Perfectionism

I found this to be one of the most accurate pieces of the article: “Perfectionism is intended to be a self-documenting game design.”

I downloaded the game and ran it right after I finished reading the first page of his design notebook, before I read the instructions or learned how to play, because I’m impatient like that. It took a little bit of fiddling around (I pressed several keys without any luck), but within a minute or so I understood the gist of it. It’s really nice when gameplay mechanics like that are simple enough to grasp without any sort of tutorial :)

I noticed I only spent about half a second on several of the levels, glancing over the layout briefly before saying ‘fuck that’ and moving onto the next one. I think that was actually one of the stronger points of the game. Overall, entertaining and somewhat thought-provoking, but as Derek pointed out, rough enough that I probably wouldn’t give it another playthrough for a while.

Was the impossible level with only two solid squares on different rows and two empty squares on the same row making a point about how unattainable perfection is? This was just after they got really complicated. Suddenly, it looks so simple… but you can’t do anything.

I’ve got to give him credit for evoking emotion, though in this case, it was frustration. Found his other games emotional in more positive ways.

Pretty cool indeed!

Sorry for going off topic here, but take a look at this news-worthy piece of info; http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9675&Itemid=9

I’m going to re-release the 2600 version of “ET” and declare it art. People all over the net will be discussing the philosophical implications of ET falling into the pit and having to stretch his neck to float out, only to fall back in, like the folly of man. Many will break into tears.

Oh god! I thought I was the only one who felt that way about ET! It’s great to know that I’m not alone.

ET…is the most perfect representation of life I have ever played.

I was thinking about it, and it’s kind of apropos that FLaiL and Perfectionism are right next to each other. FLaiL has kind of a similar concept – in that each level has a “perfect” score you could try to achieve, but you can move on without achieving that score (or even beating the level). The difference is that it eventually penalizes you if you move on too quickly (by barring you entry from later zones).

FLaiL is a much more compelling game, but I probably wouldn’t have thought about it in that way without Perfectionism.

“Would you have the same reaction if people were discussing symbolism and metaphor in a book or film?”

That depends. Is the film The Matrix: Reloaded?

PHeMoX: I was delighted when I read that.

2 King-n:

According to Concise Oxford English Dictionary, art is “the expression or application of creative skill and imagination, especially through a visual medium”.

Hence, games are art.

But the so-called “art games” (usually made in 2-3 weeks by people without imagination) are not.

Awesome conversation..

mio:

Because of your reference to it, I just downloaded the demo for “The Longest Journey.”

What makes you call it an “art game”?

You mean Halo 3 is better than any indie game ever created.

I just want to know why it has become so important that games become art full of hidden expression, and that these games are automatically better in a field named after the act of having just “fun”.

2 mio:

Okay, but you’re just going by the dictionary definition. Here’s another dictionary definition that is similar to the one that you presented (this one from Webster):

“the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects”

But these definitions don’t match another, common use of the word “art,” perhaps closer to what Ebert calls “high art.” The people who claim “games cannot be art” are not saying “games don’t meet the Oxford or Webster definition of art,” because of course games do. What they’re saying is that, “Games don’t satisfy this other definition of art.”

So what is this other definition? Here is where it gets murky, and no one seems to agree. The best I can come up with is a weak definition that probably encompasses stuff that most people would call art. I.e., this definition is not strong enough to reasonably exclude the other stuff, but perhaps we can all agree that the stuff it includes can reasonably be called art. Here goes:

Art is the use of a medium to:

1. successfully explore complex and subtle aspects of the human condition,

2. give viewers valuable and lasting insights about themselves or the world around them, and/or

3. leave viewers thinking about a work long after they are done experiencing the work.

So, if a work does one or more of these things, then it is art. If it does none of these things, it might still be art (because this definition is intentionally weak). I will also admit that this definition is not as tight as it could be, since the points overlap a bit (“giving insights” and “making you think” are similar), but I wanted to include three explicit “paths to art” in the definition to give it a bit of breadth.

Also, even if we agree on the definition, there will still be disagreement on what works satisfy the definition. I might find that a work made me think about myself in a new way, whereas you may find that the work made you think about nothing. Thus, we’d still have the problem of “art for me” vs. “art for you,” but at least we’d both be using the same definition.

I’m sure The Longest Journey does some of these things. I suspect, however, that it does them primarily through its linear story line. Thus, The Longest Journey: The Movie, though perhaps less engaging and less “fun,” would have a similar art-effect on you (still make you think in new ways, etc.).

Perhaps I’m missing something about TLJ… perhaps one of the interactive puzzles triggers 1, 2, or 3 in the players. If so, please give an example so that we can discuss it.

Anyway, using games to ape movies is not all that interesting to me. I’m more interested in using features that are unique to games to do 1, 2, and 3. And what’s unique to games? Game mechanics and gameplay. Thus, you’ll find no linear story lines at all in my games. The mechanics themselves, and the choices you make as you play, are supposed to invoke 1, 2, and 3. Maybe they do, and maybe they don’t. I’m just explaining what I’m trying to do.

And about games necessarily being “fun.” It seems that this requirement would seriously limit the subjects that games can tackle. We might want to make a game about a painful divorce, but then think “Okay, but how are we going to make it fun?” If it was indeed fun, it wouldn’t feel right—it wouldn’t capture the feeling of a painful divorce. A painful divorce still involves lots of interesting choices, so it could make a very compelling game (a game that you want to keep playing, a game that hooks you for hours, etc.), but the hook would not be the fun-factor.

And of course, we allow (and expect) books and films to tackle topics like this.

You might not be interested in a game about a painful divorce. Okay, fair enough. Would you also avoid a movie about the same topic (Kramer vs. Kramer, for example)? Even if you avoid such movies, I suspect that you wouldn’t necessarily say that they somehow fail as movies.

Saying all games must be “fun” is equivalent to demanding that all movies must be “funny.” In other words, you’re limiting the medium to only one of its possible genres (your preferred genre).

Before there’s an uproar, that was a joke.

*There should be a website that only says “Shut up about art/not art and think whatever you want” and everyone has to visit it once every day.*

Roar!

*I just want to know why it has become so important that games become art full of hidden expression, and that these games are automatically better in a field named after the act of having just “fun”.*

I reply to your comment with a bulleted list!

1. It isn’t about hiding expression, really. It’s not like Rohrer’s games, for example, are very obfuscated. They have a very direct symbol -> meaning relationship, AND descriptions of what they mean.

2. I don’t think anyone is pushing this point. People talking about ‘art games’ doesn’t mean they’re saying art games are better than gamey-game-games it’s different goals which is why I think we see friction about this in the community. However, can you see how a game which is *also* an expression about life, the universe, or whatever might be somewhat more enriching for the player?

3. Does it matter what the field is named for fun? Would you let that determine what you want to do with the medium? The fact is we call pretty much anything on a computer that’s interactive and has graphics a game no matter what the creator’s intent is. The vocabulary isn’t really advanced enough to now to accommodate diverse goals.

Sorry for the disproportionate response konjak, but your comment held some really common sentiments that I wanted to reply to.

How arrogant of you Prio.

Gameplay: The controll of the game and how it plays out.

Great Gameplay: The FUN control of the game and how it plays out.

I believe that’s somewhere around the correct definition. However, I would like to see other definitions and see how they compare.

I’m bisexual.

Eponymouse, I was just saying these fights seem more about convincing people than accepting their tastes.

And, of course, I am more a fan of traditional games. :)