PAX 2010: Solace

hum, there were like 4 guest reviews (one of which I wrote) before this one that weren't posted. How unpleasant :(

good article, but i kind of dispute this part: “If you take Braid and remove the text, you end up with a puzzle game involving time manipulation that is barely about anything other than puzzles involving time manipulation.”

i felt that a lot of the puzzles in braid did have a lot of meaning actually: remember all the ones similar to super mario bros.? the meaning was like, why do games punish you by making you try again from so far back? why not let you rewind and try again immediately? look at how easy and look at how little skill is required to beat this if you can simply rewind time and try again instead of having to get everything right the first time. a lot of braid was a critique of games that have contrived difficulty simply by putting you back to the beginning of the game or the stage when you make one tiny mistake.

although another thing about this article is that it made me think: if passage had been more game-like, if collecting treasures was more challenging and engaging, if there were special moves and jumping and obstacles and bonus combos and other varied things to challenge you as you went to the right, would that have lessened the power of the ending? i don't know, but it's an interesting question.

oh, one more question: i don't really see how the gameplay shown in this video has anything to do with grief, could you elaborate on that part? i mean, the game looks pretty and nice, but it looks like a shmup, i don't see, from the short video at least, how its mechanics have much to say about grief?

in general i feel like this article didn't go into enough detail of exactly why it feels the way it does about this game, instead spending the time talking about how braid and passage didn't do what this game does.

'it would still be about the five stages of grief as represented through the gameplay of its levels'
I thought the opposite way, this is just a shooter showing “grief” through visuals, music and sound design, i don't see how the gameplay barely fits at all, just being a shell for the former.
And can't disagree more with the statement this article seems to be implying regarding a game has to have more value or more interesting value when taken all the non-gameplay elements away, any game or art piece should be seen as a sum of parts, and each part is equally important.

I only see a shooter with very simple graphics…

The first hardcore Art Shooter or Art-Shmup! It's Ikaruga meets Passage, and subsequently has a baby and then that baby dies. Too much over analysis for me. I just want to play it and have fun.

Looks like a decent shooter – check!
Has fluid and interesting graphics – check!
Very nice music – check!

I don't mind that a game tries to invoke emotion, as long as the developer also intended for the game to invoke the feeling that the game is also entertaining and interesting in some way.

I actually liked passage, but if it was the type of game that you played through multiple times and cried each time you played it, then I think you need to get out more. It has a nice simple message and with that it's worth a nice simple playthru. There really isn't much more too it though. You play thru it once, you get the message – or you don't. There's something to be gained from it, but I don't believe it's worthy of influencing international lectures about human emotions and video games. It's a simple experience that's there for anyone who wants to take part in it – a nice little experience that is perhaps a little thought provoking, but not exactly something that I'd attempt to create a thesis over or travel abroad to give lectures on… however – I'm sure this has already been done (for one title or another) – and I'm not trying to insult you people who would actually do such a thing, but it is a little ridiculous to over analyze something that could possibly or possibly not invoke different emotions and / or boredom in different people. Doing that is only as bad as over analyzing a title from the Call of Duty series and expecting everyone to have the same awesome experience from it – when in fact some people hate the series or just don't care for FPSes altogether. I tend to have a simple view of video games much like Hamlet (act 3, scene 1) To be or not to be: that is the question.

“Is a game fun, is it enjoyable, or is it not?
Doth thou so remember,
how when so young,
and paddle touched ball ever so sweetly,
to bounce back and forth from here to eternity,
or until somebody slips and misses thy ball shaped square
to give or to gain point by point nary a winner in sight
dost though remember hours of electric eyeball intercourse?
From here to hither, forgetful of time and place,
when bricks were broken and coins released,
and a Goomba was the only fear to face -
the mustached man, the proverbial peach,
whose peach thou dost pursue,
stolen by fat green-eyed spiky shelled bastard,
break bricks must he oh mustache man,
must he to rescue fair lust true.”

Yes, you see it's all quite simple really – and it's all explained quite simply in Act 3, Scene 1 of Hamlet – which I have just quoted verbatim.

(yes I made that on the spot so no plagiarism was involved in the creation of this shitty little poem! So there!)

“why not let you rewind and try again immediately? look at how easy and look at how little skill is required to beat this if you can simply rewind time and try again instead of having to get everything right the first time.”

I think you answered your own question.

Game requires a full installation
No built-in joypad support
No score
No bombs
Infinite lives
Bullshit euroshmup patterns
Glitchy sound
“Meaning” implanted through the use of inspirational quotes fading onscreen
Monotype Corsiva font or some similar goofballery
Collectibles only effect the number of wings on your sprite
Ambiguous hitboxes
Last level, “Acceptance”, is piss easy (I'm sure someone thought that was clever)

A++ work western indie devs! You showed those misogynist Japanese STG devs and their non-art skill-based shrine maiden exploitation games.

In response to all preceding comments: lol.

why don't you play the game and judge, rather than watch a video and judge?

i didn't realize when i posted that that the game was available for download (the article didn't really make that clear), i thought this was another preview post, like the last pax post

dodge, what about ceramic shooter: digital poem? i thought that was a pretty good shmup art-game, and was released before this one.

You mean Ceramic Shooter: Electronic Poem. You're right that was out first. The music was also fantastic. The visuals suited the game as well. The cool thing about it was you could actually enjoy it as a game. I really can't judge Solace yet but it does look interesting, but like you, I just didn't see any of the emotional connection in the gameplay and after reading more of the comments and replies I only just realized that the game is already available for download. So I'm going to have to give it a try. Thanks for reminding me about Ceramic Shooter though. Although the experience is might be different, lets see if Solace can compete with Ceramics' originality and unique charm.

I'm sorry this game didn't meet the arbitrary requirements of how you prefer your shmups. Have you considered contacting your congressman or MP with these concerns? Be sure to include the part about how you had to install the game. I'm sure he or she will be outraged.

I'm sorry, but I played this at PAX and shut it off after 4 minutes because I found it extremely boring. I guess I just dont get art games?

What is your response to all following comments?

The items I listed are partly to show how inconvenient the game was for me to play, partly to show how little the devs know about designing a proper STG, and partly for lols. Nonetheless, I think the erratic and frequently undodgeable bullet patterns, lack of lives, bombs, scoring, or basically anything remotely interesting, the attention paid to hitboxes and difficulty pacing (none), and the utterly…fuck it, PRETENTIOUS air with which it fires off its artsiness are all testaments to the laziness exhibited in game mechanics and balancing that is frequent in western game design, as well as the inane “artistic” themes the devs responsible for said game design cower behind. It's a game that's built to coddle the player, to jerk him off. It's a game that was not made to be played, but to be written about (this is not a good thing). The interaction is practically optional, and I pity the moron who feels like he would gain anything from a second playthrough.

Needless to say, ANY Touhou, Cave, or Platine Dispositif STG (just to name a few devs who have their shit straight) has more reason to be considered art than this. Nothing could be more insulting to the genre and its patrons, myself included, than to suggest otherwise.

I'm gonna say bile, and plenty of it.

I imagine you sitting there, hoping that icycalm somehow reads your comments and nods his head in approval. “This one is strong enough to carry my seed within him,” he'd say. “Go forth and destroy all the artfags in my name, warrior! That someday I may do you the honor of letting you sit by my side in a Japanese arcade, playing Japanese games with me, and achieving the highest of high scores together. In Japan.”

oops yes, forgot the name

Wow. It's a generic shmup. I'm blown away.

“it would still be about the five stages of grief”

I hope the author's reading the comment thread and will come back and explain why, because I'm really not getting it.

yeah, that bothers me too — a game is experienced as a whole, and this artificial/analytical separation into gameplay and non-gameplay always feels nerdy to me. it's not like most players are sitting there saying 'oh ho ho! that was amazing, but you're not doing that with gameplay, you didn't do that exclusively using the defining feature of games, so too bad, game!'

but we get this everywhere, in movies there are probably people going 'that was a great scene, but it didn't take put the art in the cinematography, just the dialogue, and that could have been done in theater, so it's not quite that great'.

anarkex,

I see that you don't like the game and from your comments see where you're coming from but using the word PRETENTIOUS in a video game discussion is kind of moot at this late stage of video game development. Art game or not, if you've been playing video games for the past decade (and if you're an adult then multiply that number by 2) you'd already know that every mainstream game that comes out now is gods gift to gamers, if you were to believe the developers that is. Point is, I don't think you need to jump the gun on this. Simply because someone else got something from this that you didn't doesn't mean you need to foam at the mouth over it. Personally I see video games as containing art already. Some can be more involving than others by trying to capture a specific feeling or essence but rarely does such a thing come across the same way to everyone, just like a painting or even a particular piece of music or song. You can't make everyone see it the same way. I kind of resent the art games that try to be emotional for the sake of being “Poofy” just so that people will talk about them, but in many cases these developers are trying to convey a feeling, they just have to accept the fact that not everyone will get that same feeling they are trying to convey. That's life and not something that is limited to games alone. Hell, just discussing games brings about different emotions and opinions so to have such lofty expectations (as a developer or as a gamer) usually leads to disappointment – but sometimes, on occasion, discovery.

Paul brought up an excellent example of an Artsy sort of shooter called Ceramic Shooter: Electronic Poem. What did you think of that? Have you tried it? If not, and as a shooter fan myself, I would recommend you give it a try. Then tell me what you thought of the gameplay and the mechanics, and at the same time be honest. If something about it doesn't interest you than I'd go so far as to suggest you don't much like shooters anyway. I'm not saying it's something that'll make you go out and do missionary work over, I'm just saying you've got to appreciate what's there – even if it's simply the mechanics of it and not the game itself.

Well that's great, that really proves me wrong.

Post in defense of Braid–the gameplay covers regret so brilliantly, as well as longing, the passage of time, and the affects of different life paths happening simultaneously, and the digital concept of undo. It's not perfect, but I do think it's the first major step as far as interactive metaphor goes.

Still waiting for the game to download so I can give a more indepth critique, but judging from the video preview it simply looks like another pretty shmup, minus half the trademark characteristics of a shmup. I'm sure there's probably a lot not in the gameplay video, but from here I see absolutely nothing referring to the 5 stages of grief. The artwork is really nice, and the gameplay seems fairly solid (though I've yet to play it so I can't make a definite statement as of yet, I'll elaborate more once it actually downloads…yay horrible internet connection.) but the message isn't necessarily clear. Once I play the game, I'll revise my current view accordingly.

I second this sentiment. I have written and performed pieces (of music,) with a plethora of different emotional intents (and mind you, music is one of the few forms of art that already has a rich system of theory behind it on exactly how to illicit different emotional reactions,) and gotten every response imaginable from the audience well playing them, to the exact same bit. I can actually remember one show, where during my set someone rushed the stage and attempted to perform fellatio on me (making it really difficult to get through my guitar solo,) due too them taking the lyrics far too literally. The woman who originally inspired the song was also in the audience, cracking up despite the overall tone of the song being disdain (not of her per-say, but of some personality traits that she had,) and after the set (this was the first time I played that particular song live,) my backup singer/ belly dancer quit the band, siting the reason being that she felt the song was a personal attack against her and was highly offended (It wasn't really an attack in the first place, and was inspired by someone else altogether, however both of the women in question did have the same personality trait that was 'under attack.' Interestingly so did the MAN who attempted to perform fellatio on me during it.)

So, one song, three people, three totally different reactions.
Sexual Arousal – humor – outrage.
Where any of these responses correct or incorrect? No, not really.
Where any of them the reaction I was going for? Once again, not really. The Outrage reaction was the closest, but I was actually hoping to get that one more internalized (meaning 'This song made me think this thing I do might not be a good idea, maybe I should stop' as apposed to 'The person who wrote this song doesn't respect me as a human being and wrote this song about me as a whole, despite me never being mentioned in it directly, and I can tell because of what they said about one particular trait that I happen to have'.)

How do you guys not get his quote about the gameplay? Basically, Solace's gameplay is designed around it's theme as well, not just the audio/visual side, so without those two most important aspects it still covers the theme. It might not be apparent to the player (especially not so if you didn't even know what the stages were, for example), but the gameplay still fits brilliantly.

And lol @ everyone bitching about SHMUP details like bullet patterns. You CAN'T DIE IN SOLACE. It's a “sit back and enjoy the ride” game, not a goddamn hi-score shmup.

It's not really the score mechanics I have an issue with, never been one for score myself, but the fact the entire gameplay essentially can be boiled down to just tape down the shoot button and stare at the screen completely undermines the “game” component in a way. I don't have an issue with games that won't let you die, but at the same time I personally feel that if the game is going to give you that much of an advantage, it should revolve around some kind of gameplay mechanic (see Wario Land 2 for instance. You can't die, but most of the gameplay and puzzles are based around the very fact you can't die, and the effects different enemy attacks have on the player as you progress through the game).
The problem I have with most art games is that they usually hide poor game mechanics and design with their artistic message, to the point where the gameplay elements are minimal at best. In some games, the whole point is to have minimal control over the events of the game, or the object is mere exploratory in nature, but simply giving the player invulnerability without a clear message behind why they are invulnerable, with no real meaning aside from its a sit through and enjoy the ride type game, it takes away the feeling of achievement that games generally produce. The player I find is oftentimes more distanced from the game by using such tactics, rather than embracing the message of the game because lets face it, they may as well not be playing, because the result will be the same regardless. The game will play itself out on its own.
An example of an art game that I feel successfully combines both gameplay and an artistic message to the full potential of both halves is Eversion. It has simple controls, and fun gameplay, and a really fun mechanic that ties in with the mood and overlying message of the game, which in turn can be interpreted in multiple ways. There are collectible items that reward the player with the possibility of achieving the true ending of the game, as well as a gradual difficulty curve that challenges the player, but is at the same time quite beatable by both hardcore gaming pro's and the casual player.
All in all, I feel art games can't rely on their message alone, but must incorporate both good game design AND good artistic design to truly be successful.

Ooooooh This looks extremly original and NEVER SEEN BEFORE.
I like how he completely reinvented the genre with ABSTRACT GRAPHICS.
I'm flipping ou RIGHT NOW mang.

Magnafiend basically has me covered, but let me highlight this:

>And lol @ everyone bitching about SHMUP details like bullet patterns. You CAN'T DIE IN SOLACE. It's a “sit back and enjoy the ride” game, not a goddamn hi-score shmup.

It's obvious I've misrepresented my point here. This isn't about this particular shmup being DIFFERENT and omg I can't handle things being different because I'm a gamer and I hate innovation. It's that the game lacks not only elements of a typical STG (the equivalent of a megaman romhack that doesn't include shooting and jumping, which yeah, if done right, still mite b kool), but ANY elements at all besides the bare minimum. The game is only moving and shooting, and the fact that you can't die makes even moving and shooting entirely unnecessary. There's nothing at all of interest here besides ambient music and high-res graphics.

The point I've tried to make, time and again, is that balancing a game to be beaten on the merits of skill is a LOT harder than it seems, and as far as I can tell many modern games use infinite lives, checkpoints, and level grinding systems to cover for their lack of balancing. Without these shortcuts the games would be nigh-unplayable, being a million times cheaper and more carelessly constructed than the much-loathed “quarter munchers” that games journalists praise the death of at every turn. That's the case here. The simple addition of lives would change this game from a snoozefest to an unwinnable nightmare. Apparently no one is able to understand that this is not a good thing.

A “sit back and enjoy the ride” game? You barely have to shoot, move, or even hold the controller to beat the game. Tell me, because I honestly am at a loss here:

Why bother?

Why trust your brain when you can trust your gut?

It doesn't matter if your reaction to something is founded on any sort of facts or logic. Whatever neurosis or lack of understanding of the piece made you feel is what you feel, and DAMMIT that's right!

If I feel that your song was a statement about women's rights, who are you to tell me that I'm wrong? I interpreted the lyrics how I wanted to, and ignored the evidence that inconvenienced me.

Once again Anarkex has gone on one of his laughable tangents to try to prove absolutely nothing. Doesn't he understand that it doesn't matter how correct you are or how much evidence you have to support your case you can always be trumped by a bunch of people who say that you're wrong because you're wrong? Obviously Anarkex missed the point of Sollux. It obviously wasn't made for him, I guess. Why can't he just leave us alone and let us wallow in our ignorance of shmup games?

Penny Arcade has already said basically everything I wanted to about this. “It is as though they were presented with a race car, and then spent an hour criticising all the ways it differed from chocolate cake.”

I've kinda been wondering, is there any subgenre of games that inspires as much fuming elitism as J-shmups? I mean, lots of people have strong preferences for Eastern or Western RPGs, say, but I've never heard anyone imply that open-world gameplay is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

>using the word PRETENTIOUS in a video game discussion is kind of moot at this late stage of video game development.

So ignore it. Pretend I said “smarmy” or something. Everyone flips out whenever someone drops the P-bomb because, yeah, an idiot could potentially use the word to describe something he just doesn't “get”. I, however, am not an idiot, I “get” this game and the themes and subjects the devs tried to integrate into it, and when I say “pretentious” I mean it.

>Art game or not, if you've been playing video games for the past decade (and if you're an adult then multiply that number by 2) you'd already know that every mainstream game that comes out now is gods gift to gamers,

No to the way you are saying it, no to what I assume you mean by it. And what does this have to do with “pretentiousness”?

>if you were to believe the developers that is.

I assume even murderers try to justify their actions.

>Point is, I don't think you need to jump the gun on this.

I didn't jump the gun. I 1) Played the game, 2) talked about how I feel about it, and 3) explained why. Most people in these comments skipped 1), performed 2), and ignored 3). What more could I have done here?

>Simply because someone else got something from this that you didn't doesn't mean you need to foam at the mouth over it.

what someone liked this game oh my god raaaaaaage i'm raging so hard with the fires of a thousand suns ffffffff

I ain't even mad.

>Personally I see video games as containing art already.

Certainly. Video games can contain books, movies, music, and still images, all of which can be art.

>Some can be more involving than others by trying to capture a specific feeling or essence but rarely does such a thing come across the same way to everyone

Like how the first Resident Evil isn't really scary anymore?

>just like a painting or even a particular piece of music or song.

Don't lose sight of the goal here: you're supposed to be convincing me that this game is good despite the mechanics being halfassed and the aesthetics being hamfisted.

>You can't make everyone see it the same way.

Yes, just as I can't make the people who read my posts actually figure out what I'm saying before devising a counterargument.

>I kind of resent the art games that try to be emotional for the sake of being “Poofy” just so that people will talk about them, but in many cases these developers are trying to convey a feeling

In which case they are doing it poorly.

>they just have to accept the fact that not everyone will get that same feeling they are trying to convey. That's life and not something that is limited to games alone.

Clearly. I've probably already responded to this argument the last time you replied to one of my posts.

>Hell, just discussing games brings about different emotions and opinions so to have such lofty expectations (as a developer or as a gamer) usually leads to disappointment

Yeah, but somehow my lofty expectations are frequently satisfied. And let's just clarify: my expectations for this game were not that lofty. I only really expected to have to dodge bullets. But shame on me for holding games to such a high standard.

>- but sometimes, on occasion, discovery.

Waiter, there's a fly in my soup.

“It's fly soup, sir.”

Oh.

>Ceramic Shooter: Electronic Poem. What did you think of that?

Always fond of a lark, I downloaded and played the game despite already being quite familiar with it. It is definitely a better game than Solace. So much better in fact that it is actually mildly difficult to complete. The whole “don't break shit” thing was clever though very simple and the text, while only occasionally comprehensible, wasn't especially intrusive or annoying. It could have been better, sure, but it could have been worse.

>If something about it doesn't interest you than I'd go so far as to suggest you don't much like shooters anyway.

Yeah, okay. The game is only barely a shooter, and you'd “go so far as to suggest” that not being enthralled by it might mean I don't like shooters. Whoops, guess I really hate Touhou. Guess my 2+ gigs of MAME is wasted hard drive space. Guess I shouldn't have imported these Cave ports for the 360. Guess I shouldn't have wasted all that time playing Giga Wing and Raiden Fighters at the arcade. Guess I shouldn't have waited in line to play Ketsui at Otakon. Whooooops. You said you're a fan of the genre, right? What are some of your favorites, I'd love to hear them. Don't bother digging too deep, it's all downhill after Ikaruga.

>I'm not saying it's something that'll make you go out and do missionary work over, I'm just saying you've got to appreciate what's there

I do, there's just not much.

>even if it's simply the mechanics of it and not the game itself.

Even if it's simply the mechanics of it and not the game itself.
How can I emphasize the absurdity of this sentence any better than typing it out again?

Well, open-world gameplay…
I've seen it happening. The whole Old Fallout Games versus Fallout 3 Debate is basically about that. And with a lot of fuming elitism too. Even though I do agree with the point of not liking the current open world approach (random huge terrain, almost no substance versus handmade small terrain, full of substance).

Also you get similar fuming elitism in basically every discussion about consoles, graphic cards and to a degree CPUs. Calling someone a “X-Box Gamer” didn't turn into an insult for nothing.

ashfordpride, let's not be joking. we all know you don't have a brain.

NMcCoy makes some bold statements in his review; it wouldn't hurt for him to support his statements with some explanations. That's what reviewers do.

He gives some explanation of that in the comments of his blog version of this post — http://nmccoy.net/2010/09/05/games-are-art-some-games-are-truly-great-art/

You can say it directly to me, rather than staring up into the sky and mumbling “I was just wondering if there are some people in the world who are bigger douchebags than a certain person who I may or may not have just replied to”.

1) People were trashing on this game before I showed up
2) I'm not mad, what is this “fuming”
3)Being an elitist is a good thing. Why shouldn't people who know the most be respected for their opinions?
4)J-shmup is not a genre.

Lastly I ask you to please explain what legitimate game mechanic found in Solace am I saying is a “blight on the face of gaming”, as well as why said game mechanic is actually a good thing contrary to my rampant close-mindedness. My head is way too far up my own ass to figure it out without someone helping me.

The thing that gets me is that if I was ever as blatantly rude as this without contributing absolutely anything to the discussion at hand, I'd probably be banned.

I'm sensing a flow of PMS from your comments.

You just sound moody is all. I don't think I was so forward with you to put you into the defensive state but you really sound like you've become defensive. I was just expressing another opinion (however absurd it might seem to you) but you've taken it and swallowed it as if it were rock salt. I didn't have the intention of making you like this game, just perhaps seeing things in a different way… I liked Ceramic Shooter better than Solace as well. I didn't really get the feeling from Solace that the developers were trying to convey. Ah well, c'est la vie.

You need some Einhander, that'll cure you, you sick puppy. ;-P

I know, right? He's just SO MAD.

It's pretty ridiculous that someone could be SO MAD. Why would someone get SO MAD over the fact that they were just expressing an opposing opinion?

Bravo, Dodger. Check and mate. I can confirm that your post has stunned Anarkex and made him question why he would even say such stupid, silly things to you. Isn't it absolutely pathetic that this disgusting obese baby of a gamer would ever try to refute your opinions on how good a game is because it's good? Live and let live, my brah!

And way to take the high road on this one Dodger. If I was you, I probably would've bothered trying to talk about some of the points Anarkex was bringing up, but you're too smart to fall into his traps! The best thing to due is ignore everything this angry, angry baby is saying and just tell him how mad he is.

That's why they call him Dodger!

I said he was SO MAD??? I did? Really??? Please point me in the direction of those comments.

I believe what I said was that he sounded moody. It would've been nice if you had read the entire comment (and previous comments) as well. That way you wouldn't be wrong in what you write. Hey, it's a play on words, ya get it, ya get it? I thought something like that might just blow your mind.

;-P

Don't worry, I'm not out to embarrass you or anything, I just don't like being misquoted, I think that's fair isn't it AshfordPride?

(here's hoping you read all the way down to this bracketed sentence)

Actually, THEY don't call me Dodger, I call me Dodger. Just like they don't call you anarkex because left to peoples own devices I'm sure there are more colorful words people could think of to call you. ;-P

(It's just a joke – not trying to strike a sensitive nerve or anything – however, I can take and give little digs as well as anyone else).

Hopefully you understand that I'm only doing this so that you see I'm not taking sides (and joking around a bit at the same time because everyone seems to take some of these lighthearted discussions too seriously).

I don't have anything against anarkex (and I seriously hope you read this AshfordPride so you understand my last comment is almost a joke reply – with one serious point – I didn't intend to embarrass or humiliate or make anarkex feel like crap (if he did then that's how he felt before he read my comments since I don't think I said anything volatile enough to get angry over – with the exception of going after his nickname after he tried going after mine ;-)

Anyway, I enjoy talking about and discussing games, but I don't really think this is the kind of game to get up in arms over or to intentionally insult each other about. In all honesty this game is a real hit or miss for some people – it was kind of soothing to watch and listen to (and I mean that about playing the game) but I really didn't get much more from it.

Oh, before I forget (and last but not least), I don't want to derail the discussion but, I think everyone interested in Solace should also download Ceramic Shooter: Electronic Poem and play them one after the other. Then decide what to think about each one. Personally I thought Ceramic Shooter did a little reversal on the genre while also being a little self contained spectacle that you sort of have to play and watch at the same time – kind of like an interactive movie or book. It's not a huge game by any means but I think after playing both of these I'd have to say that Ceramic Shooter was a little more poignant perhaps because it's “message” or “catch” was a little simpler in both method and delivery.

Definitely check it out though, at least once.

Thanks again to Paul for reminding me about the game.

Argh! and I just replied to myself now twice! Fuckin Tourette Syndrome! ;-P

Anyway, I meant to reply to AshfordPride (and the last reply was actually to anyone who would read it).

Gotta stop posting when I'm tired!

Yeah, you could pretty much replace all the comments in this thread with that comic.

I think it's a sign of emotional maturity to be able to experience something you didn't enjoy without acting like the author has failed somehow by not making what you wanted, as if the entirety of the universe is set up just to cater to your very specific requirements.

I keep being reminded of what Adam Saltsman said in the Infinite Ammo podcast. Like, sometimes a game can just be a cool experiment, and doesn't have to be your opus, or whatever. It's really unfortunate that every time you make something you think is neat, and that you want to make, on the other end there's someone nitpicking and complaining that he clicked on a download link and it wasn't exactly what he wanted.

I say put your money where your mouth is.

Stop complaining that the someone on the internet failed to entertain you and go and make your own game. You seem to know what you want, so it would probably be good, and then you can do something more productive with your time than endless arguments about how reprehensible other people are for liking different stuff.

“The someone on the internet.”

I need less work and more sleep.

Being *knowledgeable* is a good thing. Treating your personal preferences like incontrovertible facts just makes you look to everyone else like a crazy person.

I don't believe I'm treating my preferences as incontrovertible facts. I am merely BACKING them with facts. This is what makes them good opinions: I've tested them over and over against reality.

Once again, I invite you to tell me which part of this game I have called a “blight”, and why said mechanics are in fact good. As you haven't done so yet in favor of mocking me, I'm going to assume you can't.

I'm not complaining that this game was made. I say this every time I do something like this. Developers can make whatever games they want, they can make them as shitty as they want, the world is their oyster.

What I am opposing is the blind praise that the above article showers on the game, as well as the multitudes who have been mocking me and yelling at me ever since I decided to play the game and write my thoughts. I did what the author of the post did, but my opinion was negative and therefore horrible and must be stopped at all costs.

I never understood why people got so mad at “Art Games”. I mean, it's art + game. If you don't like it, what's the big deal?

Because it's art – game.

But then that would imply that I consider this game to be art.

Would a bad painting be considered art? Is a bad book art? Is a bad anything considered art? Then why do we seem to only consider the worst video games to be the best examples of video games as art? Sure, it LOOKS nice, but there's so much more to art than just looking nice. Look at some of these bullet patterns. Look at how they pose absolutely no threat to the player, and even if they did, it's all moot as there's absolutely no penalty for death!

There's zero subtlety to the metaphor of grief being presented here. (Pssst, here's a great chance to tell me I didn't get it) Stages named after the idea they're trying to express, and they stick to a theme. That's just fantastic. That's more than enough reason for me to want to sacrifice challenge and achievement in a genre where this matters above all else. I don't think anyone would've minded if this was an actual game. I'm not going to give the creator the benefit of the doubt and just call him out on the fact that he could not make a good shmup, and instead made an art. Would the message of this game be obscured by a few tropes of the shmup genre? No! One, because it has absolutely nothing to say beyond a cute, but flimsy metaphor and two because it would make it a GOOD GAME.

I'm not happy with how I worded the first couple lines of the second paragraph. Incredibly vague, incredibly stupid.

I'll blame it on being tired like everyone else. Call me on it and I'll explain if anyone gives a shit and just isn't trying to countertroll trolls trolling trolls.

You don't seem to understand why people are mad, and I'm not sure how to explain this to you.

People aren't mad because you don't like the game, people are mad because you were sarcastic, pedantic and laughed at everything written by everyone else like a spoiled child. You need to realize that the things you don't like about the game are basically just not issues for 90% of people here. It's totally fine for you to not like them; it's even fine for you to say you don't like them. It isn't fine for you to act like there's something wrong with everyone else for not sharing your preferences.

That the game requires installation, or uses a monospace font, these are facts. That these invalidate everyone else's enjoyment, that is an opinion. We understand what you're talking about, but we don't care. It doesn't make us idiots; it means we have other priorities.

It's not really art-games, but art-games that use some grand artistic vision as an excuse to half ass all the game functionality. Just because a game is an art game doesn't mean it can't be a really horrible game. A lot of 'art games' put so much emphasis on the ART and give absolutely no attention to the GAME aspects. For the games falling into that category (Solace being one of them in my opinion) why not simply make a film, or an abstract animation. It would get the same message across and possibly offer more possibilities than implementing game mechanics that are essentially rendered as completely pointless due to the fact you can't die. On the other end of the spectrum, there are games that are so emphasizing gameplay that there isn't much that is overtly artistic about them. This extreme though, usually leads to an enjoyable gameplay experience, though maybe not the most innovative, it's still fun.
The point I'm getting at is, art games have to be actual games in order to be successful, rather than not-games. Yes, removing gameplay elements and bringing things down to the bare minimum can be artistic, but it has to be done for a reason relevant to either the artistic side or the gameplay side, and can not render the actual gameplay portion as optional. This is what makes Ceramic Shooter so much better than Solace. In ceramic, the mechanic was unique, but it also didn't reduce the game to simply holding the fire key. You can still die, you can still lose the game, you can fail, you are FORCED to interact in some way that doesn't involve taking a roll of ducktape to your keyboard. Granted, CS:EP does have it's faults in my oppinion, namely the way some of the imagery and words are nonsensical in context to the rest of the game, and the fact that by the end the text is unreadable because it is destroyed before you even have the chance. It feels like some things were thrown in at random, like the computer monitor enemies, and the engineering/electronic circuitry logic diagram portions. But enough of my tangent, back to my point. CS:EP integrated gameplay into the art part of the game to make it an essential part of actually playing the game. I feel the goal of art games in reaching the next level is to make a game that can be equally appreciated for it's artistic message and vision equally as much for it's well formed gameplay mechanics and attention to detail when it comes to balancing and coding (unless the artistic part of the game is to blur the perceptions of such things, but that's going into a whole Duchampian logic that I don't even want to touch right now, since it's completely irrelevant to the conversation.)
In short, I don't hate all art games, just the ones that use art as an excuse to toss gameplay down a fiery tar pit.

Internet arguments always come down to “OH YEAH, WELL YOU TRY DOING BETTER!” but this is not a valid argument. Do I need to be a chef in order to say the steak is overcooked? Do I need to have directed a better film than Con Air to laugh at how bad it is? I can't code video games, but that doesn't force me into a role of stupefied acceptance. I can still express my preferences, as can you.

Let's say that in order to give criticism, you need to have experienced what you are criticizing. In order to give GOOD criticism, you need to back it up with facts and comparisons. I've done all of this, you've done none of this. I may make a video game someday, but it's hardly necessary for me to explain why this one is trash.

Chris, I posted my opinion, with reasons, jokes and chuckles, because most of the thread didn't like the game either.
You told me I was wrong.
I clarified.
Derek insulted me.
Dodger posted an opus of hilarity also telling me I was wrong as well as a lot of other irrelevant things.
I shredded said opus, replying to each point and being, mostly, quite civil.
Dodger said I was PMSing.

If I'm being sarcastic and pedantic, I'm doing it in between firing off points that, as of yet, no one has countered. I have yet to see anyone explain, in detail, why I am wrong, besides “YOU ARE BEING TOO MEEEEAN TO BE RIGHT!”. All anyone has done was attack my tone, which is here for entertainment purposes to keep me from boring myself to death writing these fucking responses and to keep you from boring to death while reading them. So if that's all you've got, and you're going to harp on my criticisms of the font choice and installer file while ignoring what's actually important in what I've written, you might as well give up because I'm only going to insult you back.

After reading this over, I feel I should clarify that the “you” in here is often the general “you” and not you specifically.

Most art games are small experiments or student games. Who's going to put the effort into a large, time-consuming project to create an immaculate art game if, when they take their first few steps, people just shit all over their work for its flaws?

The closest thing we have to a large art game now seems to be something like Braid, which, yeah, it has its problems (vagueness, weak-writing), but it got a lot of things right as well, and on blogs and in forums where people can manage to be more civil than a horde of screaming monkeys, it's opened up a lot of really interested dialogue about how you could do it better. This helps the creator and helps the community. Our concepts and sources of inspiration are constantly growing. Personal skillsets, also, are improving.

Why didn't this game blow your mind? I don't know. As a student project, the author probably only had a semester or less to complete it. He may not have a lot of experience making shmups. He also had to balance making a shmup with something that also fulfilled his artistic goals in a limited time period. Chances are this isn't the sort of thing he's ever done before.

But it's like the one really cool thing he did doesn't matter because he didn't put out a polished game, or because he made some bad design decisions due to inexperience or whatever. And yet the immediate assumption is that the author is personally flawed because he made something you didn't like, or that had problems.

Sometimes even experienced developers with good track records create a quick experiment to see how something works. The inevitable response is still “this is shit and I hate it and I hate you,” because they didn't take two years to put out something they almost certainly couldn't afford to spend that kind of time on.

People on the warpath about art games almost always seem to frame it as, like, everyone is telling them they have to lie about a game to protect the author's precious feelings or something, which is a weird delusion. Keeping quiet about the flaws of a game does no one any good, but neither does just screaming over anything that's wrong. You can be a resource to the developer and the community by engaging in a dialogue about the game. But a dialogue is not one-sided — it isn't just you saying the things you didn't like and shouting down anyone who didn't mind them — it means you and everyone else try to come to a closer understanding so that everything will improve.

Games don't come out of a vacuum. Even as an enthusiast, you can make them better. Or you can get in the way by just unilaterally stating that you hate art games, or ranting incoherently at anyone who tries anything different. It's really your call on whether you want to act like a grown-up and use your time productively, or act like a child and waste everyone's time.

(Also, regarding the subtlety issue, I have to ask you (not the general you, this time) whether you think the game would really be improved if the author made the message inscrutable or asked you to play hunt the metaphor. Sometimes I think one of the big problems in indie art games is that people try to hard to make their message ambiguous or hard to figure out just because they think that's what art is supposed to be like. Often it just winds up being kind of irritating.)

“Try to hard!”

I think we're all in the same typing boat this evening.

I'm a student, Chris. I know what it's like to be a student. I too have to work in a short amount of time and sometimes I produce work that isn't exactly as good as it could've been if I was given more time. Would you like to see something I made?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bPZSHDZ5_c

Audio is too low. Animation errors are plentiful. Awful compression issues that I couldn't be bothered to fix with the final clip. But this was basically Maya 101, the point wasn't to create the best animation in the world, but simply utilize what we learned to show that we have an understanding of the basics of Maya. I never intended to show this to anyone, I'm kind of embarrassed about how bad it is.

Now imagine a website entirely dedicated to animation decides to feature my work. The bumbling, slipshod efforts of a person that could barely be called a novice. Is it wrong if people ask why we are being subjected to some kids final project for a class when we could be told about much better games out there. In fact, since we all agree there is better animation out there, why are we even bothering with this kid? Why are we all wasting our time judging some kid when there are bigger and better animations out there? In the grand scheme of things, it's shit. If we are willing to concede that he's only an beginner, it's still only able to claim to be half-decent!

But I fulfilled my goals! I can texture walls, I can animate a walk cycle, I synced the movement! And then the critics tell me that this was a waste of their time, and that it should be so goddamn obvious what I need to do to make my animation at all presentable.

And that's why I never paraded my work around online. I had no delusions that my work had some sort of fantastic comedic genius, demonstration of technical ability, or any other sort of raw merit to warrant it being shown around the internet like it was anything more than a school project.

So, why is this any different?

And what if he made this in a year? What about five years? Ten? Nobody forced him to release this game to the public, when is it acceptable for someone to release something that's complete garbage when they're strapped enough for time?

What I'm trying to say is that this game shouldn't be treated like a student's project anymore now that it's out of the classroom. We don't do that to anyone when they release a product into the real world, or at the very least we shouldn't. I have absolutely no patience for some greenhorn parading his sophomoric efforts around like they're worth anywhere near as much as a shmup. The amount of fantastic doujin shmups should more than prove that students and novices are more than capable of making games that can compete with shmups made by bigger, more experienced companies.
—-

See, here's another problem. He never had to sacrifice making a good shmup to fulfill his artistic vision. This is everything wrong with art games. Tell me why this game couldn't be both? That's the question that was asked in the original post, and it's pretty obvious that he's the sort of guy that thinks that only through torturous segments of C+ prose that mean absolutely nothing to the game can we truly feel something at the end of the game where something the relates to the story actually happens in the context of the game.

Sacrificing his artistic vision.,, What a load of balogna! Do you mean to tell me that anyone who has made a shmup that's also a decent video game had absolutely no concern for artistic vision? Watch this here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdJ4VYPb5rY&feature=related

Look at how fucking ugly those character portraits are. Then look at how awesome those bullets are. Those giant bullets you just have to squeeze through are awesome. The music is absolutely incredible. The grazing score system is probably my favorite scoring system in any Touhou game, and I wish I could find a video of someone who is really good at this game and knows how to play the graze.

But notice how I never said that the character portraits are being sacrificed for artistic vision. Zun doesn't draw like this because it's the best way for him to express the beauty of the denizens of his little world. He draws them like that because he draws them quickly, and he knows that as long as the little hat or bow or button on them looks good, who gives a fuck. You don't have to make excuses for people who know what they're doing and can create something that's truly exceptional.

And then…

And then someone like you comes along and says that it's fine for games like Solace to be placed against shmups made by the goddamn LEGENDS of the industry because it does a cool thing that you didn't even elaborate on. What did it do, Whitman? It simply expressed an idea very clumsily through a form of entertainment that is becoming increasingly obvious of lacking the potential to express ideas like that.

I forget the name of a sculpture, and that pissed me off, so I'll describe it. It's a procession of men of various ages, all in various states of mourning. A keen eye would note that all the sculptures have the same hands. A keener eye would note that all the sculptures are the same person, in various stages of their life. Each sculpture's is a different age, and in a different state. It's believed that this is expressing how man comes to terms with his mortality. The youngest man seems unphased, because he thinks himself invincible. The oldest is equally unphased, old and accepting of the end. And it's a fantastically constructed sculpture to boot.

Now, how does the flimsy, obvious metaphor presented in Solace stack up against the example I provided? Not terribly well. It failed to blow my mind because there wasn't anything that amazing. It was obvious what the game was about twenty seconds into the trailer, and then the game spent it's time doing nothing along but slowly dragging the metaphor of dealing with grief along without using the theme for anything incredibly clever or amazing. It just did it. It's worth a shrug and an 'oh', not any intense praise. I didn't want cryptic, I didn't want clear cut either. I wanted SOMETHING.

I want the creator of this game to improve by NEVER trying something like this again. This was a failed venture and he needs to know that. Maybe he is capable of making a really good video game, and all he has to do is sacrafice his artistic herp derp. Nobody here is especially excited about this game, and you lot going on about how my tone was a bit rude is so irrelevant I want to slam my head against the keyboard every time I have to tell you all to stop doing it.

And you have some fucking nerve to call me incoherent. Stop trying to make what I saw irrelevant by telling me that what I'm saying is pointless, hard to understand, or rude. I spend a lot of time writing this stuff, and at the very least I deserve to have you guys at LEAST disagree with me.

is there a way to turn the music off in solace?

You're right: “you go and make something better, then” is no response to a valid criticism.

That said, people here seem to be responding to your tone (angry and entitled) with remarks designed to get you to think about the fact that you just played something for free that someone spent many, many hours to make.

It's a bit like if your mom slaved away in the kitchen for days baking you a birthday cake, and the cake turned out poorly, then one of the guests at your party effusively praised the quality of the cake. You could turn angry and rant about how bad the cake is, and you'd probably be right. But as the Dude says: “You're not wrong, Walter–you're just an asshole.”

It's absolutely nothing like that. You're nice to your mother because she's your mother. It'd be more like if a chef whom you had no attachment to made something awful, and the Zagat survey said it was a great restaurant.

Why do games get a pass because some poor ol' indie dev worked his fingers to the bone coding his game through miles of snow, uphill both ways! Producing something for free should not be a get-out-of-jail-free card. If Big Rigs was a free game, do I suddenly lose the right to judge it? People can work very hard and make something completely terrible, it's sad but true.

And man, haven't you ever seen any show or cartoon where one the characters can't cook? They're nice to them for the entire episode, and are forced to eat more and more of their awful cooking until they finally snap and tell them they're a bad chef, because it's the right thing to do.

Or you get to fuck Fukka.

All right, all right: I shouldn't have said you were incoherent, but I just can't get behind what you're saying here.

The game has great visual design, sound and music design and tackles a difficult topic in an interesting and cool way. And sometimes things can be good without being Rodin, you know?

It's pretty obvious that you don't get why people dig this sort of stuff. It's fine if this doesn't resonate with you, but what isn't fine is to assume it's because of some sort of deep-seated personality flaws or failures on the part of the creators and the people who enjoy it — like somehow the people responsible were like, “We could make exactly the kind of game AshfordPride (from the internet) likes, but we're lazy and that's a lot of work, so let's try to hide it behind some artsy concept. I hope no one figures out our plan!” You're reading a lot of very negative stuff into the personalities of people you don't know. You seem to think it's reasonable, but from where I'm standing it looks like conjecture to validate your anger.

And, you know, saying the team who made it should just give up now on their careers because their student project, which I, personally, enjoyed playing and found promising, isn't the kind of hardcore shmup that you liked… that does sound a little unwarranted.

It's obvious you've got your priorities, right? The bad character portraits in the game you linked and the generic anime style would bother me. I'm probably more visually-oriented and less gameplay-precision oriented. I'm also not that into shmups, as a genre. If you get really into something most people don't know much about, you tend to become a bit inscrutable to other people, and vice versa. I've got friends who vehemently insist that I haven't heard the Beatles White Album until I've heard it on vinyl in the original mono.

No one is suggesting your opinions don't matter because you're rude, but your opinions really aren't that helpful to anyone. I haven't got anything out of this conversation except knowing that if I ever make a shmup, I'm going to have to deal with a lot of very angry people with very specific ideas of what a shmup has to be. I haven't been continuing this conversation because I'm trying to convince you that you should like the game; I'm just trying to explain that people have their rational reasons for liking it.

Acting as if your likes are the only ones that matter makes you look like you have serious entitlement issues. I'm not saying you do, but it looks that way to outsiders. I think you might have an easier time having a productive conversation about this topic in the future if, at the very least, you learned to live and let live.

I'm not saying “IF YOU CAN'T DO IT, SHUT UP,” although I understand how it could read that way.

People who have strong opinions about games and care about them tend to be good at making games. It would be a much more productive use of your time to put your energy into making something you do like instead of complaining that other people's preferences are wrong somehow.

You're not my guidance counselor, Whitman. Since you're clearly incapable of actually defending this game it'd probably be a more productive use of your time to give this up rather than try to reason out why criticism is wrong.

It was Rodin, thank you, that was bugging the crap out of me. I told myself I would never forget the title of it because it had the word burger in the title and I thought that was funny.

The game is tackling a problem that it shouldn't have to tackle. A game should never have to address “How can I justify my complete lack of understand of the shmup genre and video games as a whole” by having cool music and nice art. Because when stacked up against games that have both, this looks blatantly inferior. If you want me to forgive your shortcomings, you have to not do something cool, you have to do the COOLEST thing ever to make me forgive you. Go big or go home, man. It's the reason Rodin didn't make The Burghers of Calais six inches tall. This game isn't an exceptional game, and it's not an exceptional art game either. It's a very mediocre entry that will quickly be forgotten.

Listen, you're saying my personality is flawed too. I'm not saying that they're bad people, and I'm not saying you're a bad person either. I'm saying that we can make excuses either way to defend or attack the work of the dev. We simply don't know, either of us could really be right in the end.

I don't want this guy to give up. He displayed competence in designing a game, just lacked the knowledge and execution to really make something terrific. I'm trying to scare him straight, y'know?

What bugs me about this is that the people who do like this game can't seem to rationalize why they like. Is it really because some nice art and sound is enough to make up for bad gameplay? If that's the case, then what do we say about games that manage to have good sound, gameplay, and art? What do you say about a series like Touhou, which with it's hideous generic anime art has probably inspired more fanart than even the most popular commercial games? I think that people should be willing to overlook aesthetics in a game if the game itself is fine. Someone designing a game should concentrate on designing a good game, not good music or art. That's just a bonus. Of course music, art, story, etc is important to have, but I feel that gameplay is the MOST important thing for a game to have because, well, it is a video game.

Things are supposed to be the things they are. I'm very conservative in my views of what a video game should be, but that doesn't mean I don't find countless games that manage to be fantastic games. The fact that you're willing to pass on a game that has dumb art that only flashes on the screen for fractions of a second seems completely ludicrous to me. For added hilarity, people absolutely OBSESS of the characters in this game, despite them being two-dimensional girls in every sense of the word.

Point is, I do enjoy seeing games being the best games they can be, not the best arts and sounds they can be. We need to stop acting like the little frills attached to games can completely justify horrible, horrible flaws in the core game design.

http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2009/11/cartoons-and-chainsaws.html

If you don't care about the genre, can you at least take the word of someone who does? You tell me I'm wrong for assuming that you don't have to sort of knowledge to talk about this, but then you basically admit that you don't! I've played a lot of shmups. Anarkex has played even more. We know what we're talking about when we say that, even in the aspects of art and concept, this game completely fails in comparison to any other shmup.

…Except maybe Pink Sweets.

Before you make an art-game ask yourself this question:
“Is a game the best medium to communicate this message/feeling?

If the answer is yes its probably going to be a great game.

Considering you seem rather fixed on making sure people understand the exact things you've said, you should note Chris did not say you're wrong; his posts have all held the impication that you're exerting too much energy in trying to convince people that this art game is bad art. If you're bored to death writing gentlemanly critiques, why do you need to write one at all?

Beyond that, Dodger is a prick.

Yeah I know. I'm sure Shigeru Miyamoto and Cliffy B. ask themselves that question all the time. /sarcasm

Video games are not a medium, and execution is as important as theory.

Let's see, I can
a) Download Touhou for free, giving me a much more enjoyable indie shmup experience, or
b) Download another free shmup that not only bores the hell outta me, but offers nothing new, nor even bothers to have much of any exciting gameplay.

Please, developers, don't use the “Games as art” excuse to make a bad game.

touhou isn't free. i know people pirate a lot, but it's not a free game

btw chris, it's nice to see you posting on the frontpage again, you're a great counter to people like ashfordpride, and bring a lot of balance to the comments here

“What bugs me about this is that the people who do like this game can't seem to rationalize why they like.”

ashfordpride: why do you like bullet hell games such as touhou? rationalize this please. i enjoy touhou games as well, i imported shoot the bullet from japan, paying 17$ shipping for it, and beat every level, but i'm still unable to rationalize why i like touhou games, and i'd like to see you attempt to do so.

but seriously i don't really think that people need to rationalize why they like something. it's like: if you can't prove why you like something rationally, you don't deserve to enjoy it or like it? or you don't really like it? that makes no sense to me, games are about enjoyment, we shouldn't have to prove why we like something.

(anyway, i do like touhou series better than this game, but that doesn't mean i think this game is horrible, it was just going for something different, which others enjoy, and i've no problem with that)

I just wanted to reply in a really skinny box.

yes icycalm is the only person in the world that likes good shmups

also icycalm is a rational and intelligent human being

And you taking the time to applaud someone disagreeing with me is a welcome change from actually having a decent discussion with someone.

It's because it's a fantastically constructed game that tests the players skill and mastery of the challenges the game is setting forth. I'm willing to bet you like them because they're just such great games in almost every aspect of their construction. What's so hard to understand? This is how games work Paul, we've been over this again and again and again and again and again. To be honest, I'm getting pretty sick of explaining what I want in a video game to you, and can only hope you're quickly becoming sick of asking.

I'll try to make this simple with a vague, easily skewed extended metaphor. I like vanilla ice cream. Vanilla is my favorite flavor of ice cream. I can justify my love of vanilla ice cream by explaining that I like it because, when stacked up against other flavors, this one tastes the best.

And then there are people who like chocolate ice cream because it's brown.

It's such a simple concept, Paul. People obvious are capable of enjoying things more when they can at least demonstrate enough understanding of what they're dealing with to explain why they like it. And you can't just write if off as fun, you might as well be liking something because it's good.

The point is, Chris repeatedly talked about 'something' this game did to make it good. I just wanted to know what it was.

You're the best, ever.

that doesn't really explain much to me: all you say is that the games are fantastically constructed that tests skill.

that is very abstract: how exactly are they fantastically constructed? you are saying little more than the article says about this game: that it's fantastic. but why?

and how exactly are skills tested, and why is it good to test skills in the first place? does the type of skill matter, or is any skill okay to test? is it important to test the very highest level of skilled players, or are games that test less developed and more casual skills okay? i mean, if bejeweled tests the skills of a grandmother just as much as bullet hell tests the skills of you, it's equally challenging for both, is bullet hell better because it requires higher skill levels, even though both players feel that their game tests their skills appropriately?

it was a 'btw', which means off-topic, and had nothing to do with the discussion here. i was just welcoming him back because i enjoy reading his posts, and since he's a long-time tigsource member who hadn't been posting here for a while. i don't see what's wrong about welcoming a guy back.

actually cliffyb is a big fan of experimental and art games, even though those aren't the types of games he makes. but he does play them and enjoy them.

1) Games are obviously a medium, like film, painting, w/e
2) I dont consider Miyamoto's games a work of art, although they're very pretty and fun.
And you'd have to be crazy to think Gears of war has any artistic value.

>why do you like bullet hell games such as touhou?

I can't speak for ashford, but one of the main reasons I like STGs and, by proxy, bullet hells, is because I enjoy the discipline. I like having a game I can go back to over and over again and feel myself getting better and better at. I rarely use continues on games I haven't beaten yet, so when I finally break through part of the game I have trouble with, I really feel like I'm doing something that not everyone is able to do. I like experimenting and going at a problem in different ways, and almost more than anything I enjoy failing over and over again and knowing that I can keep trying as long as I want. In real life you don't get any second chances, but in shooting games every time you start from level 1 is under the same conditions as the first time you played. All the changes that take place are a result of how different you are, and many shooters are complex enough that the differences amount to more than just getting another five waves farther.

Of course, there are many reasons why I like STGs and bullet hells, and there are different reasons depending on specifically which game you ask me about. But I think the above can give you an idea of how at least some of my preference for a game genre can be described.

>if you can't prove why you like something rationally, you don't deserve to enjoy it or like it?

Of course not. Nobody can take your enjoyment of something away. Is that some kind of joke? I can't make you not like Touhou any more than I can make you agree with me. But the difference comes when you try to tell someone else you like or, in my case, dislike the thing. If you can't back up your opinion rationally, you can't expect anyone to take your opinion seriously. Opinion is, basically, the personal analysis of facts, and while the opinions may be different, the facts remain the same. You can still have an opinion without being able to express it rationally, but it's worthless to anyone other than yourself. Other people have no way of knowing if your opinion is applicable to them, because even if you both like the same thing, it could be for completely different reasons!

It should be noted that you, Paul Eres, CAN find the facts behind your opinions, especially if it's just your opinions about video games. You don't, either because you don't want to put in the effort or because it would force you to question yourself which could lead to cognitive dissonance. But on a subconscious level your opinions are already influenced by facts, even if you haven't really figured out what those facts are.

>that makes no sense to me, games are about enjoyment,

That's not what the indie community keeps telling me.

>anyway, i do like touhou series better than this game, but that doesn't mean i think this game is horrible

You say it easily enough, yeah, because opinions are like magical butterfly snowflakes that everyone has to respect and you might make someone who liked this game cry if you said you hated it. Maybe you have your reasons not to think the game is “horrible”, because look, “horrible” is a value judgment, and as we've said before the circumstances may show that this game was rushed, or the dev was inexperienced, or any number of things. That's no reason to call the game horrible, because like it or not the guy was doing his best.

But you are still inevitably judging the game. If on your grand list of games this one is in fact far towards the bottom, I think we are on the same page, even if you'd prefer I shut up to keep from making the guy who wrote the article feel sad.

>it was just going for something different, which others enjoy, and i've no problem with that

I have no problem with that either! Some people are super religious! Some people like the Twilight novels! Some people like getting tied up while having sex! And there are reasons behind all of those preferences, even if those people want to think they're self-evident or don't want to consider what they mean. If someone enjoys this game, for instance, it may be because he's not very good at shooting games and really hates the feeling he gets when he loses. Maybe he doesn't like conventional shmups because he thinks pixely graphics and scanlines or anime art is really weaboo and just hates what liking something containing those things would say about him.

And now, as one last charge, let's examine something even deeper than that. Because there's another level to all this, deeper than examining the reasons why I like one game and dislike another. Because the reasons I give for liking STGs are reasons that I LIKE, and the reasons that hypothetical guy who likes Solace has are reasons that I DON'T LIKE. Farther beneath all this, there is a judging of the REASONS, which is something more personal, something more biological. This has nothing to do with self deception or politeness or cognitive dissonance, this level goes beyond and beneath all of that.

But to keep it simple, let me just say that getting through Shoot The Bullet does take something that not everyone has. I'm not even entirely sure I have it. If that's true, it says something to me about you that you might never said directly.

The bullets are arranged well. The scoring system is good. The game provides a fair challenge based on the rules it sets for the player. All this demonstrates a brilliant understanding of the genre from Zun, that the player can experience by participating in a game that they can go back to multiple times to test themselves. What more do I need to say, I listed a merit of the game, and I'm not entirely sure how to be any more specific than that. You've played the games Paul, you have to know where I'm coming from.

Paul, how deep do you want me to go. How many questions are you going to pose until it drives me up a wall? Stop shifting the focus of the discussion, because now we're not even talking about some mediocre game that nobody here even liked and are now talking about what it means to have skill tested. It means something to do well in a game like Shoot the Bullet, it means that you have shown a high level of aptitude in a what amounts to a virtual crucible designed by another person specifically for the purpose of testing that ability.

“i mean, if bejeweled tests the skills of a grandmother just as much as bullet hell tests the skills of you, it's equally challenging for both,”

Absolutely ridiculous Paul. Let's compare tee-ball to MLB. Which one requires more skill? More of an understanding of the game? Has more of the capacity to be played well? Which is more fun to watch? “Yeah, but what if you're the parent of one of the kids playing Tee Ball and…” SHUT UP PAUL SHUT UP ENOUGH QUESTIONS

Paul, have you ever watched a 1CC run of Bejeweled on Youtube?

you always write too much to reply to, particularly in this format, so i'll just name a few points.

why do you believe that i don't explain why i like things because i'm too lazy? you're talking to someone who wrote a 200 page book on xenogears and why i like it: http://studioeres.com/hero/episode/games/gamereview_xenogears_part1.html — are you seriously saying that someone who would take the effort to write that much about a game is too lazy to explain why they like games? not to mention all the books and articles i've written about game development, all the reviews i've written for tigsource and other blogs, and having a blog with 8000 entries…

but the main point is that most people aren't games journalists or game developers or game theorists, and don't have time to put as much mental effort into why they enjoy games as you or i have time for, and i don't have a problem with people putting their mental efforts towards things besides explaining why they like the games they like, and i don't hold it against them if they do not

“The bullets are arranged well. The scoring system is good.”

is this seriously how you rationalize it? just saying that individual parts of it are “good”? why are they good? what does it mean to arrange bullets well? why is the scoring system good? i'm not really satisfied that you know why you enjoy touhou, i think you're just making up reasons why you think you enjoy it. it seems like self-delusion to me.

anyway, i see; so your position *is* that games which require more skill are better than games that don't, regardless of the player's skill levels. i find that patently ridiculous. let's say someone creates a game so hard that no human could play it, that it requires a robot with advanced ai or a transhumanist of the future to play it well. would that game be better than a game that humans can beat?

basically i don't see why requiring higher and higher levels of skill is a goal we should aspire towards. that strikes me as boring. testing skills is good, but what matters is testing skills relative to the player's skill level, not testing absolutely the highest skills of absolutely the highest-level players. that's why games have easy modes, for people who aren't as skilled. making a game harder doesn't always make it better, sometimes a game can be too hard, or ask too much skill its players.

Paul for one thing, I didn't say you were lazy. I said that's one of the reasons why you wouldn't put the effort into figuring out the reasoning behind your opinions. But, as I can see, you have done so, like, a lot.

So why was it so inconceivable that we could rationalize our opinions on bullet hell shooters? Why did you have so much trouble doing it? You've done it for tons of other games and even for specific mechanics. I can only conclude that if you found rationalizing your feelings about these particular games so difficult, it was the result of something personal: lack of interest (apathy, laziness, etc) or fear of cognitive dissonance, just to cite some examples.

>most people aren't games journalists or game developers or game theorists, and don't have time to put as much mental effort into why they enjoy games as you or i have time for,

That's fine. Those people should stay out of conversations such as these, that require a background in video game design theory. I don't dedicate much thought into movies or riflery. That's why I'm not on a film or riflery forum.

>and i don't have a problem with people putting their mental efforts towards things besides explaining why they like the games they like, and i don't hold it against them if they do not

I agree. It's fine, as long as they don't tell me my opinion is as worthless as theirs is.

Fine Paul, I guess you're right. Truth be told, I guess I really can't rationalize my beliefs as to why I like these games. I guess you're right, I guess I do just sort of like these games because, well… I like them. My reasons are flimsy, my arguments are vague, and looking back on everything I said, I'm starting to really question everything that I said…

…

…

…

Bwahahaha! Oh, I'm such a tease, aren't I, Paul?

Anyway…

Let's talk about grazing in Subterranean Animism. Now, the very basic nature of most shmups is dodging and attacking. But, what if we somehow rewarded people who were willing to compromise their safety and security in a game that they are beginning to master in order for the higher-level player to max out his score. This demonstrates understand of the game from creator, and asks the same sort of understanding from the player.

Don't you see how amazing it would be if someone managed to do that, though? Have you ever seen someone win a giant stuffed toy at a carnival that was rigged? Did you ever read about a human being a super computer that is programmed to play chess? That's human achievement, Paul. I'm not asking anyone to do the impossible, in fact I try my best to pop the word fair in front of challenge whenever I get the chance. Of course a game that's impossible wouldn't have any merits to human beings, but it might to robots. Maybe Deep Blue would want to watch Skynet's run of GAME MADE BY INFERIOR HUMANS TO TEST THE MIGHT OF THE GLORIOUS MACHINE OVERLORDS 2: THE REVENGE.

Don't forget we're talking about Solace here. A game that tested absolutely nothing. We're not arguing about that Paul. Solace didn't even demonstrate the tiniest inkling of skill requirement to complete it, and that makes it complete meritless from where I am standing.

Paul help me I am being crushed by this formatting.

Oh god.

I never said he wasn't. What I am saying is that his games certainly don't begin with a question about whether his “message” requires a game to communicate. Of course his games have messages if you look for them, because fuck, everything does.

There also are no messages that require a game to communicate, because any communication that occurs in a game does so through the use of media (text, movies, sound) embedded in the game. But rules don't “communicate” anything. Mechanics aren't designed by the creator to teach people what he knows. At most a game “communicates” a response of its mechanics to player-set parameters. It's the observer who ties some sort of direct “meaning” to these results, in the same way that finding my old pair of shoes under my bed could represent renewal.

1) No they are not. Saying it doesn't make it so. I've explained this more in detail in my above response to Rinkuhero.

2)It doesn't matter what you consider them to be, because your definition of art is based on characteristics that you hallucinate into some games and ignore in others.

And I would not have to be crazy to think Gears has artistic value, but as I really haven't played it much I can't argue for its sake. But I can say that Unreal Tournament 2004 is a work of art, or that Halo is a work of art, which you would be equally baffled by. So, baffle on.

i'm not saying you can't explain why you like touhou, just that asford pride's efforts to do so amount to saying 'x element of touhou is good'. and sure, i can explain why i like touhou, but i'd do so in a much different way than you are attempting to do it.

it's not about testing skills for me, it's more about putting myself in a zen-like state of concentration, and i feel that touhou is at just the right difficulty level to allow me to get into that state at will, and that state is why i play those games. not to test my skill, that's just a side effect. i think the state of being in total concentration in avoiding those bullets is a good way to relax (paradoxically), it's sort of a meditative experience. but i don't really care about my skill in those games, the skill of avoiding bullets in a shmup is useless in real life anyway, it's more about the benefit to my mood that it brings.

that's a fair point, although i'm not convinced that there are no messages that require a game to communicate; in particular the complex systems of simulations (as in civilization, sim city, etc.) would be harder to communicate through books or movies, in particular how all the different systems (crime, pollution, or whatever) interlock. that is really best demonstrated through a game.

i still have a big problem with the idea that skill is essential to games, or that testing skill is the most important thing a game should do, and your comment didn't really defend either of those ideas except to say that we're talking about a game that requires relatively little skill compared to other games.

but what if it's intended for players with very little skill? retarded people, for instance. or people without thumbs or fingers. or people recovering from brain injuries. or even just 2 year olds. in those cases, it'd challenge them simply to move the player around and shoot things, even if they couldn't die. it'd still be an appropriate test of their skill.

We're on the same page. We're just calling it different things. Think about it this way: if I programmed a calculator, would that calculator be communicating something from me to the user?

Games are like calculators, they just have different parameters and different interfaces. Like if you made 2+2 show up as a smiley face instead of 4 or something. Now of course, you could plan for the game to basically “tell” the player something when he inserts certain parameters. Like, killing the gnome gives you negative karma, because that gnome was aligned “good”. But all those things are communicated through media inserted into the game, and it's just as easy to say “killing good things is bad” than it is to slyly insert your message into the rule system. As far as we can agree that video games are simulations, we can also agree that they aren't built specifically to communicate, since reality itself (or any reality that is the subject of the simulation) has no inherent message.

As we've talked about in the past, aesthetics are important as well as mechanics, and the use of media is a part of aesthetics. If you look hard enough, you can find a “message” in everything in every game, including reality itself. What I'm saying, though, is that games themselves are not “about” meaning, though it can be hallucinated regardless of the creator's intent.

I don't want to overdo the point or repeat myself too much, I'm just trying to make sure I have all the angles covered.

Good points Paul and I agree. I don't believe shooters (or other genres with fast paced action) are really about skill, I believe they're more about persistence, patience, and memorization of patterns. That doesn't mean that I believe those are the reasons they are made for. Skill in such games comes with practice. Testing somebodies skill shouldn't be the focus of gameplay in a video game anyway. Giving the player an enjoyable experience (no matter the genre, setting or tone) should be the most important aspects of a game. Then once that's achieved you can tack on a highscore system and let people compete with each other for rankings, but 9 times out of 10 people who play shooters regularly will perform better than a person who does not play shooters but decides to give one a try. It has nothing to do with skill, just the familiarity of the game type which could develop skills for those game types through the experiences the gamer has or has had. It still doesn't mean that that should be the purpose of gaming, though that might be enough for some people… perhaps those who don't enjoy anything unless it's competitive, I don't know for sure.

understandable, but one thing:

i think it's a bit of a straw man to say that all or most art games have a “message” — most authors of most art games will tell you that they don't intend any specific message or meaning, but rather focus their game around exploring a theme. e.g. tale of tales have clearly said that their games are not intended to convey a message. so even if it were true that games could not carry messages, that'd be irrelevant to game artists, since meaning is *not* what they usually are going for. it's just a plain misunderstanding of art games to say that they focus more on messages, meanings, and aesthetics than on gameplay. most are intended as experiments of the form, and intended as ways to get the player to think about the game's topic, they aren't usually intended to tell the player anything specific about a topic.

and there are certain topics about which games can provoke more thought than books or movies. in particular the topic of games themselves: for instance, braid was an art game where the topic or theme was games themselves: it invited the player to think about issues surrounding game difficulty and challenge by letting the player rewind time. it didn't have any specific meaning to convey, it was just a way to incite the thinking process in the audience.

But think of how much more meaning it could have conveyed with extremely generic shooter gameplay! And dispensing with subtle metaphor in lieu of releasing a trailer that awkwardly announces that you “Explore the Five Stages of Grief.”

What I'm saying here is that Braid did a pretty fair job of linking gameplay and meaning. This game absolutely does not look to do that.

Art has meaning.
Art has intent.

You can find meaning in anything, including nature. But if that meaning is unintentional then it is not art. That is why nature sould not be considered art even if it can be beautiful and inspiring.

Your definition of art is posmodern: it doesnt lead anywhere, nothing constructive can come out of it.

*continues eating popcorn while avoiding discussion*

Cliffy B says that Gears of War is art. It was his intention to make a story of loss and redemption in war-torn Earth. The game allows us to experience the lives of a surprisingly realistic bunch of super-soldiers in a sci-fi setting. The combined work of the modelers, textures, story-writers, character designers, and etc. all had artistic intent when creating their parts of this game, under the banner of Cliffy B who also had equal artistic intent.

Is it art now, Vania? Can this disgusting, generic, meaningless, gray and brown FPS stand proudly next to brilliant games like Solace with it's chest puffed out proudly now that it's art? Oh please Vania, can it?

All kidding aside, it's absolutely bizarre how close-minded Indie gamers really are towards anything involving a gun. People like you are willing to sacrifice all semblances of fun, design, and traditional gameplay elements just for the sake of being able to say that you have experienced this beautiful work of art. Your definition of art seems to be masochism.

Anarkex is right, you are completely ignoring everything that games like Gears of War do to be great video games. Oh, but it's okay to call it a great video game, just don't call it art! It was obviously just shat out by a bunch of talentless, greedy monkeys who only want money and to exploit a bunch of knuckle-dragging fratboys that don't know how truly great video games could be. Anarkex's definition is going to lead us out of a very dark place in indie games. We have to stop considering games like this to be art, and start awarding that title to the games that demonstrate some real knack for creating a challenging, polished, and overall fun experience for the player. Video games are entertainment, they are made to be fun. Art can be fun, which is something that someone at your level of delusion could never hope to appreciate. Because art can't be fun, it has to be meaning and beautiful and about loss or death or something abstractly deep like that.

How do you think someone who worked on that game would feel if you told them what they did was in no way art, but this game was? I think they'd have some pretty hilarious things to say to you. Someone worked very, very hard to make that Locust split in half with a chainsaw, and you're labeling all that as just a frivolous diversion created by people who don't understand the MEDIUM as well as you do.

You need to get over yourself and play some video games.

hmm, comment might've been a bad idea. flagged.

In a nutshell, we don't consider the greatest works of art to be art because the artist told us they were art. There's a lot of reasons The Burghers of Calais beyond the simple intention to create art. Would it not become art if Rodin just wanted the paycheck?

And then even you said that a piece of art can't stand on meaning alone. So, this makes both of your justifications for what is art to be incredibly flimsy, subjective, and easy to put a spin on to make anything art.

>But if that meaning is unintentional then it is not art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy

What's important is craftsmanship and immersion. Any creation that represents the best of its kind is a work of art. Art is an honor to bestow on excellence, it has nothing to do with some checklist of nonmaterial thoughts the creator happened to be thinking before he even started. If that's the case I've created a million works of art I never had the will to follow through with.

>Your definition of art is posmodern: it doesnt lead anywhere, nothing constructive can come out of it.

What could be more constructive than honoring creativity, willpower, and craftsmanship? As opposed to putting my shit on a pedestal because I was reading Kierkegaard on the can.

I never said most art games have a message. In fact quite the opposite: I don't really think any of them do, any more than life itself has a message. I'm only explaining this to Vania, who said that great games start with a question of meaning and messages.

Rather than reduce the size of the postboxes any more, I'm going to respond as a reply to the same one I replied to last time. Let it be known this is a response to a later comment by Paul.

We've got the same idea here. Ashford is referring to specific mechanics, you're talking about how the game makes you feel, and I was referring to the general philosophy behind my love for the genre. However Ashford's approach is appropriate, if a little bare-bones (tolerable considering nobody is writing a ten-page paper in this wacky comments format). He's looking at exactly what I'm talking about here: facts that influence his opinion.

So why is grazing an excellent mechanic? Because it encourages players to play dangerously and gives those with the skills to survive the chance to win big by not avoiding danger. It works together with an item collection mechanic that also rewards risky playing: Items are worth more points the higher up onscreen you are, and by flying up to the top fifth of the screen or so you can automatically collect them all for max points. And the bullet patterns each boss has are more creative and interesting the farther you get in the series. Mizuhashi Parsee, the second boss of Subterranean Animism, really got me interested in what was coming next when her bullets left lingering trails that I had to navigate like a maze while still dodging aimed patterns, or when she creates a phantom twin that punishes you for attacking it. These are awesome things to do with bullets, and that's only stage 2! But in spite of this, the pattern is still very manageable. You have to be playing very carelessly to get into a situation where survival is impossible. A skilled player will find that his bombs regenerate with each life lost, meaning that with proper judgment and reflexes he can extend his survival a certain ways beyond patterns he has trouble with. A smooth difficulty curve as well as such complexity and creativity in the mechanics are defining traits of the best arcade-style STGs in the series.

The above is a nice overview of some basic mechanics in the touhou series. Combined with specifics depending on the game, it could make a pretty good review. Can you see how it can convince someone who may not know much about STGs that these games do well to represent the versatility of the genre even when they aren't necessarily the best STGs around? Even if he dislikes STGs in general, at the very least I think he could recognize the effort, knowledge, and creativity that a dev like ZUN displays. As much as it's interesting to see your writing about the way the games make you feel (as I completely recognize the state of mind you described), it's probably not a very good review because it's dealing with things that are completely personal and it doesn't really describe the source of your feelings. As I've said before, there's a personal element to all of this (it's easy to say why I like grazing, but why do I think my reasons for liking it are good?) but by giving concrete examples you do allow the reader the chance to decide for themselves. So if they are mentally challenged or missing thumbs or something, they can easily read the review with the knowledge that they have these difficulties (I don't really think it's possible not to). Ultimately though, I don't care about those people. I'm giving my opinion for the sake of people like me, or people who may someday be like me. I don't think reviews should be neutered for the sake of everyone with a slight handicap, even if that handicap is regular run-of-the-mill stupidity.

a grief'em-up

The definition of art has undergone so many changes over the past few decades alone, this definition can't even come close to encapsulating what is art. It's a question that society has been struggling with for centuries. I could go on about the different elements of art in the traditional sense, the intellectual art of Duchamp, who's main focus was to completely unravel and undo the current expectations of art at the time. What about the surrealists, or artists who simply conveyed the intangible emotions and states of the subconscious. What about experimental artists who simply tried new things, without having an artistic meaning but simply explored the combination of different mediums? What about the work of Kandinsky, particularly his blue mountain piece (or I think it was that one… been a while since I actually discussed the topic), would the fact he only realized its full potential as art after it had somehow become flipped upside down when he was away from his studio make it not art, because that was not his original intent nor the original meaning of the painting?
Such a definition of art is so vague and intangible as well, it can be molded to fit any definition. By your own definition, Gears of War is art, because it's meaning and intent is to convey an intense and emotional story of a science fiction near post apocalyptic world in which mankind is fighting for its survival against an outside force, instilling the emotions felt by the protagonists within the audience through game play, dramatic story telling, and giving the player direct control of the protagonists outside of direct story telling elements, allowing them to form a bond with the character as well as provide an entertaining gameplay experience. Yes, there may not be some deep philosophical meaning behind all of this, but a lot of famous works of art don't have deep philosophical meanings behind them either, especially in the case of historical paintings, or art going even further back in history.
Also, what's wrong with post modernism? The post modern era has done more to unravel the elusive question of what is art, opening up more and more exploratory paths as to what art can entail. If not for post modernism, I doubt we would even be having this debate about Solace at this very moment, because such media didn't fit into the tight little niches art was segmented into before the post modernist period.

Craftsmanship and immersion are not particularly important to me. I just want art to be interesting.

I thought it was obvious that those are things that make art interesting.

They can help, sometimes.

“Explore the 5 stages of grief like never before”

All without someone you love actually having to die!

If you want to explore grief like you've never explored it before you could always read through this comment thread.

Actually, a lot of people and opinions annoying the hell out of each other, but not a lot of name calling up in this comments page! Good work guys. Esp. anarkex, eres, ashforddude and chris guy

Walls of text, snarly tone but not a lot of actual accusation of being a piece of dookie and all that.

I'm impressed!

I am well aware that this is the wrong forum for this comment, but I also know that it would be seen and then disregarded wherever it were posted. I have been playing games for 20 years. First off, how do you code a game such that it may take 10 minutes to find the tutorial, and secondly, you easily die in that level while reading the tutorial text! The simple act of learning to play your game is so poorly done that you can not have even the most basic understanding of the medium. A good community has emerged on your website, however…

we kinda feel grief when others die, not when we die

not to me — i'd far rather play a new cactus or increpare game than a new miyamoto or cliffyb game — i find the former much more interesting. if you don't, great, different people find different things interesting. it's just that i've been playing videogames for about 30 years, so the stuff in new AAA games doesn't surprise me or impress me anymore

nothing much to say to this, but as an aside, did touhou invent grazing? i think i remember it from earlier shmups. i could be mistaken though. and if it didn't, should we really give it credit for a mechanic not unique to it?

I still have to wonder why more grief is given over a shooter as a game of art or an “Art Game” than a puzzle game such as World of Goo, or a Platformer such as Braid. Now, I'll grant that the latter are both exceptionally good games that have been extremely polished, quite simply they're great. But never mind the actual production values. Are people less inclined to enjoy or appreciate a shooter as an art game over other genres? I do realize that Braid got some flack, but nowhere near as much flack as the discussion over Braids initial price point. I'm just curious is all. I believe Everyday Shooter was probably one of the most popular shooters as an art game. I could see how people would disagree that Everyday shooter is both a shooter and an art game, and that might go double for a game like World of Goo, but I've come to my own conclusion that all of the above games I've listed are games and works of art. I'd even go so far as to say that Immortal Defense is an art game – and that is not an insult to Paul or anything – I just feel that those games do capture an essence (I have my reasons for liking these games and you have yours or reasons for not liking them – but that really is besides the point and not what I'm getting at here). My point about these games being somewhat art games could be argued but if that's the case then Art really doesn't exist and the definition is only defined by the individual – either way, I'm fine with that and it's not something that keeps me awake at night. Back to my question though and what I'm actually curious about… If a developer is trying to make a game as close to a work of art as possible, does it matter what genre that game is made under? Or is it harder to swallow as a piece of art based on it's genre?

Just curious as to what people think.

What I'm seeing here, is not a game about grief, but yet another shmup with no bloody level design.

Almost no-one makes shmups with levels any more. No far-too-small tunnels to navigate, no volcanic scenery to negotiate, no sci-fi towers and fortifications to avoid.

Just blank space, enemies, and bullets.

Bullet-hell was the WORST thing to happen to this genre.

Dudes, I never said those two characteristics define art.
You really think I tried to give a complete definition of art in two sentences?

All I said was meaning and intent must be present in art, along with many more attributes.

Also, Anarkex and you are making incorrect assumptions about my taste in games:
-I dislike art-games, because they arent.
-I loved Gears of War, I just refuse to call it art.
(The script seems written by a 12 year old. Bland and stereotypical characters. Painfully bad dialogs.)

I myself have no interest in making art games, but I believe it is possible.
The problem is all the art-games I've seen so far would work better as a short film, or tale, or poem. Hence my comment:

'Before you make an art-game ask yourself this question:
“Is a game the best medium to communicate this message/feeling?'

If the answer is no, dont make it cause its gonna be shitty.

Then I guess a Lamborghini is a work of art?

I'm sorry but I cant adhere to a philosophy that says this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
is art.

It's simply way too on the nose, like a condensed Portrait of the Artist that reads “Stephen wasn't getting along with his classmates or doing well with his teachers because he was depressed and alienated. Later, Stephen renounced his faith and made some friends and thus felt much freer and happier.”

I don't need “artists” to pander to me like an imbecile, saying “this is depression because it's slow and difficult.” Duh. Good art is much subtler and more challenging, requiring active cognitive and emotional engagement on the audience's part. Playing Solace is sort of like playing a video game version of the dictionary. “This is was depression is”; “this is what bargaining is like”; and so on.

Overall, this is a mildly amusing game in its own context, but the attention and praise given this game by the author of the article is kind of over the top, if you ask me. This whole “art game” thing in general sort of baffles me. It seems like an excuse to spend a couple weeks on a game instead of a year or more. I certainly think games can be pieces of art, but usually the ones made to be art and labeled as such seem weak and rushed.

Yes, I guess a Lamborghini is a work of art.

And I don't really care what dumb philosophy you choose to adhere to, but I'd think that Duchamp's Fountain is pretty clearly more art in your opinion than in mine. But etc. Deal w/ it.

Duchamp is art because it's not art. Duchamp was all about picking apart the concepts that dictated what art was, and proving that those definitions could not truly define art in its entirety. Duchamps artwork is art for its conceptual properties and intellectual dialogue with the criterion for art, not for the physical properties (ie an upside down urinal with a signature alluding to the company that produced it). Duchamp inevitably lead to the death and eventual rebirth of art. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the aesthetic qualities of the artwork Duchamp produced, but I find the philosophy behind it absolutely brilliant.
I actually find art games a lot like duchamp's work, only art-games only have half the message. Art-games are art because the creator claims it's art. Duchamp's work and other artists who followed a similar philosophy were art because of two major points I can think of offhand.
A: The creator was already an established artist at the time of creation, and therefore had the merit and credibility behind them from their previous works (though in Duchamp's case he did it anonymously).
B: They were disproving the current standards for which art was set in a philosophical and intellectual manner through physical artwork that proved they were art by breaking some criteria on what art is, yet adhering to others.
Art-games I find tend to do neither of these. They claim to be art because they were made to be art, yet fail to do anything to disprove the current constructs of what is art AND what is a good game.

I'm sorry, did I imply that ALL of Miyamoto's of Cliffy's games are masterpieces? Some are, some aren't, just like Cactus' or ZUN or Platine Dispositif or whatever. Miyamoto especially hasn't made a great game since Pikmin. I just want to make sure I'm not giving you the wrong idea, I was using them primarily as examples of devs who have made great games, games I'd even consider works of art, that didn't focus on some “message”. They're works of art, as on occasion Cactus' games are, because they're phenomenal video games, with precise care and creativity taken in design of both mechanics and aesthetics.

>All I said was meaning and intent must be present in art, along with many more attributes.

Which we all have explained away. You're invoking intentional fallacy. The artist is (metaphorically speaking) dead when the work is completed. But consider: art is an expression of beauty. That's pretty much it. Yes, even the ugly art, shut up. Art refers to aesthetics. When considering books as art, you consider the aesthetics of words. When considering movies as art, you consider the aesthetics of acting, camerawork, writing, etc. When considering games as art, you consider the aesthetics of rules.

>I loved Gears of War, I just refuse to call it art. (The script seems written by a 12 year old. Bland and stereotypical characters. Painfully bad dialogs.)

Yes, of course, the game is not art because the movies in it are not art./sarcasm that's just tomfoolery. It's amazing how close to the reality of things you can get without seeing it.

>The problem is all the art-games I've seen so far would work better as a short film, or tale, or poem.

And that's because they always disregard mechanics in favor of “storytelling”. Games aren't great for storytelling, they're not “about” meaning or narrative, because rules do not tell stories, and all games are, at the center of it, sets of rules. I'm not going to repeat this again, I'm just going to tell you to read my previous responses to Rinkuhero.

That's why art games aren't art.

Touhou probably didn't invent grazing. It's a fairly common mechanic. But no game mechanic is an isolated instance, and everything in each game exerts an effect on everything else. The implementation of grazing in, say, the time points mechanic in IN, combined with the slow bullet speed and character-swapping meter, is definitely something unique.

>Should we really give it credit for a mechanic not unique to it?

I think so! We're not talking about a carbon clone of an older game, we're talking about a unique game with some mechanics that *may* have been cribbed. Grazing especially is a mechanic that is highly dependent on bullet patterns themselves: if it was in a game like Raiden I probably wouldn't praise it at all. So I mean, there's a duality here. On the one hand, nothing is original, everything is just an elaboration on things that came before, even if it involves ideas and themes that come from outside the genre. On the other hand, every game is new, unique, and unlike anything that came before.

While coming up with cool new game mechanics is excellent, it's really the result of all the mechanics and aesthetics working together that makes a complete game. In that context, whether or not some of those mechanics *might* come from somewhere else doesn't matter as much as you'd think. I mean, if no video game could ever copy anything, there'd only be one video game.

Dodge, loath as I am to respond to you again:

There is a huge difference between an “art game” and a game that is a work of art. That is the crux of the misunderstanding here.

What about Hydorah by Locomalito? You can't say that there's no level design in that one. I understand where you're coming from, but you can't put all of the eggs into one basket because there still are games in the shooter family being made in a variety of different ways. I respect your opinion but you also have to admit that it's a personal opinion since you'll find people that feel the exact opposite about the genre and that there aren't enough bullets in shooters these days. I wouldn't want all shooters to be about a bullet hell frenzy either because that would get kinda boring, but you gotta admit that a genre full of nothing but Galaga clones would get boring really fast too – however, since there are so many different kinds of shooters to choose from and enjoy (including both eastern and western styles) I don't think one more bullet hell shooter would actually make or break the genre. Besides, lots of people enjoy bullet hell shooters, just like many prefer Robotron and Gyruss clones. As long as there is an audience there's plenty of room for each.

I pretty much agree with you on this. I don't think you need a lot of time to make a game playable, but if you want to build or create anything with thoughtfulness and feeling then you're going to have to take the time to do it… Especially if you want others to really like or at least appreciate what you've made as well.

Perhaps I am artistically or cognitively deficient, but I don't see how this game is as good as the author is purporting it to be.

Maybe if I got to see more of it?

I don't understand the phrase “art-game.” It's just about as absurd as calling a piece of music an “art-song.”

Can't we just respect games for what they are? I'm tired of everyone trying to contort “games” into the confines of this “art” concept.

It bothers me when people want games to be just like music or painting, or whatever else. Let them be games. Sure, everyone listens to music, but that is not what validates music as a means of communication. Games are special. A much smaller group enjoys video games than the group that enjoys music, or even perhaps visual art (debatable), but destroying what games ARE in the pursuit of making video games “household” is not the answer.

There's no misunderstanding actually, not for me anyway. The differences, huge or not, don't matter. My question is, does the genre matter. Is the genre important? Does the genre affect whether the context is hit or miss?

If there's going to be a message in a game then the message doesn't really matter to the people who don't get it. It's really no different from one gamer absolutely loving First Person Shooters and another gamer absolutely loving Turn Based Strategy. You can enjoy both or you absolutely do not enjoy the other one and avoid it.

I guess what I'd like to know is how does the genre have an affect on the how the game comes across… does a person who doesn't enjoy shooters end up enjoying an “art game” such as this simply because it's different.

In the end it doesn't really matter, but I'd like to know what how different the impressions are based on those factors – rather than just the simple positive or negative reaction. I think it would take a broader audience to find out something like that though.

Oh, and loathe as you are, thanks for the reply.

Again, I understand where you're coming from, but there's just one problem… could you imagine if there were only one type of music? Or painting was limited to portraits? That would be far worse than not having variety and I think, whether we get the message or piece of art or not, it's more important for individuals to take risks, especially in regards to being artistic. One great idea spawns another, or one not-so-great idea could spawn a great one. Without that variety though things would be very bland as a whole. I still think that the focus of a game should be how entertaining it is, the fun factor, or the enjoyment that can be had from it. Considering that game development is much like conjuring (as of right now within confines of course) you're given that blank slate or canvas with which to create. It's up to the developers to decide what they want to craft, how they will go about it, and who they want to see it. One thing that will remain true no matter what, if you put your “art” on public display you have to deal with public criticism and / or praise. So you're not wrong in how you feel about video games, but if you understand the point I'm trying to make I think you'd realize that if everyone limited themselves to one type or style then variety would suffer. So the broader the palette the more likely other good things will be thought of and created in the future. We don't have to call “Art Games” – “Art Games”, but it I think it also prefaces the intentions of the developer if they're not afraid to have that kind of label on their game if the ideas and context are less direct and more abstract with the intention of provoking thought on top of being interactive.

Haha, right on the spot.

With so many underdogs out there, so many games that deserve attention, why waste time with these “art-games”?

Read the comments, 9 out of 10 people hate them, yet blogs keep being flooded with them. Isnt that strange?

art music is also a thing that exists

but should it?

Oh I don't know … I probably wouldn't have chosen it as a term, but as long as people find it useful as a classification, they'll probably continue to use it. And I don't really see the point in getting worked up about it. I do typically have some idea what it indicates.

games aren't art

>The differences, huge or not, don't matter.

The entire discourse of this thread proves that statement so horribly wrong I'm not even going to go there…
>Is the genre important?

Extremely. I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream was an exceptional point and click adventure with massive philosophical and moral questions, delving into the human psyche. I now challenge you to achieve that same result using the same basic plot and characters, but doing it via a tetris clone. Point proven.
>It's really no different from one gamer absolutely loving First Person Shooters and another gamer absolutely loving Turn Based Strategy. You can enjoy both or you absolutely do not enjoy the other one and avoid it.

You're confusing genre with message. Two VERY different things. I avoid sports games because I'd rather just do it for real than in front of a TV, not because I don't like the message it sends about sports, or whatever the message there is supposed to be.

>does a person who doesn't enjoy shooters end up enjoying an “art game” such as this simply because it's different.

Depends on the individual. If they already have a preconcieved notion they'll hate the game before they even play it, odds are they'll hate it. If they've got an open mind, could be hit or miss, but I'm sure they'll be turned on more by the mechanics than the 'art' message, since it's the mechanics that turn them off in the first place, and the mechanics would have to be the interesting thing in order to sway them towards liking the game itself. As amazing of a message a game has, if people don't want to play it past the first 4 minutes because of horrid gameplay, the message is for moot.

Well yeah, but it's not exactly helping me take any point they want to make seriously is it?

It's the most unintentionally hilarious tagline for a game ever.

i'm wary of saying 'most … ever' for anything, but it's in the top 10, yeah

Personally I like both. Bullet hells test the reflexes and memorization to an extreme level, giving a high sense of accomplishment.
The traditional games test persistence and rigorous training to make it through each stage without meeting your untimely demise, offering slower bullets and more power ups, but more brutal and hellish enemy placements, often times in spots where you NEED a particular power up to kill them or are forced to dodge. R-Type and Tohou are both among my favorite shmups, let alone favorite games in general. The problem with Solace is not that it's a bullet hell, but a bullet hell that gives you god mode.

I am art

Some good points but:

>The differences, huge or not, don't matter.
>>The entire discourse of this thread proves that statement so horribly >>wrong I'm not even going to go there…

Guess I should have stated it more clearly, The differences, huge or not, don't matter – to me.

>>You're confusing genre with message. Two VERY different things. I avoid >>sports games because I'd rather just do it for real than in front of a TV, >>not because I don't like the message it sends about sports, or whatever >>the message there is supposed to be.

I'm not confusing genre with message, I'm not even really asking if one genre is better than another to use for an art game – because that point is moot. What I'm asking is, does it matter the genre when making an art game IF you can get your message across to some people – OR – does choosing a particular genre benefit the developer by reaching more people, or will it piss more people off by using that genre. For example, there is a lot of disdain towards using a shooter as the genre of choice for an art game. Paul brought up Ceramic Shooter: Electronic Poem, but how many people even know about that one? It's artistically done and still remains a shooter (or Anti-shooter if you want) while maintaining most of the mechanics of a shooter. Personally I found it very neat, both for its artistic style and nature and for its gameplay. It's perhaps limited due to the nature of the art-game-style beast, but aside from that it worked for me, perhaps not many other people. However, due to the low profile of the game and the fact that I don't really remember any discussion about it, it did not receive the same backlash that Solace has received. So I'm just wondering if it's because of the fact that we're talking about a shooter – though I've already noticed how the term “Art Game” leaves a bad taste in a lot of gamers mouths. Personally I don't care for the term myself but I use it as a reference to distinguish them from other games – or “Normal Games” :-)

>>Depends on the individual. If they already have a preconcieved notion >>they'll hate the game before they even play it, odds are they'll hate it. If >>they've got an open mind, could be hit or miss, but I'm sure they'll be >>turned on more by the mechanics than the 'art' message, since it's the >>mechanics that turn them off in the first place, and the mechanics would >>have to be the interesting thing in order to sway them towards liking the >>game itself. As amazing of a message a game has, if people don't want >>to play it past the first 4 minutes because of horrid gameplay, the >>message is for moot.

I wholeheartedly agree with you there, especially the open minded nature of a gamer. If they aren't open minded then really there is no point, and besides that, some people just don't want to be bothered with the extra thought processing no matter how provocative or powerful the message, they'd rather just play as a means of escapism, relaxation, or competition. I'm wondering how often people (gamers) get blindsided though, again it would be extremely hard to find data on the subject right now, but much like the person who hates computers, has never played a video game before, refers to technology with negative connotations, and somehow finds themselves addicted to Plants vs. Zombies after playing it one rainy afternoon. I just wonder, where and when do these triggers occur in gamers who aren't really interested, couldn't care less, or intentionally try to avoid them? The one game that makes me ask this question still is Braid. It might be easy to pass off as a platformer, run, jump, stomp, repeat… but it's obviously struck a chord with many gamers and in many different ways. Even though there are still people who I'm sure hate the game or just can't be bothered with it, there are also those who were once addicted to Halo, couldn't really stand such a small game, yet found something special about Braid. There might not be a plethora of these people, but underneath it all there is obviously a winning formula (and a losing formula) for games with an Art Style about them. I just wonder if the right theme and setting can work for any genre. And no, I'm not talking about a tetris clone – but that doesn't mean something meaningful couldn't be made out of a tetris clone, obviously if it was given the right context. Maybe the more appropriate question is, if you want create something such as a game that contains a message and an art style do you select a genre that is the most popular or do you select a genre that you personally enjoy? I guess the more important question after that is, are Art Games made for gamers and people of the general public – is it really a display, or is it made for the developer with the intention of revealing something about themselves – for themselves – even though they're exposing it to the public?

Shit, I don't know… and at this point I don't care. I guess it's just more important to focus on how much entertainment value or fun factor can be extracted from the experience, whether it's an art game or not, and then there will be far less backlash from gamers and even the general public.

art isn't art

>I guess it's just more important to focus on how much entertainment value or fun factor can be extracted from the experience, whether it's an art game or not, and then there will be far less backlash from gamers and even the general public.
Couldn't agree with you more on that one. I don't have a problem with “art games” in and of themselves, but I judge them by the same standards I judge any other game. If it's not a fun game, it's not a fun game, no matter how interesting or brilliant the message behind it. The same can be said of the opposite though, a game could have amazing gameplay but be completely pointless in terms of an overall message or meaning. I prefer games that can combine both, but usually lean towards the gameplay side of things. Games should be fun, and art game or no, a bad art game is still a bad game, it just has some vague message behind it. And back on the topic of Solace, Solace is just a bad art game from what I can tell, because it's a bad game that does a lackluster job of sending across the message the developer intended it to have.

>does it matter the genre when making an art game IF you can get your message across to some people – OR – does choosing a particular genre benefit the developer by reaching more people, or will it piss more people off by using that genre.

I think this all depends on what the developer is trying to accomplish. Regardless, if he intends on making a successful game in terms of gameplay it goes without saying he should choose a genre he is familiar with. It's like if someone tried to make an RTS game, but the only game they've played all their life is Madden. It's pretty much destined to fail because they know nothing about the nuances and attributes of the different games in that genre, from the best to the worst.
If they already have an intended message in mind, then it would make sense to make a game that best displays that through story, gameplay mechanics, and other elements. Though it's not IMPOSSIBLE to make a shooter about the 5 stages of grief, things would have to get pretty innovative in terms of mechanics, visuals, and environment to do so, and Solace is a long way from that goal. Perhaps having the player's ship change throughout the game not based on power ups and such like in Solace, but actually have the ship progress visually through the five stages of grief, with different power ups and abilities having different reactions based on which stage of grief the player's ship was in, and power ups that accelerate or stave off the progression of this change, which continues gradually as time progresses. Perhaps rather than giving the player god mode, each death put them closer to the end of the 5 stages of grief, and the game would end once the final stage was reached, rewarding the player with more gameplay time the longer they took to get through the grieving process.

I think game designers (not just art game designers, but game designers in general, especially beginners) should make a habit of alternating between playing games praised as the best in their genre, be it classics or newer games, as well as play the worst of the worst, the games labeled as some of the worst games ever made (Action 52, ET, Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hyde, Shaq-Fu, just to name a few). It's better to learn from the mistakes of others, and minimize on the design flaws you make on your own. Saves a lot of time and a lot of pain when you've gotta go back and rework the whole thing because it just isn't fun or something isn't working right.

>>”I think this all depends on what the developer is trying to accomplish. Regardless, if he intends on making a successful game in terms of gameplay it goes without saying he should choose a genre he is familiar with. It's like if someone tried to make an RTS game, but the only game they've played all their life is Madden. It's pretty much destined to fail because they know nothing about the nuances and attributes of the different games in that genre, from the best to the worst.
If they already have an intended message in mind, then it would make sense to make a game that best displays that through story, gameplay mechanics, and other elements. Though it's not IMPOSSIBLE to make a shooter about the 5 stages of grief, things would have to get pretty innovative in terms of mechanics, visuals, and environment to do so, and Solace is a long way from that goal. Perhaps having the player's ship change throughout the game not based on power ups and such like in Solace, but actually have the ship progress visually through the five stages of grief, with different power ups and abilities having different reactions based on which stage of grief the player's ship was in, and power ups that accelerate or stave off the progression of this change, which continues gradually as time progresses. Perhaps rather than giving the player god mode, each death put them closer to the end of the 5 stages of grief, and the game would end once the final stage was reached, rewarding the player with more gameplay time the longer they took to get through the grieving process. “

I agree, but at the same time I believe that you could also be a big fan of a genre, love that genre to death, then try to make a game under that genre and still make a crappy game or something lackluster or unpopular. In fact it's been done numerous times. Learning from past mistakes is probably one of the best learning “tools” we've got, unfortunately if money ends up being involved that changes the dynamic of game making altogether – especially if the developers expect people to pay for their work. I guess keeping experimental and art style games free or as close to free as possible is the best way to work on their formula. I guess creating those types of games is much more like dabbling in Alchemy, math and science is involved but much of the production is also based on theory residing with the hopes of the developer that this transmutation of his or her work is something people will actually enjoy or respond positively to.

>> “I think this all depends on what the developer is trying to accomplish. Regardless, if he intends on making a successful game in terms of gameplay it goes without saying he should choose a genre he is familiar with. It's like if someone tried to make an RTS game, but the only game they've played all their life is Madden. It's pretty much destined to fail because they know nothing about the nuances and attributes of the different games in that genre, from the best to the worst.
If they already have an intended message in mind, then it would make sense to make a game that best displays that through story, gameplay mechanics, and other elements. Though it's not IMPOSSIBLE to make a shooter about the 5 stages of grief, things would have to get pretty innovative in terms of mechanics, visuals, and environment to do so, and Solace is a long way from that goal. Perhaps having the player's ship change throughout the game not based on power ups and such like in Solace, but actually have the ship progress visually through the five stages of grief, with different power ups and abilities having different reactions based on which stage of grief the player's ship was in, and power ups that accelerate or stave off the progression of this change, which continues gradually as time progresses. Perhaps rather than giving the player god mode, each death put them closer to the end of the 5 stages of grief, and the game would end once the final stage was reached, rewarding the player with more gameplay time the longer they took to get through the grieving process. “

I agree, though we might as well say – game development should be left to the game players. Bringing experiences outside of gaming to game making is usually a big plus if the developer is a gamer, but an equal and opposite effect can (and has) been had when someone who hasn't played games (but is very good at writing literature, directing film, or inventing gadgets) tries to make a game because they think it'll be cool – without ever having actually played a video game themselves. I guess Einstein was right. :-) As silly as that scenario sounds though, it's actually a reality that has happened and on more than one occasion. So you're right for a couple of reasons. If people want to make games they should play lots of games first, this way they are less likely to offend, insult, and disappoint gamers.

>I agree, but at the same time I believe that you could also be a big fan of a genre, love that genre to death, then try to make a game under that genre and still make a crappy game or something lackluster or unpopular.

You might, but you would certainly be reluctant to release it. Besides, this is not about *making* bad games. It's about praising them.

>In fact it's been done numerous times.

And you are reluctant to point out any of those times. Perhaps because you have no clue?

>unfortunately if money ends up being involved that changes the dynamic of game making altogether – especially if the developers expect people to pay for their work.

I don't know why you think this, and I don't know why you're bringing it up, either. Solace is a free game, and the price clearly did it no favors.

>I guess keeping experimental and art style games free or as close to free as possible is the best way to work on their formula.

I guess spouting off absurd conjecture just to ignore all attempts to explain to you why you're wrong is the best way to drag this conversation to untold depths.

>I guess creating those types of games is much more like dabbling in Alchemy,

A pursuit doomed to failure that will eventually be abandoned as knowledge on the subject improves?

>math and science is involved but much of the production is also based on theory residing with the hopes of the developer that this transmutation of his or her work is something people will actually enjoy or respond positively to.

You just abandoned your own metaphor halfway through there. Let's just toss the word transmute in your usual game philosopher martyrdom speech, I heard that in Full Metal Alchemist.

>I agree, though we might as well say – game development should be left to the game players.

I guess so. If you don't like games, what are you doing making them?

>Bringing experiences outside of gaming to game making is usually a big plus if the developer is a gamer

what.

>but an equal and opposite effect can (and has) been had when someone who hasn't played games (but is very good at writing literature, directing film, or inventing gadgets) tries to make a game because they think it'll be cool – without ever having actually played a video game themselves.

Yeah, and I'd love to hear what bare-bones platformer or Klik-N-Play compo game you'd use as your example.

>I guess Einstein was right. :-)

Yeah, about something, sometime, once, probably. The fuck?

>As silly as that scenario sounds though, it's actually a reality that has happened and on more than one occasion.

LET'S NEVER GIVE EXAMPLES. Hell, I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.

>So you're right for a couple of reasons. If people want to make games they should play lots of games first, this way they are less likely to offend, insult, and disappoint gamers.

I'm sure you think good games will, on occasion, offend or disappoint us, because “gamers are so used to conventions that they feel threatened when someone breaks them”. Keep patronizing us, dude. You haven't said anything that made sense on this page. I'm reluctant to think you've said anything at all.

I agree with Zaphos that the term itself is kind of, eh… And I also think it helps as a classification. Compared to most pop music, I would say classical music is much more artistic, at least in its deliberate intention and studied creation. Pop music is geared more toward entertainment.

Similarly, the term “art game” is ridiculous in a way, but it is still a useful classification. And I can imagine a world where, if it were to be executed properly, an art game could provoke a powerful experience. But right now, due to the catalog available to us, it's a distinction that is almost derogatory.

As a poet, I equate most of these art games to poems that the artist obviously spend very little time refining and whose ideas and conclusions are immature, redundant, overly simplistic, or obvious. The difference between Passage and Shadow of the Colossus (sorry, but it's true) is the difference between a freshman's poem about a broken heart and Apollinaire's “Zone.” Good art isn't just about exposing the raw emotions we feel; it's about applying those emotions to the complex situations found in life. I've yet to experience an art game that spends the time to create something that profound.

fart

Okay I'm just going to respond to one of your points, simply because you just want to be confrontational now and quite frankly this column is only going to get narrower.

>>>Dodger -”Bringing experiences outside of gaming to game making is usually a big plus if the developer is a gamer

>>anarkex -”what.”

Hideo Kojima also has experience and interest in film making. He includes the interest and experience he has with film and incorporates it into his games. Just one example. So that's – “what”.

Really anarkex if you want to have a competition at who can be a bigger ass I can only participate so far before I hand in the towel and just let you win because my hearts not in it and it's something that you're striving for. I'm trying hard not to be a prick to you now but if you want to continue being an ass then I'll let you go at it on your own. I'm trying to be civil with you now but if that's not what you want then let's find a more appropriate forum where I can treat you like shit so we can leave others to discuss gaming and their thoughts on games.

>>I guess creating those types of games is much more like dabbling in Alchemy,

>A pursuit doomed to failure that will eventually be abandoned as knowledge on the subject improves?

Hahahaha, oh wow. You just started some sick fires, bro.

I was following what you were saying right up until this:

>>”Good art isn't just about exposing the raw emotions we feel; it's about applying those emotions to the complex situations found in life. I've yet to experience an art game that spends the time to create something that profound.”

Unfortunately that's debatable. “Good” art is the opinion of an individual much like the expression, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The differences between good and bad art is no more concrete or evident than believing that because a video magazine gives a game high rating that game is therefor good. Metacritic would be an example of where to find such diverse opinions in quality or value of games. Sometimes there is a general consensus, but more often than not the critical opinions of people are all over the map – Metacritic is just an example of how diverse the “professional” opinion (and I use that term extremely loosely) is.

None of this means people should be limited or can't feel one way or another about Art or Games, or whether you believe games are art. It doesn't really make you wrong or right. In the end, it doesn't really matter. The one thing I know I want from a game, any game, is that I want some sort of entertainment from it. That doesn't mean it needs to be a positive experience in terms of “happy” gameplay. A game can be dark and moody and still be entertaining, but if the focus of a game isn't its entertainment that's when I think the Art, the message, the creativity don't really matter, because it's no longer a game.

Dodger, if that's what you were trying to say, why didn't you just say that? You need to stop assuming people are inside your head. Nobody here is being confrontational, you're just being hard to understand and putting a lot of stress on poor Anarkex.

Nah, Touhou didn't invent grazing. It's just my favorite scoring system in the series, and we were on the topic of Touhou.

Replace Zun with [creator of grazing mechanic] if you want, I don't think it really changes anything.

You're totally right – sorry for making such an unfair generalization. I guess what I mean is that most art that is published and in the critical spectrum combines emotion with other complexities instead of remaining one-dimensional in terms of content and message.

There's medication for that kind of stress.

And hey, you know what, you're right. If I'm being hard to understand, then why not just say that? It's one thing to say it and another to try and insult somebody with the intention of antagonizing.

I like to joke around like anyone else, but if you look at all of my comments thus far I haven't made an insult derogatory statement directly or indirectly unless someone had first tried insulting me. I've tried avoiding that now, and tried being more respectful. That's the best I can do. If that can't be met then we've got a problem.

Yeah okay. You only chose to answer one part of my argument. Choosing your battles as usual.

I'm not intentionally trying to be confrontational, Dodger, and I think I've held a very civil end of this conversation with most of the people in this thread. But you spend your posts making wild claims without giving any evidence, asking stupid rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with the subject of the page, insisting on a stereotype of hardcore gamers and developers that contradicts basic logic, and just generally writing hundreds of words to say very little if anything at all. All with a smarmy, pseudointellectual tone that just kind of assumes we all know exactly what you're talking about. Why you mentioned Einstein in a discussion about artgame development is a mystery of the universe I will be contemplating on my deathbed.

Seriously, just actually think about the things I've posted for once without disregarding everything that's inconvenient for your point of view. If you think something is wrong, you have to figure out WHY.

Yes, that's how I feel. I just don't think it would be a good thing if people stop exploring the uses and correlation between video game and emotion. There will probably still be plenty of games that are looked at as art that I either don't like or can't appreciate, but I believe I'm open minded enough to appreciate some of the games that are viewed as art and am able to take some entertaining value from them.

I just thought of a simple combination of art and video games that sort of does make sense – VideoGamesLive. On it's own it's not a video game, and without the video games involved there would be no concert, but combined they do make something entertaining. It doesn't really progress the discussion at all but I remember one story in particular that Tommy Tallarico told when being interviewed. He mentioned how someone from the audience (either wrote him or told him after the show – I can't remember) told him that he really appreciates and enjoyed the performance, particularly when the orchestra performed the themes from The Legend of Zelda. He told Tommy that he started crying because it immediately made him think of his father who had just passed away, but that he remembered how much he and his father had played and enjoyed playing The Legend of Zelda together when he was 12. Kind of a bittersweet story.

I just think that's a good example of how Games and Art can co-exist while being combined, but I guess the thing that's most perplexing about the “Art Game” debate is whether or not people should bother making games to be works of art rather than just focusing on the interactive entertainment – all of which can involve art or artistry. I think a message can still be conveyed through the video game, as long as there is no sacrifice to the interactive entertainment value.

Obviously my Einstein reference went over your head and I'm sure you're not the only one, because I meant Newton and unfortunately didn't catch my error before clicking the post button. Won't be the first time, and probably won't be the last, but I should clarify because like all human beings I make mistakes and I can't make everyone read my thoughts. Here's the initial comment:

>>”Bringing experiences outside of gaming to game making is usually a big plus if the developer is a gamer, but an equal and opposite effect can (and has) been had when someone who hasn't played games (but is very good at writing literature, directing film, or inventing gadgets) tries to make a game because they think it'll be cool – without ever having actually played a video game themselves. I guess Einstein (should be Newton) was right. :-)”

And what I was trying to make a reference to was Newton's Third Law. My mistake, I admit it. The last sentence of that comment wasn't intended to be related to the discussion of art and video games. I admit it was a literal flub on my part.

You can't accuse me of having a smarmy, pseudointellectual tone though without first facing the fact that you've made the same abuse throughout this discussion in numerous comments under this article.

You're right, I can't and shouldn't assume though, I should only try to ascertain after listening and being listened to. I'm not trying to come across as smarmy, I do enjoy being sarcastic at times, but I don't think I'm better than anyone else. I'll try to explain myself better, and if I can help the way I come across, I will.

I don't agree with Anarkex at all, but I'm not sure how it helps to just mock him/her.

I like hardcore shmups but miniature icycalms don't make them any better. One Alex Kierkegaard is enough for this world.

Won't be havin' any a you boys muckin' about in my article with yer appinions 'bout my vidya gams.

You city boys with yer book learnin' better keep on a-walkin'. Afore somethin' bad happens to y'all. Us artistic folk at the Tigsource communitay don't take too kindly to y'all waving them school-learned thoughts around here.

Hyuk hyuk!

You tell 'em, Skeeter!

Naw, you got it all wrong – I don't disagree with you guys completely about “art games”. It's the fact that you're less funny versions of bigger and better trolls that's annoying.

Has the jester failed to amuse, sire?

Ashford,

You need to pipe down and let your “bro” handle himself, because the way you're going on gives the impression that you believe you and anarkex are the last gay couple vs. the world.

Listen, I'm not out to insult or belittle either one of you, but if you think that antagonizing through anonymous comments is a game then I'm the type of person who will try hard to show that I want to respect you and I that means I also want your respect back. When push comes to shove though, I push back. It's only natural and you don't like to be insulted, no human does. So honestly, I really don't want to insult you, but you truly are hangin off of anarkex's ass right now.

well, at least you have good taste in miyamoto games (i think pikmin is one of his few good games, along with the first zelda game).

i also thought pikmin had a clear message though: the world was based on earth, after humans had become extinct. and you were collecting their junk to repair your ship. there was a big cooperation > competition theme in that game, what with the pikmin and all.

Even if you meant Newton and his third law, I still don't see any relevancy to the topic at hand. The main issue I see with your arguments is there are so many broad generalized statements that really don't have much clarity to them, as well as not giving many examples to help solidify your point. It pretty much reduces your posts to mere conjecture. Also does this statement here:
>Guess I should have stated it more clearly, The differences, huge or not, don't matter – to me.
Does that mean you completely disregard the main focal point of this entire debate, the defining factors separating normal games from art games? Because yes, there is a huge difference between the two, and those differences and how they effect the resulting game and the quality of such games is pretty much the focal point of this entire debate. The fact SOLACE labels itself as an art game, yet disregarded all conventional mechanics that would make a game of this genre good, making poor design choices that made the palyer's involvement entirely optional, is the core of the past god knows how many pages of posts. So what does that statement say about your stance on this then?

Alright, the whole Newton thing and Newton's Third Law wasn't in reference to Solace or the relevancy of the discussion, it was in regards to my own comment. I used that sentence right after making a comment about opposites and no matter how hard people try to get something or make something to be gotten, there is an equal and opposite effect. That's all.

As for my stance on Solace and the comment regarding the fact I said that the differences, huge or not, don't matter – to me… I was talking about the whole idea that art is subjective, but the idea of it being good or bad is a selective idea and can only be had on an individual basis – though two or more people can share the same feelings about it. In particular, one of my favorite sayings is, I don't know much about art but I know what i like rings true the way I feel about art or art games. I'm open to trying and experiencing new things in an interactive work of entertainment even if that thing falls into the “Art Game” category. That's where the differences, huge or not, really don't matter to me. Or more specifically, the impact of the combined elements of a so called art game affect the way each person feels about them differently. That's why it's somewhat pointless to try and analyze the differences that you or I thought made the game better or worse because the results will almost always be the same. I would never try to discourage you from talking about what made you like or dislike the game or the elements that made you feel that way, but the pointlessness behind it is that due to our different ideas of what is good and what is bad kind of make us both have to accept each others views, there is no real definitive right or wrong… Usually there is only “maybe”. Maybe the game would have been better had the developer done this… Maybe the idea and / or message would suffer more had the developer done that. Due to the subjective nature of the concepts (involved with “art games”) and critical differences in human nature, appreciation, and behavior, I believe that this sort of thing can only be appreciated from two sort of gray areas, you either agree or disagree with another persons views and that gray area comes from the ability to at least appreciate what the other person is saying even though we disagree (when people are speaking specifically about the same subject that is). This is why the differences (in terms of the games impression on the player – be they big or small) do not really matter, unless of course you're trying to convince someone else that they should see things your way. And that is all I mean, that's why the differences don't matter – to me. The constructive criticism or appraisal is all welcome and interesting to discuss, but we're not talking about rights and wrongs here, we're talking about opinion – which should matter to the individual, unless that individual prefers to be a follower – which isn't a crime either, but then it might matter to that type of individual. Since I do make my own opinions though, these differences seem trivial to me and I like a good discussion, but when when two people have to convince each other of seeing things their way and then escalate the discussion into an argument, things (usually) move away from being a discussion to a name calling comment fest. Rather than want to participate in that kind of argument that's where I did take the route of my name and “dodged” it by saying that the do not matter to me. It absolutely has nothing to do with why people like something, but rather how I or others could easily try to want to make others see the things the way we see them. Not very harmful by itself, but if you take offense to others not seeing things the way you do (you meaning “we” and everyone who participates that might feel offended by lacking the ability to convince) can end up changing the discussion into something less interesting or even obnoxious. So, with that long explanation (I'm really trying to clarify for you here), I was just trying to avoid an argument and asking about other specific points regarding peoples feelings without getting into differences of personal tastes too much. So some of it was conjecture, some of it was random thought, and some of it was curiousness which I was hoping others might be be able to share their feelings on, but not specifically on just Solace, but all shooters in general and the idea of having a shooter that's an Art Game over another genre that may have fit or conveyed the message better.

It's quite simple really, now just read War and Peace and you won't have to read another sentence for the rest of your life! ;-)

Meaning, after all of this, you've read enough for an entire lifetime. (Just thought I should clarify that last sentence of my last comment even more so that this time there is NO confusion).

cheers!

The insults being tossed at you by Derek and others is exactly the reason I rarely come to tigsource anymore. What an immature, insular, self-important place this has become.

Played through this, and my opinion is this game is better than average.

The visuals and the music are slick, no doubt about it. The ary is abstract, but that's just how it is, it isn't a plus or a minus. The focus is on the music and the shooting. The controls are smooth and do what you want them to do, at least when using an XBox controller. I liked the idea of the sound effects for shooting and collecting powerups wending their way into the background music. I would have liked to see this incorporated in more ways, such as enemy attack patterns that match the pace and timing of the music.

The level design seems to suit the themes for each level. Anger is high intensity with lots of foes, balance is about dodging and attacking the “boss” and depression is about slowly maneuvering between obstacles with no weapons. I feel like it's similar to braid in this respect, that even if you stripped away the theme of “grief” you would still have a series of varied and interesting stages.

The only downside is that the game lacks a few game-like elements that would give it replay value. There's no scoring mechanic, so you can't compete that way, and the basic gameplay is easy even on “Hard”. You don't actually have infinite lives – if you get hit when you have no weapon powerups you die. The result is play that works like Sonic the Hedgehog, where so long as you can keep getting one more ring you will always survive. Unlike Sonic, there's minimal incentive to not get hit, as there's no scoring in place, and most levels are not very threatening.

There is never an incentive to stop shooting, and doing so halts the music abruptly. Even in Depression where your weapon is useless I find myself holding A to keep the music going. I see no reason to not include auto-fire by default and map slow-motion to B instead.

I didn't get the impression that this is a game that was intended to make a big splash, but rather, just something the team through together for a project, polished up, and earned some deserved praise for the final product. I'd be interested in hearing what the team wanted to do (did they intentionally leave out scoring, for example) and where they would like to go with regards to future projects (would they want to make more games like Solace, or move on to make more traditional titles?).

Ultimately, worth the download and the time it takes to play in my opinion.

Welp!

Burp.

Lol @ the discussions here.

Who cares if games are called art games or whether they are art in the first place. Its all about entertainment and that really comes in all kind of flavors.

As far as entertainment goes I think Braid is as good a game as Solace, if not better, even when stripped of its graphics ( yes, that would be a better one on one comparison ) or story ( does it really matter? I think it really only gives the game a nice theme to go with its GAMEPLAY. ).

Yes, I think the majority of people who have posted comments here have already established that since it has been brought up by myself and several other users who have made similar comments. Where the discussion doesn't get resolved is why do people care if a game is called an art game or a game that is a work of art. I think this mostly has to do with the fact that a game can't first and foremost be a work of art. I think the simple resolution (though not everyone will accept it) would be to understand that a piece of art can be interactive, but a game (whether it involves artistry or not) has to be a form of interactive entertainment. Lose the entertainment and sorry, but your art game is not a game at all so don't promote it as such. The entertainment doesn't have to necessarily be good (since that solely comes down to individual opinion), but the game does have to be made in a way that tries to be entertaining and interactive in a way that shows the game was made in an attempt to engage the gamer in some sort of objective (even if the objectives are abstract). Otherwise putting the word art beside anything game related is nothing more than making an incorrect statement about art and games.

I don't believe that people really care whether a game is called art game or not, I just think that it would be hard to categorize such a game. Braid easily falls into the category of a platformer because the mechanics are quite clear, but it can also be called an art game because people feel compelled to call it so since they might have gained something or discovered something from its underlying message. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's fortunate that the core game is based on balanced and working mechanics, not mechanics based on working around the art. When the objectives become slightly (or more) abstract then the definition or category that a game falls into crosses more than one genre and I guess it's reasonable for people to find a games art of greater importance when that game leaves a strong impression on them through the story telling, graphical and musical elements, and atmosphere. This is all fine and dandy, just as long as the first “virtue” of any game development (ART or Otherwise) remains the intent to entertain, first and foremost.

So I can live with what people refer to as an art-game as long as those people make sure that what they're calling an “art-game” is interactive entertainment.

This reply formatting stuff is really annoying, all the text is getting crushed :(

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?t=3343

This guy thinks you're an artfag.

Only thing left to do is embrace the fact.

He also points out that the post doesn't even explain anything about the game. What do you do in it? What kind of game is it? Is it an action game? An adventure game? A flight simulator? Apparently it's not important.

It's a grief simulator – gosh guys get with it.

Apparently we're all still in the 'denial' stage.

hahaha wow anarkex owned everyone

Hahaha, your IP address is strangely the same as someone else who commented here and kept licking Anarkexs' ass.

What I really like about that thread is how Icycalm tosses the word faggot around as if he's not one! Ooopps, I'm sorry, it's “fagot”… sheesh, if I'm going to quote him, I might as well do it properly.

that's weird. don't know who it could be. anyway as has been indicated like a billion times already, no post here has done anything to lessen the hilarity of anarkex's total domination and everyone else's childish deflections and backpeddling.