[Thorn]

A game is a multimedia, which means it mixes a lot of things, so in my opinion it's not completely an art form, but it has elements of art in it. Art is usually never controlled, but all concept artists need to do very many different images to find a concept that will be liked by everyone and not just one individual while a lot of other artists only do what they think is appealing themselves (or things that will create reactions; good or bad. Which kind of this game seem to have done, right? It has started a lot of anger and conversiality(spells?) just by being, hehe.)
And you can't really say a concept artist isn't an artist, right? Nonetheless, there is a slight difference.

I haven't played it, but it seems more like it's a poem if you were to say a game is a book. Some can't stand a certain piece of poetry because it's slow and boring, while some others love it.

I'm not going to buy it yet. As with Scratches there might come a director's cut, or atleast some fixing of the bugs, so yeah. I think I'll wait.


(and am I the only one that thinks the 1gb usbstick for 25pounds in their shop is quite ridiculous?)

[mszv]

Long post follows - can't do this in a shorter post.

Saying something is or is not art does not work for me. I don't know what that means. I look at it differently - what category the thing is in, who the intended audience is, the context of the dialogue, all that.

By art, do you mean something coming out of a contemporary arts tradition - something shown in galleries such as SFMOMA, or, oh, let's say Haines Gallery in San Francisco. Let me think of a gallery in New York City - ok - something shown at Leo Castelli, or perhaps some contemporay work seen in the Los Angelos County Museum of Art. Some of these venues, particularly SFMOMA, show electronic art, some of which is more interactive than others. SFMOMA also shows electronic works on their site. The work is still "commercial" in the sense that we sell it, but the audience is different, the intent is different, and how much of it you have to sell is different. We know that Tale of Tales work is electronic, it's interactive, but what is the intent, who is the audience, and what are they trying to do? Is the work, for want of a better word, more in the applied art genre - something we do for other purposes than the work itself? These are questions I ask myself, when someone says that work is or is not art. I don't put the things I see in the San Jose Museum of Art (I love their contemporary but accessible focus) in the same category as the ceramic bowl I see at the craft fair, or the wonderful stuff coming out of Pixar, those wonderful animated movies.

Also, when I say contemporary art - that's a particular category - something that came out of (and I hate to use this word) what you might think of as the "fine arts" tradition - think Picasso, Cezanne, and just keep going. A bunch of this stuff is made by people who went to art school, Yale (painting mostly), University of Illinois at Champaign/Urbana (used to be great for print making), Cal Arts, lots more. I don't put what William Wiley is doing in the exact same category as I put the work of the people at Pixar. This says nothing about their "talent", or their ability to make an emotional connection, or how hard they worked, or how good they are in their use of materials or their imagery. All creations have an intent, and an audience, and all works follow a, for want of a better word, tradition. let me emphasize the "working hard" part. Just because you worked hard at something, or care about it, or have a strong emotional connection to what you did, or you think that what you did is creative - that's not that important.

So, now we get to these people. I looked at their work (still haven't bought any of it) and I looked at their site, and I looked at what they say about themselves, and where they show their work, where they get invited to talk, and how we get to experience their work - do we buy it? I looked at what they are saying on their site - how they identify themselves.

OK - so they identify themselves by name, and they attribute everyone who did something on each piece - that says something. Contemporary art usually has the names of the creators clearly displayed. Next I looked at how they described what they are doing - "elegant and rich interactive entertainment". They do use the word entertainment, which says something. They go on to say they want to appeal to people who want more "variety in their gameplay experiences". ( http://tale-of-tales.com/blog/information/ ). Then I looked at whether you can buy the product - yes, and I saw that you don't buy a "one of a kind" item. Their works are not editioned, such as in printmaking, when you have an edition of "1 of 100", and then you destroy the plate, and can't make more prints. On their website - it looks to me that they are selling computer games, kind of sort of.

But then, I saw that they show their work - like you would do for work in an art gallery. They say it's shown in "new media art/game exhibitions", and provide a link - http://tale-of-tales.com/blog/exhibi...presentations/ . That's straight in the contemporary arts tradition. How they talk about what they are doing also has a contemporary arts feel to it. These people seem to me like they went to art school.

One can argue whether or not this is working, but I think they are trying to be genuine crossover types - people with their proverbial feet in two worlds, a contemporary electronic arts tradition, and the computer game tradition. They are selling computer games, more or less, but bringing some other sensibilities and influences to their work, a different emotional range, influences from electronic art, experimental films, and whatever is classified an "new media" nowadays. I'm not sure if what they are doing works - as in "does it do what it sets out to do", but it's interesting. I think the electronic arts world (contempory art, in the galleries) and the computer game world (holds your interest, pacing and interactivity is top notch) could learn from each other.

I think I'll buy a game or two and see what I think of it.

[Melanie68]

I moved a couple of the posts about Art and Games here. As was said before, you could have opened up a new thread to talk about it. The original thread was about a specific game and I realize that conversations do take turns but that one had totally left any discussion about The Path in dust.

Continue your discussion here and please keep it nice.

[MoriartyL]

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.

See, this is just ignorance. Games aren't, as a whole, "about" anything. Games are the most diverse medium in the history of media, and making sweeping generalizations about all of them is a surefire way to make a fool of yourself.

For instance: "Video games are not art." That's what you said. I agree that not all games are art, but to say that they aren't in general is ridiculous. I've made two computer games, and I defy you to tell me how either of them is not art. (They could be bad art, certainly, but that's a different issue to whether they are art to begin with.) The first was a character, which I've put a good deal of my own personality into. It couldn't possibly work without interactivity the way it does, but anything that can possibly happen in it is part of my original vision for how it was supposed to work. So sure, it's entertaining. But how the heck is that not art? And the second game is an even more clear cut case. It was a way for me to analyze an aspect of the real world in detail- it's a system of rules which I think correspond with how the world really works, where you can play through it and find your own place in it. If that's not art, then I've gotta ask you what is art because at that point I have no idea.

You quoted Kojima, saying something I don't agree with at all: "If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art." Well, The Perfect Color (my second game) can't be appreciated by everyone. That's not snobbery, it's simple fact. Some people will never get the point of it, no matter how many times they play it. And some understand what I'm doing instantly. So even by your standards, my game is art. And here's the thing: I'm not subverting anything to get there. Just like any other strategy game that isn't entirely formulaic, I just kept adding and refining rules until I felt I had captured what I was trying to create. I didn't throw away interactivity- in fact, in order for the message of the game to resonate there has to be interactivity. Plus, even without the message I wanted to convey, the entire system is something which you need to feel out for yourself. So I'm not breaking anything to get to art, I'm just making a strategy game. Which means that strategy games are an art form to begin with! How else could I make art with it without subversion?

So look. I'd take offense at what you're saying, because it invalidates everything I've been doing and most of what I'm planning to do in the future. But I know what I've been doing is art, as surely as I know that my musical compositions are art, so I know that you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Sure, so far all I've done (in both mediums) has been entertaining. I think you'll find that most art is trying to be entertaining. But when I make a game that's not entertaining on a basic level, I hope it'll find audiences willing to see what it is, rather than what they think all games "must" be.

[silent_m]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

See, this is just ignorance. Games aren't, as a whole, "about" anything. Games are the most diverse medium in the history of media, and making sweeping generalizations about all of them is a surefire way to make a fool of yourself.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

So look. I'd take offense at what you're saying, because it invalidates everything I've been doing and most of what I'm planning to do in the future. But I know what I've been doing is art, as surely as I know that my musical compositions are art, so I know that you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Sure, so far all I've done (in both mediums) has been entertaining. I think you'll find that most art is trying to be entertaining. But when I make a game that's not entertaining on a basic level, I hope it'll find audiences willing to see what it is, rather than what they think all games "must" be.

Well, Frog, seems like I'm not the only person on the planet who doesn't agree with your philosophy about games and art. Thanks, Mory.

[silent_m]

Originally Posted by mszv

I think I'll buy a game or two and see what I think of it.

Interesting take on the subject, mszv. You may have taken a rather long route to get there, but you ended up at the point I was trying to make – to give these "artsy" games a chance, to try something different and think about games in new ways, without resorting to calling them "pompous, snobbish, pretentious and boring attempts to make a meaningful interactive story about life, death, sin, redemption and every other theme you may want to read in this incoherent mish-mash".

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by silent_m

[...] without resorting to calling them "pompous, snobbish, pretentious and boring attempts to make a meaningful interactive story about life, death, sin, redemption and every other theme you may want to read in this incoherent mish-mash".

That would be me.

[silent_m]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

That would be me.

lol!

[mszv]

On "The Path" from Tale of Tales, I tried to figure out how they were positioning themselves, what category they put their work in, and who they were trying to appeal to. As I said, they are putting themselves in interactive media. They call what they are doing "games", but they seem to be trying to add some things from other genres. How they position themselves also looks a bit like what you see in contemporary art.

I think what Tale of Tales is trying to do is interesting, but the question is - does it work? That's the question. Did they do what they set out to do? If it's an interesting concept, but the game is boring (and/or pretentious, seems to be something of an occupational hazard for them), then it's not working for you. That's the more relevent question, in my opinion, rather than "is is art".

Games bring something great to the mix. For a game, as opposed to a work of art on a wall, it has to hold your interest longer, more like a movie or a television show. Even with a short game, you interact with it way longer than a piece of art on a wall, and most electronic art (from what little I know) is a lot shorter than a game. One interesting question - can we add other elements to a game and still make it something you (well, someone) wants to play?

Another way to think about this is in terms of movies, and even TV shows. Movies are diverse (granted, more blockbuster action files nowadays), have a wide range of styles, and a wide emotional range. Some movies are more narrative driven than others, though most more or less mainstream movies have a decently strong narrative. TV shows are interesting - some have an overarching narrative, some don't. In some TV shows, the characters develop and change over time, others not so much.

Although movies and TV shows are different from games (you don't get to manipulate the movie the same way you manipulate a game), I think there's a lot to be learned from the movie genre, also the TV genre. I'm interested in point of view, emotional content, making different choices. I'd love to be interested in different kinds of gameplay, if different kinds of gameplay existed - solving puzzles, killing things, firing weapons - pretty much seems to be it. OK - that's not quite right, strategy and simulation games add other things, but you get the idea. Games also, rather rigidly if you ask me, stick to the gameplay of their particular genre. Come up with different kinds of things to do, different stories, increased emotional range, different kinds of interactions within a game, and I'll be happy. I'm happy with the notion of games as popular entertainment, like movies and TV - I'd just like there to be more variety.

--------
MoriartyL - I'll download and play your games.
----------
For a different take on populism - some people in the contemporary arts world don't think Chihuly, the glass guy, makes "art" - they think it's decoration. Heaven forbid a contemporary artist should make something that appeals to a lot of people (yes, I'm being snide). Here's my take on it from my blog - also some pictures.
http://amarez.wordpress.com/2008/09/...the-landscape/

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by mszv

I think what Tale of Tales is trying to do is interesting, but the question is - does it work? That's the question. Did they do what they set out to do? If it's an interesting concept, but the game is boring (and/or pretentious, seems to be something of an occupational hazard for them), then it's not working for you. That's the more relevant question, in my opinion, rather than "is is art".

You perfectly summed up my opinion. For me, The Path didn't work, even if I recognize it a strong, fascinating premise and a wonderful art direction. Other games, like the aformentioned The Dark Eye, for me, just clicked right: I don't care if the developers of TDE were trying to produce art or whatever, since art, at least as long as I'm concerned, is in the perception.

Originally Posted by mszv

MoriartyL - I'll download and play your games.

You won't be disappointed and I'd like to recommend you particularly the second one: wonderful.

[Fantasysci5]

You have games, Andrea? I want to play them!

[Squinky]

Actually, I think he was talking about Mory's games.

As for me, I've written more than my share of games with artistic intent. (And blogged a lot about it in the process.)

[Fien]

The artist says it's art, so it must be art...?

I've played one of squinky's and Moriarty's first , so unlike other people here who think nothing of discussing a game they haven't even played, I do know what I am talking about. And those are not art. For once I agree with bidfrog: art should be held to a higher standard.

PS: Of course, they may be fun. I didn't think they were, but that's just me. First time I watched a cursor being swallowed was in 1996 or something, and at the time it was fun.

[MoriartyL]

Play my second game. I can see how you'd not classify Smilie as art, but like I said The Perfect Color is more obviously art. If you can play that through and say "This is not art.", then I honestly would like to know what you think art is.

And as always, I must emphasize the distinction between "art" and "good art". If something is an artist's way of expressing himself, that's art. If what he's saying isn't interesting or well-said, that doesn't make it not art, it just makes it bad.

[Fantasysci5]

Mory-I'm going to play your games.

[MoriartyL]

I'm sorry I brought up Smilie. That way leads into the whole discussion of whether Mozart is art, and what "personal expression" means, and all sorts of other things which I don't really feel like getting into right now. So for the purposes of this thread I retract my statement that Smilie is art. The Perfect Color is, though.

Anyway, this is getting to be too much about my games and not enough about games in general. (An odd reversal of the reason this thread was created in the first place!) I would like to propose the idea that some types of games are art, and others aren't.

It seems self-evident to me that action games, for instance, are not art.

But it seems just as self-evident that exploration games (like The Path) are!

I say that architecture is an art form. If you don't, then certainly what's keeping it from being classified as such is the practicality of the thing. A lot of a building (in many cases most elements of the building) is there just to hold the thing up. And even if the architect is enough of a genius to get past that, and treat the building as a way to get specific feelings across, the feelings he's going for are always going to be tied to whatever purpose the building serves.

I bring up architecture because the exploration game is so tied to it. It's really the same basic experience of walking through an environment, where you're just experiencing an area that's already there. The difference between the two is, the game has no practicality. The feelings the world designer is putting in there are there exist their own sake, not for some practical concern. So it seems to me that even if you don't consider architecture an art form, games like The Path absolutely are.

Or take story-driven text adventure. And just to keep the question simple, let's say we're referring only to text adventures which don't have puzzles (or at least very few), just because it lets me make this point without jumping through a few extra hoops. If prose is art, then how is the text adventure not? There's extra depth to it because you're experiencing it for yourself, but essentially it's the same kind of work. It's a story. You're not playing it for the thrill of "Wow, I can type in commands!", you're not playing it to challenge yourself (Remember, I'm not referring to puzzle-heavy text adventures.), you're playing it because it's a story. Stories are art, and stories presented as prose are art, and I don't see how interacting with the storyteller changes anything in that regard.

So we ought to be able to say pretty straightforwardly that text adventures without puzzles are art.

But what about puzzles? Are puzzles art? I say no. No one's expressing themselves there, it's just a way to challenge the mind.

And that leads into an interesting point about what you get when you combine art (pure IF) with entertainment (puzzles). Is it necessarily not art? Is it necessarily art because there's art in it? I say it depends on which is dominant, for instance a text adventure with puzzles that serve the story is art and an adventure with a story that serves the puzzles is entertainment. But I've been babbling on for too long already, so I'm going to stop here.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

I've played one of squinky's and Moriarty's first , so unlike other people here who think nothing of discussing a game they haven't even played, I do know what I am talking about. And those are not art. For once I agree with bidfrog: art should be held to a higher standard.

Which game of mine did you play, and why did you think it "wasn't art"? I'd love to hear your feedback, even (and especially) if it's negative. If it's a matter of not meeting a "higher standard", what, in your opinion, would I need to do to achieve such a standard?

[Fantasysci5]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Which game of mine did you play, and why did you think it "wasn't art"? I'd love to hear your feedback, even (and especially) if it's negative. If it's a matter of not meeting a "higher standard", what, in your opinion, would I need to do to achieve such a standard?

I know you weren't asking for my opinion, Squinky, but if I may say;

I loved how your games touched upon ideas no one else has. Like "Pigeons in the Park", I didn't like how there wasn't really any puzzles, but I loved how they philosopied (is that a word?! lol) about why people actually don't talk to strangers in a park, etc. In the "When We Were Kids", I liked how the object of the game could be accomplished in many different ways. My favorite, and last one that I've played of your games, AGTTPOACS, was amazing. I'm pretty sure I sent you a PM, but the graphics were so fresh, the humor about adventure game heroes stealing things was hilarious, the plots and characters were amazing. I love how their was so much to do and see, although it was nicely cut off to what we couldn't do yet, without seeming like a brick wall that shouldn't be there. The idea of 4 TOTALLY different ending was awesome, although I've only played through one. I think there was a lot of objects to pick up for no reason, though, unless they work with other endings, I didn't like quite too much. But all in all, I like your games.

[Fien]

@squinky

You have not contributed anything to this thread, you have not expressed any opinion about the relation between art and games. All you've done is your own games, just like Moriarty did. You do that a lot.

I have made it very clear (here and in The Path thread) how I feel about the relation between art and games. You haven't read my posts, or you would know I consider only one or two games art -- out of the hundreds I've played. I suggest that in future you do read my posts before asking questions.

PS: You didn't ask why I considered your games "not fun". Interesting... entertainment not as important to you as art?

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

You have not contributed anything to this thread, you have not expressed any opinion about the relation between art and games. All you've done is your own games, just like Moriarty did. You do that a lot.

I'm sorry. I thought I was illustrating my opinion on games as art by example. However, since that point seemed to fly right over your head, I'll say that I believe all games are art. If there is an artist, and there is artistic intent, even if the intent is merely to entertain, then it's art to me. Simple as that. I won't always like it, but that doesn't mean I'll refuse to call it art.

Originally Posted by Fienepien

I have made it very clear (here and in The Path thread) how I feel about the relation between art and games. You haven't read my posts, or you would know I consider only one or two games art -- out of the hundreds I've played. I suggest that in future you do read my posts before asking questions.

Well, I only skimmed through the thread for The Path, seeing as I haven't played it yet, and you have only one post in this thread, which contains plenty of snark but no real opinions, so I apologise if I've irritated you by asking questions.

Originally Posted by Fienepien

PS: You didn't ask why I considered your games "not fun". Interesting... entertainment not as important to you as art?

Well, that's because you never said my games weren't fun. You simply said that one of my games (and perhaps by extension, all of them... I don't know) wasn't art. However, if you'd like to share why they weren't fun, (if that is, in fact, what you were saying) by all means, feel free.