Esther and felt hollow and uninspired by the whole thing. But, I recently played Limbo too, and I loved it purely because I felt a part of the experience and actually felt something for the main character. I try to keep in the know with 'arty' games because there are some genuinely brilliant ones out there (downloading Journey as I type) and I don't want to miss out. But I'm under no illusion that 'arty' = good or even unique.
Luckily, games like Dear Esther are few and far between so it's not much of an issue, and like you said Journey is pushing the concept of an 'art' game in the right direction. I'm sure there are many who enjoy watching games like Dear Esther, but I read a lot of books and watch a lot of films, and when I play video games I expect interactivity.
Luckily, games like Dear Esther are few and far between so it's not much of an issue, and like you said Journey is pushing the concept of an 'art' game in the right direction. I'm sure there are many who enjoy watching games like Dear Esther, but I read a lot of books and watch a lot of films, and when I play video games I expect interactivity.
I liked Dear Esther, though I do feel I would've lost interest if it had gone for any longer than just under an hour. Someone should make a chart of Complexity of game mechanics vs. Expected playthough longevity. Portal went for 3 hours with just walking, jumping, carrying boxes and shooting portals. Skyrim/Fallout 3 go for 100 hours+ with a massive amount of stuff to do, and there's a heap of games in the middle. Anyway, back to Dear Esther. I thought the environments were very well designed and the soundtrack was engaging (but I guess art games don't get points for that anymore), and the story was, umm, compelling but not properly concluded (the ending just raises more questions than it answers, like with Braid (the text-box epilogue I mean, not the gameplay part of the ending)). I definitely don't feel begrudged by the game, but it's not in my top 10. It caught my attention for the hour I spent playing through it, but seriously, what was up with the end cutscene?
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not... but I was wondering that too when I was listening to (not watching) the video.Kojiro ftt said:
...then I realized he's not saying Dee Arresta (or as I thought, Diaresta)... it's Dear Esther - the HL2 mod which is now it's own game, apparently.
To those who defend "Dear Ester" on the grounds that its not really a game.. IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK AND QUACKS LIKE A DUCK, TAKES INPUT LIKE A DUCK, NEEDS TO BE INSTALLED LIKE A DUCK, AND HAD TO BE CODED/SCRIPTED LIKE A DUCK, CHANCES ARE, ITS A DUCK.
Though I am curious as to why Jim thought Everyday the Same Dream was bad? I mean, the game put you on a guided tour, but the objective of it was to break the 'routine' of this guided tour, by talking to hobos and petting cows. Or maybe I have a hard time imagining that game as a short cartoon, as the interactivity, as lacking as it was, played to the narrative the mechanics of the game were trying to tell.
Course, One Chance possibly the best "art game" I've ever played.
Though I am curious as to why Jim thought Everyday the Same Dream was bad? I mean, the game put you on a guided tour, but the objective of it was to break the 'routine' of this guided tour, by talking to hobos and petting cows. Or maybe I have a hard time imagining that game as a short cartoon, as the interactivity, as lacking as it was, played to the narrative the mechanics of the game were trying to tell.
Course, One Chance possibly the best "art game" I've ever played.
You can't criticize Dear Esther and then say you WATCHED it. It's meant to be an interactive experience - of course you're not going to get the full effect by watching someone else play it. That's like viewing a few of your friend's vacation snaps and saying you don't like the place they went to.Simonoly said:
The game never instructed how to play it right because it's not a game, and thus, it is not supposed to have any way of playing it right. No one is reviewing a game when reviewing Dear Esther, which is closer to contemporary art than it is to videogaming, even if superficially it may not look like it. A game implies challenges and obstacles, Dear Esther has none, so yeah, my point is: it's not a game. It's more like an art piece that uses game technology. Can't see nothing wrong with that.ElPatron said:
So what is the most important aspect of a game?, art game, casual game, whatever...
Is it visuals over gameplay?
gameplay over story?
story over visuals?
Or like a lot of people, all of the above. I don't like the influence these meme games have on the industry, before long we'll all be little girls wandering around on our own - going oooh, look at the pretty rock textures, and forgetting about shooting stuff or doing stuff or anything that the designer didn't already script for us to do.
I said it some time ago, but indi games and commercial games need to stay separate. It's as simple as that - leave indi developers alone to make games like Amnesia, Minecraft, and Dear Esther. There is a market and a demand for games like Dear Esther, but it's a niche - people aren't looking for games that play like Esther, they want interesting experiences - whether that's exploring a glorious cave, or shouting at dragons, or flying a jet in a FPS.
Not all games are art, for that to be true, all art would have to be art, and all art certainly shouldn't be considered art. Lets not throw around terms that just don't fit - videogames are not art - just like walking through the fricken woods is not art. Videogames are a simulation of an experience, they don't represent real life, although some do a good job of mimicking real life, or presenting a believable metaphor for it. It's only because Esther is a new experience (ish) that it might conjure some reaction, some emotion - before long these games will be just like any other dull videogame.
Is it visuals over gameplay?
gameplay over story?
story over visuals?
Or like a lot of people, all of the above. I don't like the influence these meme games have on the industry, before long we'll all be little girls wandering around on our own - going oooh, look at the pretty rock textures, and forgetting about shooting stuff or doing stuff or anything that the designer didn't already script for us to do.
I said it some time ago, but indi games and commercial games need to stay separate. It's as simple as that - leave indi developers alone to make games like Amnesia, Minecraft, and Dear Esther. There is a market and a demand for games like Dear Esther, but it's a niche - people aren't looking for games that play like Esther, they want interesting experiences - whether that's exploring a glorious cave, or shouting at dragons, or flying a jet in a FPS.
Not all games are art, for that to be true, all art would have to be art, and all art certainly shouldn't be considered art. Lets not throw around terms that just don't fit - videogames are not art - just like walking through the fricken woods is not art. Videogames are a simulation of an experience, they don't represent real life, although some do a good job of mimicking real life, or presenting a believable metaphor for it. It's only because Esther is a new experience (ish) that it might conjure some reaction, some emotion - before long these games will be just like any other dull videogame.
Yeah, that game that was first released four years ago is soooo old and out of date, guys.
If I wanted a world to explore in my own way, learning the story for myself, I'd read a book like Twilight. I am totally immersed in the environment when reading Twilight and touching myself during the romance parts.
If I wanted a world to explore in my own way, learning the story for myself, I'd read a book like Twilight. I am totally immersed in the environment when reading Twilight and touching myself during the romance parts.
That's why I suggested you backtracking on Jim's videos.The Cheshire said:
He got flak for his reviews of other "artsy" games, not Dear Esther. Of course, a lot of people said "you're not playing it right"/"wrong mindset"/"you just don't get it".
Therefore he said the "fuck you" before people could comment his video.
Also, those games he reviewed had to be analyzed "as is", and they were pretty shitty no matter what gaming hipsters might have claimed.
I disagree with the people who say that these art games shouldn't be considered games. Including the very creators of The Path, who also publically stated that their work s not really a game, more of an "interactive painting" (in the sense that it is more interactive than other paintings).
I use the same argument myself regarding Visual Novels, when people argue that not having enough interactivity is somehow their "fault", I'm all like "It's a separate medium on it's own, where this much interactivity is the norm".
But the difference is, that at least Visual Novels can be really defined narrowly as a medium, because they have a single very specific mechanical frame, and literally only the text and the pictures are changing between different games. They happen to be run on computers, but that's the only thing they share with games.
These "art games" on the other hand, are a vague category. Where does an "interactive painting" or a "software entertainment experience" end, and a "game" start? They all have different gameplay, with a bit more, or a bit less interactivity. Where would you draw the line between a game that is obliged to be interactive, and art software that is allowed to be more passive?
And what would be the point? Just to stop gaming sites from talking about them?
I use the same argument myself regarding Visual Novels, when people argue that not having enough interactivity is somehow their "fault", I'm all like "It's a separate medium on it's own, where this much interactivity is the norm".
But the difference is, that at least Visual Novels can be really defined narrowly as a medium, because they have a single very specific mechanical frame, and literally only the text and the pictures are changing between different games. They happen to be run on computers, but that's the only thing they share with games.
These "art games" on the other hand, are a vague category. Where does an "interactive painting" or a "software entertainment experience" end, and a "game" start? They all have different gameplay, with a bit more, or a bit less interactivity. Where would you draw the line between a game that is obliged to be interactive, and art software that is allowed to be more passive?
And what would be the point? Just to stop gaming sites from talking about them?
Some of them are actually good.T3hSource said:
But yes, most of them are pretentious crap.
Many people said I just didn't get No More Heroes. Yes, I don't get shallow gameplay and minigames based on jobs we give to unskilled immigrants.
I suppose he must have reviewed The Path. That game has some good moments, but the truth is that the "gameplay" is quite boring, it involves walking around a lot, but unlike Dear Esther, it's aesthetic qualities are so-so, so while in Dear Esther walking feels like a discovery, in The Path it's pretty dull, not enjoyable in my opinion. It has some really good scenes inside the house though.ElPatron said:
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.