Josh-B 2012-06-19 17:20:35

Maybe I'll get it when its super-cheap on steam. Even though I could spend that much on a decent length game than a two hour movie. O WELL

Kajenx 2012-06-20 04:12:34

Your response to 4 is, like, everything that frustrates me about this silly debate over art and games (and art as a whole, for that matter). What is important? What is worthwhile? Blah blah barf! It's all a bunch of bullshit to me. There are no "art games." You're basically just glorifying the role playing aspect of a game and saying it somehow makes it more important or meaningful if it makes a social message. This is the same silly reason modernists used to justify replacing interest and technique in painting with philosophical mumblings and paint splatters.

Forget about the word "art" and judge a game by how much you enjoyed it. None of these "art games" would be interesting to people if they weren't fun in the first place, so it's just adding pretension to say they're superior to this or that because they somehow mean more to you. Why is a story about a bunch of space marines somehow less relevant than a story about a dude who can rewind time? What if the writer of Gears of War released an artist statement talking about his war experiences and how they informed the game? It doesn't matter. If the game is good, it's good. If it's not, it's not. The reasons have nothing to do with why it was made or what allegory it might represent. Tolkein made this same argument about fantasy writing.

People who make things are artists. However, art is useless. Thus, the label doesn't matter in the slightest. Call yourself, or me, or Jonathon Blow whatever you want. We all make different things, different people enjoy them in different amounts. None of them have any degree of "importance."

Kajenx 2012-06-20 06:00:59

Also, I hope the post below doesn't sound like I'm attacking you or anything. I'm actually full of love and butterflies. :3 Talking about the word "art" always makes me bristle, though, because I had to deal with everyone calling my paintings illustrations all through "fucking art skool" lol.

OmarShehata 2012-06-21 02:49:10

Very interesting discussion!

I-smell, you might interested in seeing this episode of Extra Credits if you haven't already seen it.

<a href="http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/narrative-mechanics">http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/narrative -mechanics</a>

It talks about how a very simple arcade game, with no cutscenes or anything, could portray a very strong message about nuclear disaster by putting the player in just the right mindset through mechanics.

And I really think (or hope) that in the future games would be more accepted as art because it really is the only expressive medium that is not passive. Like here's a very simple example, Wolfire Games, a bunch of indie devs, just made a quick game jam for themselves recently and made this innovative first person shooter.

It has a bunch of features but the one I really liked was that, to sprint, you didn't hold down a button. You had to tap a button. And the faster you tapped the faster you ran. This really put the player inside the world, where when he would be running for his life he'd be raping that button as hard as he could, feeling all the tension.

And that's really my definition of art. It's anything that communicates on an emotional level.

Kajenx 2012-06-21 08:17:40

Haha, so I think we may agree then.

I DID read what you wrote, but I also read between the lines. I thought you were saying that art games legitimized games, as something worthwhile or important, because you were hoping the movie would somehow explain it all to your family and friends, who you describe as not taking it seriously. Maybe you don't want to believe you think the same way as the TigSource guys, but are you sure you don't?

Why is subtext the only thing that makes something artistic to you? Why can't design itself be the art behind the game? You used to believe that, why did you change? Basically what you're saying is that allegory or subtext or implied meaning makes games something that you feel more confident trying to explain to people you know rather than resting on the laurels of what ACTUALLY makes games great.

Look here:
"A couple years ago I decided that what I really think is worth exploring in games is how they feel and how they workâEU¦I used to call that the real art of designing games.
That's not exactly true though, cos that's not what art is. Literally: The word doesn't apply to something like that. It's VERY fun and interesting and respectable to do that kind of game design and I'm happy with it, but what do the people in this movie really mean when they talk about "games as art" ?
They mean making a game with a message, or to reflect how you feel, or to tell a parable story."

This is wrong in my view. Art isnâEUTMt about the extra pieces you add on to something, itâEUTMs the fundamental machinery behind what makes a thing great. A great painting is not one that has some extra meaning. A great painting is one thatâEUTMs meaningless, but is able to exceed that meaninglessness through the technical mastery behind it. You said it yourself, the games that focus on subtext and ignore the game design are failures. This means subtext is an extra piece, like particle effects. It makes the game a little more exciting if it's already good, but looks stupid if the game isn't solid in the first place.

I donâEUTMt like Thomas Moran because he painted landscapes that commented on the times he lived in. I like him because his paintings are beautiful. The art historical context is an added curiosity. The same thing applies to games. The only worthwhile criteria in a game is how fun it is. That IS the artistry. The rest is particle effects.

Kajenx 2012-06-22 22:17:41

The problem is exactly as you say: everyone thinks "art" is better than "not art." So, I'm not going to accept the idea that there are "art games" and "not art games," especially when most art games aren't better.

It goes a little further too. Art has a heritage, a history, a body of work to draw from. I'm making games inspired by Boucher and Bierstadt, who were artists. I don't like the pretension of modernism and how it devalued those guys all while inheriting the respect that they earned just because they also use the word "art" to describe their work. I REALLY don't like it when that pretension is carried over into legitimacy in people's minds. Especially in someone like you who actually seems to care.

The truth is, the word art DOES have a set of values and importance attached to it. No one is going to suddenly change their preconceptions when they're talking to you just because you point out that you think the word is meaningless. If you wanna be literal, the word has become so far stretched, it IS meaningless. But it would be better for you to own the word instead of abandoning it to people who probably don't deserve it.

You can be something new: a modest artist. :3

Kajenx 2012-06-26 00:56:54

Haha, alright man. That's what most people say to me eventually. :P I don't care about the word, I was just sad to see you feeling somehow inferior.

OmarShehata 2012-06-28 11:10:34

I keep wanting to respond but keep forgetting, can't get this off my mind.

I'll have to admit, Kajenx pretty much laid it down with how believing that games can be art makes the profession seem that much more important to me. Like I convince myself that I wouldn't be wasting my life if I were to keep making games all my life, and that I could be somehow influencing people through my work.

I think about the topic of whether games are art or not, or which games are art, depends on your definition of art.

Mine is that art is anything that can express or convey emotions in ways that simple communication cannot. You could tell someone how it feels to be betrayed or to lose a dear friend, and he'd pity you maybe. And if he never felt anything like that, he may not really be able to sympathize. Through art however, you could express the emotion of that feeling, put the person in the same place, whether that be through a piece of prose, movie, picture or a game.

Maybe I'm thinking too narrow, but with that mindset, yeah, a game where you shoot blocks would not be art, whereas taking the same game and adding some profound layer or something would be.

I don't know...how do you define art?

What I still believe in is the fact that games still have a lot of potential to be something greater. They're the only form of media that are truly interactive and so could express things in ways other mediums cannot.