To Jim Sterling, Who Hates Art Games

Extended, I think at this point whether or not Minecraft is an art game is fairly key to my point. I’m going to go ahead and say it’s not, as it is not trying to communicate anything. I don’t know why you would say it is, since if Minecraft is an art game, so is Morrowind or Dwarf Fortress.

I was under the impression that art games by definition are made to communicate “meaning” rather than entertain. Is this the definition everyone else is following? If we don’t get the semantics down, we’re just screaming at each other. I’ve said before that art games by definition sacrifice mechanics for aesthetics, and this point was met by no contention, so I thought this definition was accepted.

I just said that I didn’t love Bioshock, I was using it to state a point, so yeah, whatever. I still think the AI was moderately entertaining until I figured out its patterns, as it was unlike the enemies I’d run into in, like, Halo or something.

>You can like art games. You admitted that much. So why argue against them?

It can be said, as I have said recently, that in essence neither me nor Jim Sterling are arguing AGAINST art games. I’m not trying to make them go away. I am recognizing that they have a fundamental weakness, and trying (evidently failing) to tell people about this weakness so that A) Criticism of art games can be improved, and B) All games can be improved. By the definition I’ve stated above, art games DO have this weakness: it practically goes hand in hand with that definition. Games are, first and foremost, games, and if they are bad games, they are not good games. Is this really so complicated? This isn’t telling art games or indie games or any games to stop.

All Jim Sterling is doing is pointing out a flaw in game design that’s just as prevalent in commercial game design as it is in indie design: the overuse of aesthetics at the expense of mechanics. Art games are just the most obvious offender. That’s the only reason they’re criticized, by Jim and by me. I KNOW I’ve said this already not four posts ago, so please, if you’re going to respond again, make it something I have to think about. This is getting boring.

So what do you and Jim criticise when you call those who make them no life basement dwellers while ignoring their works that have nothing to do with art games, if not art games?

Now you say that wasn’t against art games. What was it against? Art games you PERSONALLY don’t like? Should every developer out there spend every bit of his spare and work time to please you (since, again, those no life basemenet dwellers did work on conventional games, but apparently what stuck with Jim is their disgrace of games, their art games)?

First of all, I can’t wait for Heavy Rain. At the same time, I just finished mopping the floor with my Sniper Rifle in MAG. If Heavy Rain is considered an Art Game by some of the “believers” and “non-believers” (People who hate one side or the other – then I think Heavy Rain is a great example of what Art has done for games. However, it’s not really my opinion that Heavy Rain even is an Art Game. It’s an adventure game, plain and simple, a very atmospheric adventure with a truly engrossing story. It’s also much like an interactive movie (which is still a game) but it’s much deeper than that. The actions and choices you make have real consequences in the game, so it’s not at all like the crappy FMV adventure games that were out in the 90’s. And even then, there were great games like The Pandora Directive which many adventure gamers still love.

Back to Heavy Rain though, I was a big fan of The Indigo Prophecy and Heavy Rain definitely seems like a moderate step forward. It takes the things that worked and from what I’ve played, it tried some of the things that didn’t work have been rectified. Does that mean I think it is the end-all-and-be-all of all adventure games? No, but I’m certainly impressed by the demo and how easily it drew me in. I’ll be buying the game this Tuesday as soon as it hits store shelves. I can’t wait to experience the game in its entirety. I still wouldn’t call it an Art Game though, *BUT*, if it is an Art Game, then I like Art Games – and every other genre and sub-genre of video gaming out there. :)

The great thing for me is, two weeks later, I’ll be picking up God of War III as well. :)

I don’t like anything simply because someone else does or does not. I like things that make me feel things such as joy, pleasure, sadness, anger, fear, and sometimes confusion (as long as there’s some sort of resolution – even if it requires discussion). I can’t simply hate something or love something for that matter, based on what other groups of people hate or like. I might talk about something I like while trying to show the appeal and reason as to why I like something, but I certainly can’t force someone to see that something the same way. That’s why I believe there has to be a space for all of these games and interactive experiences, regardless if I like them or “get” their meaning, somebody else may. That doesn’t make me any better or any worse a human being, but perhaps if I don’t get something someone can instead tell me what it is that they did get from the experience that I didn’t or what they felt and why. Games can be simple fun, but they can also be memorable experiences, and sometimes just memorable instances. I think there’s room for all of that.

@blade: ” Squishing a koopa by jumping on its head is an act of cartoon violence, and no one’s going to equate the imagery involved with somebody putting a gun to a person’s temple and pulling the trigger. ”

true, but isn’t edmund largely ‘cartoon rape’? i mean, it’s not realistic, it’s abstract, nobody would confuse it with real rape. if mere cartoonishness is an excuse for violence in a game, it could also be an excuse for rape in a game.

@ana: “Extended, I think at this point whether or not Minecraft is an art game is fairly key to my point. I’m going to go ahead and say it’s not, as it is not trying to communicate anything. […] I was under the impression that art games by definition are made to communicate “meaning” rather than entertain. Is this the definition everyone else is following?”

no, that’s not the definition a lot of us are using. i described the different types art games a few hundred comments above, and mentioned several times that conveying meaning isn’t the point of all or even most art games. to think that art games can be defined as games which are about conveying meaning is ridiculous to me, considering the wide variety of art games out there.

C.A., I don’t believe I said it was impossible to like these games. In fact, I think I just answered your qualms in my last post about adventure games. Twist it a bit and I think you’ll find the answer good enough.

There are plenty of games that, mechanically, I can’t get into. If asked, I can give you the reasons, hell, a lot of the time they’re shortcomings on my part. I am unable to learn Dwarf Fortress, no matter how hard I try. I don’t think I can play RTS games, simply because I freak out when forced to multitask. But I don’t see that as a shortcoming on the game’s part. The mechanics just don’t appeal to me. But I think I can say with some certainty when a game is simply poorly designed or regressive, and a majority of artgames are. Sound good?

Oh yeah, Paul, I missed that thing you said up there about my definition being wrong. I guess I can accept the definitions you put forward, with the exception of the third, “breaking a convention”. All games feature a reinvention of rules set forth by a previous game, so that doesn’t necessarily make a game an art game.

By your first two classifications, conceptual and ambient games, my argument still holds water. Both imply a deficiency in player control and mechanical complexity. Also I argue that Minecraft is neither. The music is somewhat ambient, but come on dude, I’m building castles and fighting zombies.

@Anarkex,

Just to quote you again:

“However from what I’ve seen of Heavy Rain it strikes me as not only an awful video game but an awful story as well. I was one of the first to criticize the Mall gameplay trailer and obviously not the last. The voice acting was awful, the writing was awful, the graphics were buggy, and characters did absolutely stupid things. Heavy Rain strikes me as a story that could only be told in video games, simply because patrons of any other medium would never put up with it. But then, I haven’t even played it and I’ve only watched a few trailers, so maybe I’m wrong.”

I’d have to say that you’re very wrong. Have you never read a fantasy novel? People both read and watch fantasy and fiction in books and on television. To say that Heavy Rain would never be accepted by patrons of “any other medium” is a pretentious statement when you try to group people based on their opinions.

I’ve played through the Heavy Rain demo 4 times now and each time I have made different choices. Some choices mildly affected the outcome while other choices made huge changes to the way the game and story played out and unfolded. I seriously can’t wait for the full game.

The story may take place in a real world setting (a familiar theme) but it’s also based on fictional events and characters (much like many other games out there – and even movies and books). The story, atmosphere, voice acting, and gameplay all work very well for me. I could definitely see how the pacing may not be to everyones liking, but after actually playing the demo and these snippets of chapters from the game I can honestly say that I’m impressed with how well it comes together and unfolds. It definitely keeps me interested and the mechanics kept me engaged in the story. It’s not going to be for every gamer, but then, no game ever is. Your point about patrons of other media has left me a little dumbfounded because I don’t believe any person could actually say that and have thought about it for very long. Again, it sounds more like a knee-jerk reaction, rather than constructive thought or criticism.

“All games feature a reinvention of rules set forth by a previous game, so that doesn’t necessarily make a game an art game.”

i meant where the entire purpose of the game is to experiment with breaking a convention, not merely a new game that breaks some convention as part of its design.

the reason i think minecraft is arguably an art game is because there’s no gameplay in the usual sense: no winning or losing. the game is just about creating a world, building it with some friends, and having that world evolve. it’s a very world-centric game, it’s not game-centric: no score, goals, etc. those are qualities usually characteristic of art games. it has rules, but most of those rules are not related to any goal or purpose, they’re just rules of the world, like grass dies in water, or water fills empty places, and so on. in a sense most of the rules of minecraft are purely aesthetic, because they don’t mean life or death, they just influence how things look.

@Anarkex,

Your comment about the game didn’t bother me, it was your comment about “patrons of other mediums would never put up with it”. That’s a broad and general statement and one that makes me believe you haven’t read many books or watched many movies, or played any variety of games. I’m not saying that’s how it is, but comments such as that only show a closed mindedness which would lead me to think something like that. Not to say that you’re closed minded, but when you decide to speak for other people you cannot speak for one group and put down another. It doesn’t work and only comes across as pretentiousness. So that’s what bothered me about the comment, not the fact that you didn’t like what you saw of Heavy Rain. :) That I can live with, since I am greatly looking forward to it, and especially after my brief experiences with the demo. We can agree to disagree, but we can’t speak in broad spectrum’s in regards to, and when referring to, groups of other people and their opinions when such things are for the most part out of our control.

Read both of the articles on Destructoid and got to say am a little disappointed, even saddened with the kind of mob mentality that seems to present itself given the efficacy of comments come pile-up in general. Arguably, if you’re going to critique an ‘experimental’ game then you absolutely need to be able to understand the purpose + rationale for different game design choices, and be able to speak about them in an interesting context instead of wedging everything into one-size fits all F-pants.

Contentions for and against ‘art games’ are also a little backwards and non-sensical given that games are a subset of interaction design, and not the other way around.! So I love and find it invigorating that independent developers are willing to explore the bounds of interaction + game design given the paucity [and difficulty] of new ideas in professional production. Even then I tend to feel that we’re generally a little lazy in not going far enough, challenging people, or simply offering up more of ourselves, meanings and personal thoughts in games rather than trite stereo-types or coagulated teenage fetish.

Suppose the meta-game of starting a business and being self-sufficient is quite an aspiration; though are the two aims of innovative design + accessibility really all that oppositional? I just hate to think that this frontier’s weighed down with the same gravity that bogs down commercial game design when its a fantastic space to really reach and try fresh ideas.

–

As an interesting aside, related to this idea of getting a macro view on things: our concept of computer games so far has totally been shaped by technological constraints both in terms of hardware in the computer loop + interactions existing in the player loop. Is not to cleave to these limitations, or defining moments, markers in time, classic Nintendo gameplay or whatever you might want to call them just being retrograde for the sake of it? Let’s just say that fibre optics networks developed 10-20 years earlier, then possibly the whole canon of single player games from the 80s would not have been designed and we would have gone down another path [sic] in terms of game design and what we know as computer games.

Props to Mel Croucher, Paul Woakes, Ian Braben and all the other pioneers though. Maybe I was just a weird kid back then, but the tangible feeling of excitement playing Elite, Damocles et al was just phenomenal and famously being able to travel to the programmer’s home planet [and kill him to end the game] in Mercenary was super cool with regards to player agency. Somehow I just don’t get that same joy from traversing dialogue trees in Mass Effect 2. To answer Derek’s question, alot of these games right up to the Amiga period still inspire because of their willingness to try new things out. Hopefully we don’t lose this kind of freeform experimentation with everybody set on going semi-professional. It’s a shame that Sterling’s article has rendered the world flat.

— Chuan

Same as in music “industry”:

There is Lady Gaga vs some indie punk bands. It is impossible to judge what is art, what is commercial bullshit and what is artsy by intention. Some bands are exaggerated in their indie-like behavior and others are industry whores. Some are both. I suggest to listen to (play) what you like.

Yeah, I know, Paul. Mechanics and aesthetics usually and ideally work hand in hand. And if it were purely creation mode, I probably still wouldn’t consider Minecraft an art game. I mean, do you consider Gmod an art game? But whatever, all that’s really kind of irrelevant.

Extended: Dude, Jim mentioned in the first article that he really likes what Braid did. It seems pretty apparent that he isn’t trying to end art games forever. He’s just played a ton of them and is sick of the wasted potential. Any ad hominems he throws out are basically just there for the lols, and even if he’s relying on shock value to get some of his message out there, the message is solid and constructive.

Also a hypocrite is someone who acts contrary to his stated beliefs. I don’t really know how that would apply to what I’m doing.

@ Anarkex dude, again, the majority of games in general is shite so I don’t see the need to bash art games in particular because he played tons of crap ones. How many of the hundreds or thousands yearly releases of games do you find worthy of playing? 50? 100 if you had more money to spend on them? Surely there’s a fuckton of bad games left. But I doubt you’d make an article bashing “video games” in the way Jim bashed “indie” and “art” games. And if you would, you’d be wrong as well.

And you’re a hypocrite because while you claim Jim is “right” when I bring up how Jim’s statements are wrong. you say that doesn’t apply to you. Then don’t state Jim is right, just state what you think instead. And sorry but saying he liked this or that doesn’t somehow make the rest of his shitty arguments easy to ignore. If anything it shows he can’t even write an article without contradicting himself, making his goals ever more obvious.

Some people seem not to understand hyperbole.

Derek, I thought you knew better than this. Sterling is a professional troll, and that’s all he’s ever going to be. Ignore and move on. He doesn’t even deserve the muscle movement your fingers made to type up this article.

Also, as said a billion times before, don’t play art games if you think they sacrifice too much of what games mean to you. There are plenty of makers making games you want, why do you want to seemingly force the rest of them, or hell, even those same developers, since plenty of them work on conventional games as well, to spend their creativity only in ways that please your very personal gaming habits? Not all movies are comedies and action flicks, not all games are about putting a grin on your face as you master the mechanics and come out on top. Deal with it, your disapproval isn’t going to make anyone realise your truth is the one truth and that all games should be the best games in their genre ever, and hell, even fit in a genre. You didn’t enjoy something? Move the fuck on than claim the developer was so wrong to displease you. Especially since most of them are free, and as said before, often necessary for experience and ideas to grow and be turned into a better convetional game.

@Extended: Let scrubs and casual gamers kill gaming? I would rather die then ever let that happen.

I bet most of the games you play don’t even require any sort of mastering and are in fact casual games like Modern Warfare, GTA and the like. Those types of games do indeed kill gaming, unlike what you mean when you say casual and the art games that you loathe so much, yet are from and for people who have little to do with other types of games, and therefor cannot destroy those. It’s a different market that cannot and will not replace the rest of it, whereas crap like Modern Warfare and GTA did in fact replace actual games that did require mastering like Quake. Or actual thinking like ye olde adventure games, when most of the current are mindless click the win button affairs, or kill x enemies to progress (RE5 again).

Derp: Nice to know you guys can rise above my mindless namecalling. At least mine has a point.

Extended: How about throwing something at me I haven’t heard before. LOL YOU HAVE NO RIGHT, CRITICISM IS NEVER WARRANTED, LEAVE INDIE GAMES ALOOOOWNE.

Soak your head. If ANYONE takes what I’ve said to heart, it’ll have been worth the time I wasted posting here. Regardless, though, I’m done with you, as the goofballery has obviously come full circle. Until next time, TIGsource.

I won’t dare read all the comments that are above me, but I agree with you, Derek, and appreciate the post.

Why fly a kite when you can just pop a pill?

*jk* Sorry, but I couldn’t resist that classic line.

And a lot of people like to use GTA as an example when guess what? Actually doing the missions under a set amount of time or finding out the best way of doing them does in fact take skill. Only a complete scrub who has never tried to set a record in anything would use that as an example with a straight face.

Well, I skipped right to the end and I must say that if all the replies are like that I’m glad I did. Internet kids bragging about winning video game tourneys and how hardcore they are because they play some of the most mainstream titles out there that any non gaming redneck can enjoy (and going by Xbox live voice chat they do so)? How did discussion devolve like this?

I don’t discriminate between indie and non-indie. Only games that have gameplay and games that don’t (and still try to pretend to be games because people are too ignorant to question them otherwise). And no, watching a screensaver where you can make a person walk around isn’t gameplay, you know what you call that? One word: shallow.

You’re the one saying I have no life. Now you’re backtracking because I just proved you wrong.

Just trying to help.