Jimquisition: Lazy, Boring, Ordinary, Art Games

[Simonoly]

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.

 

[Gregg Lonsdale]

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?

 

[OuroborosChoked]

What is this game "Dee Arresta"? I've never heard of it.

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.

...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.

 

[Mikodite]

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.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

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.

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.

 

[The Cheshire]

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.

That's not a good analogy at all.

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.

If you want a game, you won't like it.

Then it could be argued it's not a game and we are back at square one.

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".

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.

 

[surg3n]

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.

 

[Naturality]

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.

 

[Simonoly]

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.

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.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[ElPatron]

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.

That's why I suggested you backtracking on Jim's videos.

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.

 

[Alterego-X]

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?

 

[GonzoGamer]

Thank you for pointing out why I avoid these kinds of games in general,but I guess one time I have to give one of those "pretentious arty" games a chance.Until then I'll call Serous Sam genocide a work of art.

Some of them are actually good.
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.

 

[The Cheshire]

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 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.

 

[Undeadpool]

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.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

I think Riven really exemplified how to do an Art game. (Yes, I know Riven itself is not an Art game but golly it has most of the makings of one.) You could interact with a whole lot of stuff, it looked breathtaking for it's time (and still does today to an extent,) and had an awesome story. In another words, it successfully immersed you into it's world while not really focusing too much on gameplay.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

New Jimquisition: Lazy, Boring, Ordinary,

 

[Moeez]

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.

 

[Moeez]

New walkthrough of "Datura" [http://www.gametrailers.com/video/immersion-walkthrough-datura/728098], PSN Move-designed art game

HYPE HYPE!

 

[Therumancer]

I agree with pretty much everything Jim said, but will go a couple of steps further:

Dark and depressing doesn't make something artistic, and really that's one of my big problems with art games in general. It seems like all of them basically go on about the same basic depressing things. An artistic statement isn't paticularly artistic or profound if it's simplty you rehashing what everyone else has been saying about solitude, finality, the pointlessness of existance, and all of that kind of thing.

What's more "Artistic" does not count as an excuse to toss depressing stuff that seems like it tells a story or should fit together randomly and call it art. Part of being a good artist is to have a definate point, and one that is not what everyone else is saying, and to be able to communicate that through your work so it can be understood by the viewer. If you need to be especially smart to "get it" then this means that the artist sucks. What's more saying that the meaning depends on the person experiencing it is a huge cop out, that exists largely for the creator to fake meaning without bothering to justify it. Letting you say have all the wierdness of a show like "Lost" without the expectation that it will ever make sense (which is the failure of shows like Lost, since for it to work you needed a satisfying finale that the show never delivered).

I tend to see most art games as being faux art... people that are poseurs trying to pretend they are artists, following in the footsteps of the people who used the medium as an artistic platform successfully, hoping to garner some positive attention by association and playing the role well.

"Dear Esther" is pretty much a perfect example of the problem, it's a game with a go nowhere narrative, where for all of the stuff scattered around and bits of information, the developers apparently said right out there is no real answer to most of the questions or solid answer to what was going on or why. It's basically a tour, that pretends to have something going on besides the scenery, but ultimatly does not. The simple fact that it fails to clearly convey answers or a meaning... means that it fails to be any kind of artwork.

Appreciating something of this sort doesn't make someone smart, it just means they are good at following a crowd of other art poseurs since what they are following can't even really be considered art. Even if someone defends something like this as Art by using a very broad definition under which ANYTHING could be considered art when you get down to it, it makes this really bad art... and kind of says a lot about the people who lionize it and their taste.

Honestly, I probably won't come out in support of an art game again until I see someone create something with an upbeat message. At this point if your entire message is some dark point about the futility of it all, your just imitating everyone else at the very best. Using a video game as opposed to spouting off nilistic poetry in white and black makeup during open mic night at the local coffee house doesn't change how much of a talentless poseur you happen to be... really. After the first 20000 times it ceases to be paticularly profound. Especially seeing as we all know life sucks... find an artist who can make it entertaining to life me out of my depression the same way, and then maybe you'll have an artist worth something. I don't need a video game or goth poet to tell me how depressing everything is, I have my life and the rest of reality for that.