[Fien]

Interesting, Andrea.

Spoiler:

He offered me nothing. Mind you, I couldn't see much of him, to me he was a pair of eyes in a cap and waving an axe. Carmen took his hat, wandered off, found the beer on the ground, drank it, and sat near the fire.

[silent_m]

Geez, I guess I should jump in here as someone who DOES like the game.

You people need to enjoy the game for what it is, instead of bashing it for what it is not. As they say, too many critics, too few artists. All games provide an "experience" – it's just that some make you jump through hundreds of hoops and done-to-death mechanics in order to get that experience.

I whole-heartedly recommend it to anyone looking for something different to do on a rainy afternoon or in a melancholy mood. Some people will love it for the art direction,

Spoiler:

some will hate it for the rape insinuation,

some will love not having to pixel hunt and some will hate the slow pace. It will end up meaning different things to different people, but isn't that ok? Does EVERY game have to fit in the same mold we're all used to? Let's encourage diversity and new directions in our favorite pastime.

[AndreaDraco83]

I added spoiler tags to your message, silent_m, since it was giving away a considerable detail.

Originally Posted by silent_m

Does EVERY game have to fit in the same mold we're all used to? Let's encourage diversity and new directions in our favorite pastime.

No. Not every game has to fit in the same mold. But we are also not supposed to like it just for the fact that it doesn't fit in the same mold. Sometimes, diversity just for the sake of it it's way worse than lack of originality.

Anyway, I'm currently playing it with the last two sisters... My opinion has slightly changed from my first impression. But I now reserve it until it's totally final.

[therabidfrog]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

I don't see any reason why video games cannot be art and/or an art form, which is not the same thing. Every art form has its own tools and materials. Painters use paint to express their creativity. Dancers use their body, game designers use interactivity, among other things. Nothing wrong with that. But not every blob of color on canvas is art, not by a long shot, and the same goes for games.

Art forms can be both art and entertaining. Why should games by definition have to be entertaining? I prefer captivating, immersive, fascinating, interesting, touching, etcetera. I can think of one or two games that come close to being art.

Games are about entertainment and mass consumption. As I said they're meant to be taken as an active not passive experience so entertainment comes first regardless of what other factors remain they fail if they are not entertaining. No other form of art is held to this standard, and what is generally considered by gamers to be examples of games as art usually just boils down to highly stylized graphics.

[silent_m]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

No. Not every game has to fit in the same mold. But we are also not supposed to like it just for the fact that it doesn't fit in the same mold. Sometimes, diversity just for the sake of it it's way worse than lack of originality.

True, and I said some will like it and some won't, but to look at just the game's faults and ignore the positives doesn't do anyone justice. And I disagree that the game lacks originality. Yes, it's based on an existing story, but it is expanded upon by making us look at it through 6 very different sets of eyes, and in a way most of us aren't used to seeing through traditional video games. This is simply one developer's interpretation of a classic story – you may not like it (did everyone like Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula, or Penelope aka Beauty and the Beast?) but I found the interpretation fascinating and transcending.

I'm also not sure that I was "giving away a considerable detail" that required a spoiler tag. It's your right as a moderator, but anyone interested in playing this game (and therefore reading this thread) would probably want to know that element is within the game. Some people are very sensitive to the issue, and by hiding it you're basically putting your own hand over people's eyes like an over-protective parent. For example, the story has several "wolves" in it. Ooooh, that's "giving away a considerable detail" too, but it also doesn't warrant one of your spoiler tags. Just my 2 cents.

And for the record, I've had no technical problems with the game whatsoever through Steam.

[kuze]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

Spoiler:

Carmen? Sit near the fire and wait... wait.... and wait some more..... zzzzz. If that doesn't work, get up, walk around, sit down again and do another round of waiting. Seriously. I'm not pulling your leg. Appreciate the waiting.

Thanks, that worked. I guess I grew a little impatient towards the end of the game.
Anyway, I finished it and found it an interesting interesting experience, probably worth the ten bucks. It certainly does pretend to be an art(sy) game, just like Turgor which I never came around to play. It may even qualify as a serious attempt at art, just not a very good one.
The Path was even enjoyable for the first half hour, but then the horrible camera, the framerate drops, the slow pace killed it for me.
I loved the indoor scenes the most, even though those were the least interactive ones. The way they mutated the grandma's house each time, matching each girl's death was pretty good.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by silent_m

Some people are very sensitive to the issue, and by hiding it you're basically putting your own hand over people's eyes like an over-protective parent. For example, the story has several "wolves" in it. Ooooh, that's "giving away a considerable detail" too, but it also doesn't warrant one of your spoiler tags. Just my 2 cents.

Actually, I'm using spoiler tags for what they are intended to do: prevent people to casually stumble upon information that may ruin their enjoyment of the game. If you were going to open up a thread about Phantasmagoria and say:

Spoiler:

"At the beginning of Act 4, Adrienne is raped by her husband"

And then, me: an over-protective parent? Ahah! That was really good! LoL

[silent_m]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

Actually, I'm using spoiler tags for what they are intended to do: prevent people to casually stumble upon information that may ruin their enjoyment of the game.

As I said, that decision is up to you, mom.

[therabidfrog]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

No. Not every game has to fit in the same mold. But we are also not supposed to like it just for the fact that it doesn't fit in the same mold. Sometimes, diversity just for the sake of it it's way worse than lack of originality.

Exactly. Different doesn't make something good.

[Fien]

Originally Posted by therabidfrog

Games are about entertainment and mass consumption. As I said they're meant to be taken as an active not passive experience so entertainment comes first regardless of what other factors remain they fail if they are not entertaining. No other form of art is held to this standard, and what is generally considered by gamers to be examples of games as art usually just boils down to highly stylized graphics.

Yeah, so you said. What I find interesting about your implicit concepts of art and entertainment is that they are kind of oldfashioned, if not outdated. I know, that's strange coming from a 61-year old woman. But I'm serious.

Exactly. Different doesn't make something good.

No, but different hold a promise. Run-of-the-mill promises nothing, except more of the same.

[silent_m]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

No, but different hold a promise. Run-of-the-mill promises nothing, except more of the same.

THAT is what I was trying to say. Thank you Fienepien.

And therabidfrog, you are obviously not an artist, as a true artist would say that games like The Path have the "potential" to be art, for art is in the eye of the beholder. As an artist, I know what it's like to put your blood, sweat and tears into a project (as Tale of Tales has done), only to have non-artists poo-poo it simply because they don't like it or it doesn't meet their definition of what art (or a game) should be. To me, The Path is a beautiful, thought-provoking example of "games as art". Games don't have to be about "entertainment and mass consumption" (what a horrible, outdated and misguided idea!) if you don't want them to be! I suggest you download and play The Museum of Broken Memories for another example of a wonderful, existential experience that doesn't have a single mass consumption idea in it. Again, I understand that art is not art to everyone. You and I may look at the exact same painting and see two totally different things and walk away with two totally different feelings and opinions, but to me, it's still art for I can appreciate the ideas and creativity that went into it. So lighten up, go visit a museum (real or otherwise) and take your hands off your wii controller once in a while - you may actually learn something about yourself.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by silent_m

So lighten up, go visit a museum (real or otherwise) and take your hands off your wii controller once in a while - you may actually learn something about yourself.

I found this judgemental attitude annoying. You don't know Frog in person, so I'd like you to stop to make arrogant, snobbish assumptions.

[silent_m]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

I found this judgemental attitude annoying. You don't know Frog in person, so I'd like you to stop to make arrogant, snobbish assumptions.

My apologies to Frog and our 25 year-old "super" moderator.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by silent_m

My apologies to Frog and our 25 year-old "super" moderator.

And what is this supposed to mean? How my age is relevant to the subject? This is my second warning: sarcasm doesn't make your attitude more pleasant. This thread is intended to discuss the game: allow the others to have different opinion without offending, both directly or sarcastically.

[therabidfrog]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

Yeah, so you said. What I find interesting about your implicit concepts of art and entertainment is that they are kind of oldfashioned, if not outdated. I know, that's strange coming from a 61-year old woman. But I'm serious.

Old fashioned has little to do with it. Art should be held to a higher standard. It should enrich people, evoke, and cause them to be engaged. I get tired of having the standards of everything dragged down every time some sub group wants to justify there hobbies by attempting to intellectualizing them. I realize this is natural, but it isn't right.

Originally Posted by silent_m

THAT is what I was trying to say. Thank you Fienepien.

And therabidfrog, you are obviously not an artist, as a true artist would say that games like The Path have the "potential" to be art, for art is in the eye of the beholder. As an artist, I know what it's like to put your blood, sweat and tears into a project (as Tale of Tales has done), only to have non-artists poo-poo it simply because they don't like it or it doesn't meet their definition of what art (or a game) should be. To me, The Path is a beautiful, thought-provoking example of "games as art". Games don't have to be about "entertainment and mass consumption" (what a horrible, outdated and misguided idea!) if you don't want them to be! I suggest you download and play The Museum of Broken Memories for another example of a wonderful, existential experience that doesn't have a single mass consumption idea in it. Again, I understand that art is not art to everyone. You and I may look at the exact same painting and see two totally different things and walk away with two totally different feelings and opinions, but to me, it's still art for I can appreciate the ideas and creativity that went into it. So lighten up, go visit a museum (real or otherwise) and take your hands off your wii controller once in a while - you may actually learn something about yourself.

Actually I am an artist and have worked a long time to hone what it is I do and perfect the process by which I do this. This might be why I have some insight into the matter, and the fact that you make a purely emotional argument and not a logical one doesn't help your case. Just because a game is creative and has style means nothing. It's just style. And just because a game has the pretense of being existential (the single most intellectualy bankrupt form of pop philosophy.) means nothing to me. If you played that game and it was frustrating an unrewarding then you would hate it. It's the play mechanics that make or break a video game and nothing else. Having a game with bad mechanics and an avengaurde concept would be like making a giant monster movie with no giant monsters. Pointless.

Why does any one feel the need to justify playing games? I know the answer to that question, but my point is why not just forget all that and enjoy yourself. Honestly I would rather play a seriously fun FPS than a snobbish, pseudo intellectual puzzle hunt, and so would nearly every one else. I'm not knocking video games or games that try to be experimental, but the ones that do usually aren't all that good.

Or as Hideo Kojima said

"The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."

Still I have to give you points for insulting my intelligence by using video games as method to insult me for not intellectualizing video games. I take if I play the "Wii" I'm having a casual non intellectual experience, and only when I step into a fake digital museum can I truly understand my soul. That will make me giggle for weeks.

[Fien]

Originally Posted by therabidfrog

Old fashioned has little to do with it. Art should be held to a higher standard. It should enrich people, evoke, and cause them to be engaged. I get tired of having the standards of everything dragged down every time some sub group wants to justify there hobbies by attempting to intellectualizing them. I realize this is natural, but it isn't right.

I fail to see why (inter)activity implies entertainment and nothing else. It could just as well mean all the things the the Great Uplifting Art you don't want us to drag down has to offer: enrich people, evoke, and cause them to be engaged. You ignored what I said about captivating, immersive, fascinating, interesting, touching as opposed to being merely entertained.

Active needs to go hand in hand with Entertainment, and the same goes for Art and Passive? Art lovers must be bored stiff. I've read many entertaining masterpieces by great writers. And let me kick in an open door here: history proves you wrong, art and entertainment are certainly not mutually exclusive. That which we nowadays consider works of art often originally had the function to simply entertain people.

...and an avengaurde concept...

A what concept?? therabidfrog

Or as Hideo Kojima said

"The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."

Your Kojima sounds like he's out of his depth here. Nothing to do with video games per se. He's talking about companies wanting to make money with their product, any product. As long as the damned widget sells, who cares about quality, let alone art. If customers want quality, okay, let's give them some. If they buy crap, so much the better. LucasArts discovered Startrek and of course they dropped the much less profitable adventures like a hot brick.

But if you think Kojima has a point the artist in you should be happy that there are other designers, not employed by Konami c.s., who are willing to experiment and take risks. The adventure genre needs that. And without people who think outside the box any art form will stagnate. Instead you sneer at them and show your contempt with your "tolerance for nonsense".

The arrival of the CD in the nineties was followed by a wave of creative, fascinating games and "multimedia experiences". I'll leave it to you to draw the solid black dividing line in this vast grey area. Bad Day on the Midway (Jim Ludtke), Gadget, Alice: An Interactive Museum (Haruhiko Shono), Eve (Peter Gabriel), Puppet Motel (Laurie Anderson), Mode (Jeff Green), Ceremony of Innocence, Blue Ice, The Dark Eye, Eastern Mind: The Lost Souls of Tong Nou, among others.

Do some of them belong in the categorie of Art? I have no idea. I found all of them immersive and engaging in a way that the usual classic games are not. At the very least they pushed the boundaries. Many of them didn't get good reviews. I loved the French/English game Isabelle I mentioned earlier. It deals with real emotions, which clearly sets it apart from adventures like Broken Sword or Full Throttle. The AG review gave Isabelle half a star, for its "pretty colors"... ouch! Am I that single person who is captivated by whatever Isabelle radiates? If so, it is art according to you and Kojima.

To get back to The Path. It's an intriguing, creative niche game, explicitly aimed at a small subgroup of gamers. I decided to play it again this morning, and I must say, it's beginning to grow a little on me. I might like it better if my integrated videocard didn't act as a spoilsport. I wish there was an option to switch off the music (huuuuu!) without turning off all sound. The text still makes me shudder. IMO, it's a bad mistake to put words like "Death is hard to imagine for a kid like me" (quoting from memory) in the mouth of a 9-year old. I find that a bit pretentious, yes.

Even so, there are many different subtle ways to tell a story with or without words and The Path deserves to be discussed. I don't think Andrea's harsh criticism was fair either. Proust and Joyce? Oh, come on! And why is it that people who don't enjoy a game which tries to appeal to gamers' emotions in a novel way, invariably use words like "intellectualize", "pseudo" this or that, and "snobbish". Let's discuss it on its own merits, without dragging art into it at every corner. It's all relative anyway, as we all know. I recently read an amusing account of the premiere of Stravinsky's influential masterpiece Le Sacre du Printemps: the audience was outraged, all hell broke loose, violence, riots, police in the theater...

[therabidfrog]

Well as I said video could possibly be art I've just never seen any example of it, and I don't know what it would even look like. I understand that art and entertainment aren't mutually exclusive. I would argue that the film Swing Time is a work of art though meant as entertainment. The difference being that film and any other form of art do not have to be entertainment first. If a video game does not work as entertainment first and foremost it fails.

Maybe my perception of all this would be helped if philosophy as presented in video games didn't often feel like a bunch of teenagers debating issues with no knowledge of their depth. Bioshock being a commentary about Objectivism (yeah right), The Path (from what I read on the developers blog so don't hold me to it till I play the game) a game about the nature of son removed from a religious context which makes the idea of sin meaningless. Bad Day On The Midway and The Dark Eye are the two I've played on your list, and both prove my point better than anything. Both of them were all style. Neither was thought provoking, and were as it might seem like intelligent fair for a video game that isn't saying much. A good story in a video game is relative to other video games.

Kojima is the creator and director of a number of successful games, including the Metal Gear series, Snatcher, and Policenauts. His Metal Gear series is considered by gamers almost unanimously as an example of high art in video games. His point is that video games are intended to be mass marketed. My point is that they are intended for entertainment, and fail if that is not achieved.

And can you say that your enjoyment of Isabelle isn't at least partly due to lowered expectations. This is nothing to do with the nature of the debate. All that means is that the game stunk, but you like it regardless. Same as I liked You Are Empty despite being possibly the only person on the planet that did.

That doesn't counter Kojima's point it just means we both liked games that weren't good despite there faults.

As for the Path I will play it... when it isn't ten bucks.

[Fien]

Originally Posted by therabidfrog

If a video game does not work as entertainment first and foremost it fails.

So you said twice already. That's your personal opinion. Or maybe you should define entertainment.

Maybe my perception of all this would be helped if philosophy as presented in video games didn't often feel like a bunch of teenagers debating issues with no knowledge of their depth. Bioshock being a commentary about Objectivism (yeah right), The Path (from what I read on the developers blog so don't hold me to it till I play the game) a game about the nature of son removed from a religious context which makes the idea of sin meaningless. Bad Day On The Midway and The Dark Eye are the two I've played on your list, and both prove my point better than anything. Both of them were all style. Neither was thought provoking, and were as it might seem like intelligent fair for a video game that isn't saying much. A good story in a video game is relative to other video games.

And now all of a sudden art has to do with thought-provoking philosophy! For *you*, that is. See, this is one reason why debates about games and art are utterly useless.

say that your enjoyment of Isabelle isn't at least partly due to lowered expectations. This is nothing to do with the nature of the debate. All that means is that the game stunk, but you like it regardless.

Interesting... you are twisting my stated appreciation of a game you haven't played and are actually trying to use it to prove your point. No, I read the AG review a couple of years later and that half star came as a shock. As a rule, I only read previews before I play a game. Afterwards I may or may not read the reviews, depends.

As for the Path I will play it... when it isn't ten bucks.

Ten bucks is too much? I wonder what you would pay for it if it were Great Art...
Oops! I'd better sit on my hands.

PS: Steve Ramsey posted a positive review of Isabelle at Quandary (see metzomagic.com)

[therabidfrog]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

So you said twice already. That's your personal opinion.

That's hardly a personal opinion. The market speaks for itself.

Originally Posted by Fienepien

And now all of a sudden art has to do with thought-provoking philosophy! For *you*, that is. See, this is one reason why debates about games and art are utterly useless.

Actually the classical definition of art has always been to provoke thought and elevate man intellectually. Or how about any intellectual benefit what so ever? Studies show that playing games don't even have a short term mental benefit. Besides my point was that you were listing these games as gray area possibly art because (or in part) they are riddled with half baked philosophical musings.

Originally Posted by Fienepien

Interesting... you are twisting my stated appreciation of a game you haven't played and are actually trying to use it to prove your point. No, I read the AG review a couple of years later and that half star came as a shock. As a rule, I only read previews before I play a game. Afterwards I may or may not read the reviews, depends.

Ok I was off base on that one.

Originally Posted by Fienepien

Ten bucks is too much? I wonder what you would pay for it if it were Great Art...
Oops! I'd better sit on my hands.

Har har nice try. I wouldn't pay ten bucks for a game that is a 50/50 chance of me either wanting to punch some one in the face or be mildly amused by it. I go Thrift Store hopping and get ten games for that price. And I wouldn't have to worry about whether or not they are art because.... you know, games aren't art. Besides no one here has even attempted to suggest the game is actually fun. In fact every one here has said the opposite.

[silent_m]

Originally Posted by therabidfrog

Har har nice try. I wouldn't pay ten bucks for a game that is a 50/50 chance of me either wanting to punch some one in the face or be mildly amused by it. I go Thrift Store hopping and get ten games for that price.

Then you must play some very bad and/or very old games if you're buying them for only a dollar apiece. We should support the developers whose games we play, it's the right thing to do. And if $10 is too much for you, which it seems like it is, well, I pity you.

Originally Posted by therabidfrog

And I wouldn't have to worry about whether or not they are art because.... you know, games aren't art.

Again... in YOUR opinion. Some of us feel the opposite. But this debate will never end.

Originally Posted by therabidfrog

Besides no one here has even attempted to suggest the game is actually fun. In fact every one here has said the opposite.

Au contraire. It still seems like I'm the only person who's stuck up for this game, but I still wouldn't recommend it to everyone. And does a game have to be "fun" to be played? Can't games teach? Or intrigue? Or scare? Or... whatever? To me, it's an amazing game, but I already stated that it will frustrate and even piss off some people for reasons I tried to warn people about earlier (and for which my comments were censored).

So I'll say it once again, hopefully without pissing off the moderator this time. The Path is beautiful, bizarre, and interesting, no matter how buggy, broken and controversial it is. Play it.