Seriously? You can almost win an award for THIS?!

[The_Echo]

snip

I agree. Minecraft is boring, but it's not for everyone. And YES, there are some completely rubbish indie games, especially if you're counting flash games. I mean, just look at the Arise series on Newgrounds. Doesn't get much shittier than that. But of course there are shitty triple-A games. Replay value? Like extra endings and shit? If I like a game, I'll probably replay it someday. THAT'S replay value. Not how much bullfuck they pile in, but how much I'm actually able to enjoy the game. I'd play Amnesia again and again because I like it. Polished? Plenty of indie games are polished. The aforementioned Castle Crashers and Amnesia, as well as Cave Story, A Game with a Kitty, Knytt, Minigore, BIT.TRIP, Hot Throttle and others. All of which are also fun, I might add.

Like I said before, I think you need to play a few more indie games. If you have an iOS device, the App Store is a great place to find indie games.

 

[re1wind]

What makes this a game?

Interactive digital medium.

Why it won an award? Subject matter.

An old lady visiting a grave [husband? friend? family? war? multiple people?] in a gravyard [alone!] with a chance of herself dying to music is the kind of subject matter that most people wouldn't touch, or intentionally think about, or make a "game" about. Its meant to make you think, to reflect on the concept of death, about old people, and done so in an interactive medium, which is more powerful than a short film.

 

[Avayu]

I can't believe we got this far into this issue without someone posting this video:
Especially important for those of you who are on about his age-old "games should be fun".

It's not always about fun. There are many other emotions. This is what makes us human. Every medium that wants to be taken serious as an artistic medium can not just deal with one single emotion. That's what games like The Graveyard are for. It's not meant to be fun, it's meant to make you think, like all art.

I can see where part of the confusion stems from, though. The Graveyard has a very limited interactivity. Calling it a game is therefore not unproblematic, but I'd say it is one, for the simple fact that it is not about some old lady walking through a graveyard, it is about you being the old lady.

 

[Rhymer]

How have you not heard of Minecraft?

Minecraft sucks. It's empty and hollow. There is literally nothing there.

Minecraft is only what you make it. That's what makes it so different. What does your statement say about you?

 

[Zizzousa]

Ever since Watchmen and Dark Knight were barred from Best Picture, Daft Punk was barred from Best Original Score, and I saw Borderlands with a Game of the Year sticker at my Wal Mart, I have no faith in what gets awards anymore.

: I

And then Trent Reznor won an Oscar. Start of the long, long litany of reasons not to believe in awards. Also, what GOTY did Borderlands win? News of the World?

I like the idea of an exporable painting, but I'd never play it, because I play games for the stories and the new ideas and imaginary locations. For what it's worth, though, The Graveyard sounds to me more interesting than CoD - less shouty, more thinky. RDR and ME2 find themselves in the middle. Say The Graveyard is your 'Hiroshima, Mon Amour', RDR is a Fox Searchlight equivalent, and CoD is Avatar or 2012 or something similar, perhaps; it makes sense that way. (Hiroshima, btw, is a film about Hiroshima, told through the story of one woman's wartime affair. Slowly. Very slowly. In black and white. With lots of meaningful glances and not a whole lot of meaningful talking. See?)

 

[Spark Ignition]

games, by definition, are supposed to be fun. so if a game is not fun then it fails as a game

Whose definition?

And why should either myself as a game player or the industry as game makers stick to such a narrow and limiting definition?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game

definitely its supposed to amuse you, see yahtzee's review of Paper Mario for more details.

You haven't answered the second question.

because if we don't HAVE a definition of what "fun" generally means, then people will just interpret it in fuck-all ways and we end up having the same situations as sects of religion arguing which is the "right" way to do it.

Set definitions are worthless, we have set definitions for how capital letters should be used yet you yourself show how easily people ignore them. Secondly you haven't answered the question, even if we need a set definition of what a game is why have one that's as limiting as one that says it must be fun?

The Graveyard is an innovative piece of art.

How is it innovative?

Thematically, it's not.
Technologically though, it uses the structure of a videogame without imposing the conventions that make it a game on it. Kind of like the Path, but without even the goal of completing a story.

As a qualifier,
innovative does not mean good. I've not even played this and to me it sounds dull, because my taste in art is wildly different from an old lady in a graveyard who maybe dies.
Innovative means it does something different from the norm, and that it has potential. Mirror's Edge was ultimately deemed a failure, but it was very, very innovative.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Hm.. Wait, what about that other Indie Horror Game where you wander through a Creepy space with a small Chance of you dying, Oh wait! The Path!
The path for one was actually scary, this just looks like A crappy debut game.
I doubt I'll ever buy this, I also doubt I'll ever buy Team Fortress Portal 2 Duke Nukem Forever and No More Heroes 2.

 

[SilverHammerMan]

Man, I just kept waiting for the zombies to show up, but nothing!

 

[GiantRaven]

The attitude of some people in this thread is shocking. Why should the medium of video games (although that term could arguably be becoming completely outdated really) limit itself to what you personally want to see? What on earth is wrong with The Graveyard, other than the fact that you don't see it's value?

If short, abstract artistic films can exist alongside Hollywood blockbusters then why can't The Graveyard exist alongside Call of Duty? Sure it may be pretentious and whimsical...but so what?

How is it innovative?

How isn't it? Can you name any other games like it?

 

[TheGroovyMule]

No one's saying they can't exist, but no one should say that it shouldn't be criticized either. Just because it's considered 'art' doesn't mean it's above critical reception. Just like if I get a monkey to slap paint on a canvas, it doesn't make it good, slapping together a game doesn't made it good either, even if they do consider it art, it's still a game, and will be criticized as such. This attitude of some people in this thread -is- shocking. God forbid we have critical minds that don't just swallow up anything considered 'hip' and 'artistic', it's no better them mindlessly swallowing up AAA titles.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

Oh wow...I hear crickets. For years I've just heard a bunch of people clamoring that games should be considered art... a game was made purely as artistic expression and now, beautiful silence. You want games as art, this is it. If you don't believe me go walk through an art museum, half of it is some largely BS and half realized concept with a lengthy description on the artistic vision of the artist.

You all have been monkey pawed!

I've got some more straws for you to clutch at, if you'd like.

The Graveyard is by no means the be-all and the end-all of "art games". It's simply an exploration of ideas and choices which are rarely made, and therefore interesting for experimentation.
Whether it is a failed experiment or not, I cannot say. I haven't experienced it myself.
But the sheer viscera of the reactions expressed in this thread leads me to believe that some kind of purpose may just have been fulfilled...

I don't feel like I'm clutching at straws, and it'd be incredibly short sighted to claim that this is the be-all/end-all of "art games." This would just be one herald of what I think will become a trend, "games" which have such an art focus that it is hardly a game, but as the developers say more of an interactive digital painting. It is a natural development from an outcry for games as art which is art as a game. I don't think this is bad, I think it borders on glorious that with games like this, the path, and a number of games before it, we may be witnessing a whole new type of art. I completely agree with you that it was a worthwhile experiment that definitely served a purpose, and I hope to see more like it.

The original post is mostly about how funny I think it is that gamers on this site are often upset at games which don't carry a perceived artistic quality, or angry when people see games as trivial entertainment and not artistic expression, but then games like this get railed against by so many (by no means do I mean universally). I feel it is the monkey paw or wish-master/genie scenario of getting exactly what you wished for.

This just makes me wonder how many times you hear the outcry for games to be considered art by gamers (I imagine when developers do it they are actually longing for more ability to use their own artistic talent/vision), that it is less that many of the gamers want games to be acknowledged as artful, and more they want to be smiled upon by a society that traditionally trivializes games and thus gamers are wasting their time, but would praise someone for going to museums or the opera as time well spent.

 

[Javarock]

Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress. The first is a fairly simple game in traditional 3D, the latter is a difficult and complex game in literal 3D.

No offense, but it seems a bit of a narrow-minded view. Like people who think Passage was just a pointless crappy sidescroller.

This Seriously dwarf fortress was and still is FUN. (See what I did there?))

 

[GiantRaven]

No one's saying they can't exist, but no one should say that it shouldn't be criticized either. Just because it's considered 'art' doesn't mean it's above critical reception. Just like if I get a monkey to slap paint on a canvas, it doesn't make it good, slapping together a game doesn't made it good either, even if they do consider it art, it's still a game, and will be criticized as such. This attitude of some people in this thread -is- shocking. God forbid we have critical minds that don't just swallow up anything considered 'hip' and 'artistic', it's no better them mindlessly swallowing up AAA titles.

Ah, you're right. I was being overly harsh there. I just dislike when people dismiss things as meaningless when it doesn't interest them personally. My apologies.

 

[The Human Torch]

Let's try a comparison between artsy indie games and modern art:

What about this? Do you understand this work? I'll be blunt, it wasn't drawn by a famous artist, but used by one of my favorite authors as a metaphor. Your inability to understand what games like The Graveyard represent is perfectly mirrored in this portion of the story. Don't try to dismiss something you do not understand. It not only makes you look like an idiot, it will also invite people to smack some metaphorical sense into you.

Anyway, Vonnegut to the rescue:

It is a picture of the awareness of every animal. It is the immaterial core of every animal - the "I am" to which all messages are sent. It is all that is alive in any of us - in a mouse, in a deer, in a cocktail waitress. It is unwavering and pure, no matter what preposterous adventure may befall us. A sacred picture of St. Anthony is one vertical, unwavering band of light. If a cockroach were near him, or a cocktail waitress, the picture would show two such bands of light. Our awareness is all that is alive and maybe sacred in any of us. Everything else about us is dead machinery.

Biggest bunch of nonsense I ever heard. Way too much trying to sound all deep and brooding. Life is not as difficult as those hipsters make it out to be.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

The attitude of some people in this thread is shocking. Why should the medium of video games (although that term could arguably be becoming completely outdated really) limit itself to what you personally want to see? What on earth is wrong with The Graveyard, other than the fact that you don't see it's value?

You really want to pretend that all the criticism of this game is people who can't see the value. People can see the reasoning behind it, they just think the game sucks. Ridiculously simple, bad graphics, bad music, oplinger even called it laughable, the game is not really praise worthy. Even from a purely story-telling perspective their are numerous books that tell the story of an elderly person with more character and more depth, if anything it shows what sort of pathetic results you can expect if a videogame tries to tackle a serious non-action narrative. If you showed this game to an art critic like Roger Ebert or Pauleen Kael they would laugh at it.

And yeah I'm not paying $5 to see the "ending" of a game which isn't even interesting.

 

[Rad Party God]

Well, I'm certain that you are not in the demographic this game is aiming for.

In the first place, you can play 95% of the game for free, but you have to pay to watch the old lady die. That's entirely up to you, it's completely optional. I downloaded this game and I didn't watched it as a game per se, as the description says, I watched it as an interactive, moving painting. For the record, I didn't liked this game. It didn't bestowed upon me any feeling or any emotion, there are certainly better games that can be emotionally moving, but there are people who see something within this game.

In fact, this game can join the discussion about games as art.

If you were looking for a mindless game, with someone showing up and shooting the hell out of the old lady with a fake russian accent and then bombing the cemetary to smithereens, then it will dissapoint you.

Or maybe you just mistook Black Ops for this game.

 

[Hiphophippo]

How about playing an indie game that's not 3D? Like Cave Story, Darwinia, Flow, Dwarf Fortress, Gish, Varicella, The Shivah, Toribash, Knytt, Frozen Synapse, Warning Forever, Facade, Peacemaker, N, Sam and Max, Kingdom of Loathing, Battle of Wesnoth, Fallen London, De Blob, Dungeon Crawl, Death Worm, The Chzo Mythos (Yahtzee's games), Robot Dinosaurs That Shoot Beams When They Roar, Robot Unicorn Attack...

And The Graveyard is actually a very good piece of programming. Whether it could be called a game is difficult, but it's certainly a powerful interactive experience.

Appreciate it when someone does my legwork for me.

This. All of this.

www.tigsource.com <----Go there. I maintain that the real innovation happens in the indie scene.

 

[Swifteye]

I know we all like to talk about art and stuff but doesn't a video game have to be some sort of interactive experience? If I wanted this I would have I dunno ordered a pack of those sundance film festival short movies but I wouldn't buy money to get a game I'll only play once and for that moment wasn't really playing it at all. I play all sorts of games Rpgs, shooters, platformers, Adventure, action, puzzle, and even sports and casual titles when I get wrangled by the folks. But I don't see ANY value in this as a game of any genre even the genre that heavy rain and indigo prophecy made.

This is the sort of thing that gets all the indie folks all a flutter but the rest of the world doesn't care because there's nothing in it for them. It's purely philosophical. And a item that only has philosophy going for it is. Dare I say. Just as shallow as a product that's only designed to be fun and nothing else.

 

[Drake_Dercon]

Wow... All humanity isn't identical.

Never woulda thunk it.

Are you seriously griping at a game because it wasn't the kind of game you liked? Yes, many games are knockoffs. That applies everywhere.

I'll first ask you to name what kind of game you do like, then promise me that 90% of the games in that genre aren't knockoffs of something better that's already been done.

Let me direct you to two games: Tower of heaven and Coma. They're both free on the internet (go and look them up) and both masterfully done. There's a lot of creativity in the indie gaming genre and I'm going to ask you to stop ragging on it because the most visible games are crap.

I suppose what irked me most about your statement was this:

I guess all of this brings about a more glaring question... do you play games for yourself or for the developer? Because this seems like a game the developers really made for themselves and we are supposed to interact with it and feel EXACTLY how they want us to. I play games to have fun and escape from reality for a while, i don't play games to feel emotions, that's what movies and books are for.

WHY THE HELL IS IT YOUR DECISION THAT PEOPLE SHOULD MAKE SOMETHING DIFFERENT? Emotions are the core of humanity and any medium where they can be shown should be a viable one. I will not complain on the internet that 50 cent gets his own game, I will not complain that Angry Birds is... well I won't complain about it. Suffice to say that even while I will not buy either of those, I will not complain about their existence of their style of gameplay. That is someone else's taste and note mine, therefore not my place to complain about a clear diversity that allows both what I appreciate and something so radically different from it to exist. Emotional connection is an enjoyable experience unto itself so, while you don't enjoy that, I respectfully ask you to recognize that other people do.

[/nerdrage]

Edit: It also has to be said that a game can't be boring. I don't think fun is quite the right word, but every single game must be engaging to play. While many indie games don't have this, many others do, just as in the AAA industry. Enjoyment isn't exclusive to where you chose to rest your feet. The first step out may not be great, but searching will bring you another place in time.

 

[saluraropicrusa]

excuse me, Ultratwinkie, but i'd like to point you in the direction of Valve. they are definitely not (or, not anymore, no company starts with a AAA budget) an indie developer, but would you honestly tell me that Portal is "more processed cheese based on an established series"? your view on the AAA industry makes me think you're looking exclusively at games like CoD. yes, these games sell a lot, because people ENJOY them. to say that gamers only want what's familiar is severely limiting, especially to the more mature of us. i would consider almost all of my favorite games to be at least as innovative as people think indie games are (Portal, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus... hell, when it first came out, Halo was doing things that people hadn't seen before). just because a game is made by a company with a big enough budget to make it look pretty does NOT mean it doesn't have room to be innovative, engaging, immersive, and any other word you want to use to describe it as excellent. an industry that can produce games like Portal and Mirror's Edge, and then give them enough to make a sequel, is hardly worthy of being completely overlooked as stale and cookie-cutter. oh, and series' like Mario and Zelda didn't start as AAA franchises. they survived to become this because they were good enough to gain a serious fan base.

also, why do indie games need to appeal to a limited demographic? how is it not possible for an artistic game to attract a broad audience? i honestly have no idea how you people could consider it a bad thing for a truly excellent, artsy game to reach an audience broader than the art snobs.