Gravitation
Posted by Derek Yu Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:10:00 GMT
Jason Rohrer, the creator of the moving and bittersweet Passage, has released a new game, called Gravitation. The basic theme behind Gravitation is “mania, melancholia, and the creative process.” To say any more, of course, could potentially ruin the experience, but I can recommend it highly.
(Thanks, Phil Fish!)
Crackheaded experience.
If this kind of crap is the best we can come up with for the “games is art” argument, Ebert was right. This is like pointing to a blank canvas and saying that it is a cow eating grass (you know how the joke goes). You can sell a blank canvas as anything you want, but it’s still a blank canvas (regardless of what people think they see in the white). If you see melancholia in this game, you need to start taking your Celexa again. This and Passage are the two greatest hoaxes gaming has ever seen.
If watchmaking is art, games are art. There. Won the argument. Now let’s stop looking for meaning on blank canvases.
To hell with games as art, I want games as games.
Why so much hate Squidi? Can you not handle people are trying to evoke feeling and understanding through game play? Like the blank canvas in your argument, your post lacks any sort of substance, you never once said why these games cannot qualify as art. Are you perhaps, trying to make yourself feel cool by hating on what is popular in the community?
I really enjoyed this. I wouldn’t play it again, but I am glad I did. If you have a heart and some imagination, then Rohrer’s games will touch you.
At the risk of feeding a troll I feel the need to respond. Whether or not you want to call them art (which I don’t think is really a productive argument to have), this and Passage are games that evoke genuine emotional responses in people. I’ve shown Passage to a number of folks, gamers and non-gamers alike, and in almost every case they’ve both managed to pick up on the game’s primary metaphor, and voiced an emotional response to the game.
While it wasn’t melancholy, this game evoked an emotional response in me as well. I think that’s amazing, and I’m glad I played both. They’re games that are beautiful in their simplicity, but they’re certainly nothing akin to a blank canvas.
While I won’t be so aggressive as Squidi, I must say I don’t see these kinds of games as anything to further games as a more attractive and accepted medium. But it’s mostly because I can’t enjoy them. :)
Even if you don’t like the games, I think you at least have to respect that this guy is out there trying something new and trying to express some new things through gaming. Give the guy a bit of a break.
Even if you don’t enjoy the games, at least they’re a step in a different direction! That’s my opinion, at least.
Squidi, I think you realize your arguments are a bit weak (even if the basic point is valid). If we’re talking about watchmaking, Jason’s games are more like specialized watches where every movement of the hands is meant to evoke some meaning beyond telling time. Of course, you may just see a watch (possibly a really pretentious watch, at that). That would be totally understandable. But a lot of people can see meaning in them, whether it’s what Jason intended or not. And that can’t really be ignored.
Also, just out of curiosity, what would you say are works in movies, literature, painting, music, etc. which you feel succeeded where this game fails? Just to get a sense of where your opinions of art are coming from.
What I’m about to say will seem like I am negatively criticizing Gravitation, but wait for the end to see my real point.
I’m impressed with the ideas at work here, because it is clear that emotional response is the author’s intent. That is not the primary definition of art, though the word does have a lot of claimed and defended possible meanings.
Visually, some games are more clearly art than this or than Passage. Visual (or for that matter, audible) art is not what makes a game art though, because visual art and music exist separate from gaming and that which is in a game may be separated from it. The interaction, experiences, and mechanic then are, as best as I can see, the primary points of interest in games as art. That being the case, I have had stronger emotional responses, been more involved, had more memorable experiences, and viewed more elaborate/elegant mechanics in a few commercial games. That does not make the game any less art, though it starts to push in the direction of it not being the best art in the realm of gaming, of it not being exemplary.
Gravitation is exemplary of games as art though, but for new reasons. It is not deeply interested in the player as one to be entertained and gratified, but it is interested in the player as an audience. That’s uncommon and usually results in “games” that are only interesting as ideas to rabid (usually indie) gamers or to creators - artists. Gravitation and Passage still have a certain unapproachability for outsiders (mostly because of the current aversion to the oddity of limited pixels), but they can be appropriately experienced by outsiders when given the chance.
These two games are also notable as art in that they are attempting to break new ground, to do new things. Experimentation and creation are necessary to the development of art, and seem to be scarce in the realm of videogames.
Oh, for an example of the mechanism as art, I would advocate Dwarf Fortress.
Ok, i’m just gonna throw my thought out there for the hell of it. Passage was to me not a game. The point with games are that they’re supposed to have some point of interactivity, right? That’s why they’re called games and the reason we’re playing them. When i played Passage i was contemplating putting down my waterglass on the right key and let it do the “playing” for me. It actually did evoke a few thoughts from me though, which was nice, but i never saw myself as playing the game. I know, it had a few choices in there: pick up the chick, go solo.
To me games are very much an artform, i’ll go down in a beautiful mess of blood and gore before i claim otherwise. I don’t have to play them for enjoyment as long as they evoke some other kind of emotion(s). But i really do want to play, not just watch a few bouncing balls collide with each other cough the marriage cough.
With that said, I enjoyed Gravitation a lot more than Passage. Both as a game and as art. At one point I thought about Gravitation “Hey, I’m way too focused on my own goals here (going up), maybe he failed to make this an artgame by making it interactive and hinting on goals.” But then i thought, maybe that’s the point. We all know how the creative process can be like, sometimes you just want to reach a goal. Blah, blah. Enough brainfarting.
What the hell is a game? Just because it looks like one, does it make it one? looking at the marriage again
Obviously Squidi missed the whole point, of course he knows what art is… and when did monetary compensation come into the picture? sell that blank canvas. if you got nothing out of Gravitation I feel sorry for your family.
what’s art anyway.. anything can be art, not everything has an artistic value but that doesn’t mean it’s not art.
corporate logos are art, dog turd sprinkled with chocolate chips is art.
the best analysis of Gravitation I read is from a kotaku commentator named T6spades
“How your view of the world seems to widen and the winter cold melts to spring. But only when you show your child friendship and compassion. It’s that “warmth” that lights your world and warms your heart, the feeling that you can jump and touch the very sky itself.
But when you become to absorbed in your own personal goals you lose that warmth. You feel that you can jump so high that there is no point in coming back down. In the end you forget what you left behind. So self-absorbed in hoarding, you only come back down to revitalize that feeling, only to leave immediately after, off to pursue your selfish goals. The child is no longer a child, he is but a tool for your use.
That selfishness reveals how cold you are. You create a wall of ice that slowly alienates your child from you. If you continue to ignore your child the wall eventually becomes impenetrable. The child can no longer be seen and you can no longer feel warmth, nor ever replicate the feeling again. You won’t be able to jump as high as you used to, or to see as far as you could. All your left with is the cold ice and the winter darkness as the fire slowly ebbs and fades.”
I was too greedy and blocked myself in with lots of ice cubes. :(
Limited interaction is still interaction. Where the limits are set is something that is up to the author, who is crafting the experience.
When my dude’s hair caught on fire, it reminded me of Michael Jackson filming that Pepsi commercial. Suddenly that game of ball with the little girl took on a whole different meaning and the game elicited an emotional response; though probably not the one the author intended.
“Passage was to me not a game. The point with games are that they’re supposed to have some point of interactivity, right? That’s why they’re called games and the reason we’re playing them.”
We only have one noun in wide use, unfortunately, but actually the word we call something doesn’t determine what it has to be. This is a semantic issue.
Alec, What if Passage was a screensaver and chosing to go with or without the girl could be checked in an option box. Is this enough to be interaction and make it a game? I’m not asking to prove a point, just want to know what people are thinking about what makes a game.
Gustav, I miss your warmth.
gustav … did you notice the treasure-collection side-objective of Passage? The interaction is deeper than just a check box.
Regardless I would even call Progress Quest a game in a sense; I don’t see any point in insisting on a strictness of definition there. Is the label important to you? Why?
what if your girlfriend plays mind games with you.
Two words: “Sewer Shark” ^__^
The main problem I have with Passage/Gravitation is that the game aspect always feels tacked on and that… just bugs me :/
Yeah, I’ve seen paintings made entirely of mud splotches with vague names underneath them, but it feels like a waste to use a canvas and tools just for that. That’s what these games are, underdeveloped, pretentious games which may or may not have a soul underneath it all. Unique does not mean great.
What I’m failing to say here is, crippling and deforming the game aspect from a game isn’t a benefit. IMO the strength of video games is that you can make an engaging game that ends up fueling the player’s emotions. The author has one part down, I just wish he’d try to utilize the medium to the fullest.
Zaphos, It isn’t really. I just expect certain things from something called “a game”. Part of that being interaction. I played through the passage twice and didn’t notice any treasures. Don’t get me wrong, though. I’m very excited about seeing the medium branching out and growing, in any direction.
Like i said, i want to know what people think makes a game: down to its simplest form. What Lackey said gave me an answer I’m very content with ;p
konjak, i’ll be around when things are less threatening. Send me noitu2 and love, ok?
mots, she does all the time but i never get it. Go figure :D
Obviously, this is art, because all gaming is art. This is just not GOOD art. What people are reading into it isn’t actually there. If you played this game without knowing it was by the Passage guy or have a little sentence “To say any more, of course, could potentially ruin the experience” - you wouldn’t know to look for anything unless someone told you to. And when you look for something, you’ll find it, whether it actually exists or not. All this hoity toity talk about the deeper meaning of Gravitation is just a bunch of people trying to GUESS what the author intended. It’s not there. You just know that something is supposed to be and that’s enough.
The reason I hate things like this and Passage is because it gets the lion’s share of the discussion without actually exemplifying the very things which do make games art. These are TERRIBLE games, barely interactive, few interlocking pieces. They are glorified Tiger Electronics LCD games.
The beauty of gaming comes from the creativity that a new form of media gives us. Before the creation of computers, we had no way to even remotely approach the kinds of simulations and interactions that games give us. It is totally new, and through it, we are literally inventing new ways to think and interpret the world.
Dwarf Fortress is art. Super Mario Bros is art. DOOM is art. Flight Simulator is art. Tetris is art. Our brains have long been trapped inside our human shells and now we learn that our brains can see in third person, in few and many dimensions, as god, as creatures and mechanical vehicles completely inhuman, and general takes our brain away from our body long enough for it to explore the very nature of identity and self. Games are one of the few things in existence where you can successfully become smarter or dumber. The beauty in games is how it affects you intellectually, not emotionally.
Emotion is emotive. It’s passive. You can watch someone else get hit by a stick and feel their pain. Intellect is interactive. You can’t watch someone else solve a math problem and feel anything - unless you make it your own problem by trying to solve it in your head too. Something can only affect you intellectually through interaction. Games are interactive. Games have a unique manner by which they can affect you. Why praise games on the similarities to other media when they do something so unique and wonderful?
Passage and Gravitation are small fry. They have lame (optional) subtext and they don’t really work very well as games. How can you have the primary example of “games is art” being a crappy game that nobody would bother playing more than once? If anything, a game is something where the experience is tailored to the player. How many people have had DIFFERENT experiences playing Passage or Gravitation than their neighbor. It’s silly. These games fail on many levels, but their greatest sin is that they are simply bad games.
I’m sorry, but this is something I’m passionate about. I believe games deserve respect for the things they alone can do, and anytime somebody brings up something like Passage - hardly a game by any definition - it’s like people suddenly forget that the best games that are the best art are simply going to be the best games, period.
“What people are reading into it isn’t actually there. If you played this game without knowing it was by the Passage guy or have a little sentence “To say any more, of course, could potentially ruin the experience” - you wouldn’t know to look for anything unless someone told you to. And when you look for something, you’ll find it, whether it actually exists or not. All this hoity toity talk about the deeper meaning of Gravitation is just a bunch of people trying to GUESS what the author intended. It’s not there. You just know that something is supposed to be and that’s enough.”
Have you ever taken an english class? This is exactly what you do with books. You read the book, then you look for meaning in it, whether there is meaning or not.
Art is given meaning only when people look for meaning. The art itself serves only as a guide in finding a theme.
This game teaches life balance by forcing the player character to alternate between work and family life. The thing is, the game mechanics are created by a game designer, and may or may not reflect the actual state of the real world. When I play this game, I don’t feel that I’m learning about life as much as I feel that I’m learning the rules of an imaginary game world.
Teaching with mechanics is a weak way to convince someone of something, because a game designer could easily create a dishonest design that doesn’t accurately reflect the real world. When all the author uses are mechanics to argue a point, the player has no means to disagree.
I think if this method is to be successful, it needs to rely on well-developed characters and realistic situations instead of metaphors.
I think it’s fantastic that someone is doing this, though. We need to be having these types of discussions.
Flight Simulator is not art. It is artifice. It’s right there in the name: Flight Simulator. It is not Flight Interpretation or Flight *Abstract Rendering”.
Of course, you can have an emotional response to a simulation, but a simulator is not going to attempt to make you feel sorrow or loss or regret.
At the very moment that the child in Gravitation and the Wife in Passage left, I felt a true shock of loss. It was a far more effective emotional response than any sympathetic character in a movie because of the interactive nature of the game. I had become far more emotionally invested in the game character than some dumb drone up on a movie screen.
So, just as a film or book or song can have any number of possible goals, why should a game be denegrated for having a goal beyond a pure visceral high?
I would love to see an expansion on the ideas in both Passage and and Gravitation by way of increasing the number of choices in a similar game. Then it would become more clearly a “game,” maybe a little bit like an adventure game (of the Lucas Arts, Sierra, or text adventure sort), but without words. With a large number of choices and with good story and emotional direction, such a game would be very attractive.
I think you try too hard to fit these games into what you believe a game should be based on all the others you have played. Sure the game play itself is simple, point collection just movement and jumping, but that is part of the design, you don’t get hung up on the mechanics if its only jumping and points.
Every experience in life triggers emotion. The problem being the majority of video games work on 1 or two emotions, excitement, usually, and joy, if you are lucky. Passage and Gravitation tend to evoke emotions that haven’t been dealt with before. I felt sorrow when the little child was gone, I knew that my actions contributed to its demise and I felt bad. Arguing that games should be emotionally void is a poor argument and bad for games.
No one expects these to revolutionize gameplay only how people look at games.
I thought Passage was much more successful in getting it’s point across than Gravitation. I didn’t feel as connected to Gravitation as I did Passage.
Gravitation’s interactivity just seems arbitrary. Pushing ice cubes into a fireplace was just too out of place, and it took me out of the game.
As did the head-on-fire image. It made no logical (or emotional) sense until after I played the game and read the statement. The symbolism is just too personal and specific to the author to have any real impact on the general public.
Passage worked well because it was a very simple message that actually fit with the very simple interactivity. Gravitation just seemed a disjointed effort by comparison.
Yeah, but part of the fun of these games comes from knowing that the author has a certain intent, and then figuring out (or not figuring out) what he’s trying to convey to you. The expectations the developer sets up with each game is a big part of the enjoyment.
I dunno, have you ever seen the Cremaster movies? I tried watching one and couldn’t get through even half an hour of it. I felt it was a pretentious jumble of random and uncomfortable imagery that was barely tied together.
You probably feel similarly about Jason’s games, but for me they succeed in a way that Cremaster doesn’t. Mostly because I actually get to diddle around with the symbols in the game, rather than just sit and let them play out in front of me. I think games are much more suited for these types of things.
And yeah, look at the discussion it’s drummed up! Mostly because of people who hate the game, rather than people who like it…
Yeah, it is fun to figure out what the author wants you to take from it. My roommate, who wasn’t looking for any meaning in the game, watched me play though it, and his only comment was “this looks like a shitty game.” I was expecting a message, so I thought it was pretty interesting.
I hope that Jason keeps making these.
I’ve seen Cremaster 3 (whatever one has the guy trying to get to the top of the Guggenheim to meet the goat legged topless girl). Totally retarded, to put it mildly.
Subtext is an underline. It’s something which supports, emboldens, and enriches an experience through a deeper understanding of the connections between the different elements. In this case, the subtext is being used as a replacement for gameplay. Yeah, it deepens the experience, but only so far as to take bone dry and make it slightly damp.
Sorrow is easy. The reason why melodrama exists is because sorry is easy. It’s a very predictable mechanical response. The fact that such a simplistic experience can elicit such a response from people says less about the artistic value of games than it does for the simplicity of the human emotive experience. You felt sorrow because a little four pixel girl disappeared for no reason? Ask people about a little robot named Floyd sometime. Why aren’t we talking about Planetfall? There’s some god damned art! Or Planescape: Torment. There was some subtext applied within the context of actual character, plot, and interactivity. Know that quest where you have to solve a murder, only you never really have any conclusive evidence and the game never really tells you whether you picked correctly or not? There’s your subtext with the emotional response, but it’s a complicated emotional response that operates on many conflicting levels.
I just… why can’t we have these conversations about GOOD games? You want to talk about sorrow. Let’s talk about a game that so affected its audience that many of them spent YEARS looking for cheat codes to bring the pink dressed girl back from the dead! Want to talk emotional responses? Let’s talk about a game so sick and twisted that it makes some people physically ill to hop into the shoes of a brutal murderer! Want subtext? Let’s talk about a game where the main character may have been wandering around town killing innocent townspeople thinking they were demons that represented repressed sexuality and rape!
There are better games out there to be having this discussion about - but nobody is having it because these games had the balls to be games first. They aren’t short. They aren’t simple. And they don’t say “ooh ooh, I’m deep” when you first load them up. You’ve got to work to see these things, and it’s that work which makes them all the more valuable. But most importantly, they are good effin’ games - something these mini-games seemed to have forgot.
As for Flight Simulator, oh I assure you that it’s art. Simulations are perhaps the greatest art computers are capable of. The watchmaker’s art.
Squidi:
Your bit about intellect and activity was pretty interesting to me. I’m not sure if it’s true – in particular because I don’t think you can really separate the emotions and the intellect and call one passive and the other active, even if there’s a grain of truth in it, they aren’t that distinct and thinking deeply requires feeling deeply, and vice versa, or in other words they can work together as a whole. But it’s a pretty interesting idea.
It is true that games tend to be much more intellectually stimulating than emotionally stimulating, even if games can do both. On the other hand classical art like novels and movies and music tend to be more emotionally stimulating than intellectually stimulating, even though those can do both as well (there are some pretty intellectually stimulating novels out there too). But I think that it’s interesting to see that some people value one over the other – not explicitly, but implicitly, for instance in the way they describe what types of art they enjoy and how they enjoy them (“made me think” vs “made me feel”).
But as I said, I think both are important. Too much stimulation of emotion without stimulation intellect and you have melodrama, too much stimulation of intellect without stimulation of emotion and you have, I don’t know, Umberto Eco maybe.
If this is indeed the real squidi, I am not surprised by his answer, maybe Gravitation needs a Negative space… hey at least the guy had a good idea and made a game with it..
Passage and gravitation are closer to real life than any other game I’ve played, scores mean nothing, you can’t win, you just play and stop when it’s over.. it’s a lo-fi portrayal of life. look back at your experience with passage, be honest with the reactions you had while playing it.. I remember seeing a chest while walking with my partner and cursing because i couldn’t reach it as she was blocking my way.
I didn’t think much of it at the time but after reading the creator’s statement it got me thinking.. I can’t say any other game I’ve played lately got me thinking about my person.
Gravitation probably had a bigger impact because i knew what to expect from it.. flying up and catching stars only to come back down to recharge.. using the child, his reaction of love when playing with him didn’t move me, I was after the stars.. coming back down to the lone ball after my run got me thinking.
while squidi has a few valid points about interaction he completely misses the point of emotions.. feeling a certain way should make you think about it, seeing emotions as something overbearing and dismissing them will lead to a deficit. Emotional intelligence is as important as IQ, not to insult squidi but my impression of him is of a narcissistic individual.
well as far as I’m concerned, it was simple, although I got felt an emotional response to the visual and aural art, I also felt something because of the interaction itself.
therefore, imo the interaction was art.
I’ve played Passage countless times through, just to get that sad emotion that no other game has really given me before. I think the arguments on this page are a little pointless. I played it, I loved it, I think it accomplished something that no commercial game to my knowledge had managed before it.
If someone else played it and didn’t get it, then fair enough. I hate Halo like the plague, but I won’t call it a bad game. If any game can attract such a strong and passionate fan base, then it must be doing something right. If Passage makes a load of people feel a sadness and closeness that they haven’t felt before in games, then the game should be commended for doing so, despite whether you personally got it or not.
As for the art debate, I don’t think games are art, or at least not yet. I don’t want to go into details on why, but I just don’t see games as an art form. Nor do I care about ‘interactivity’ or whether it’s ‘intellectual’. If I enjoy something, then well done to whoever made it. If people aren’t fans of Passage, then step around it and move on. It’s ridiculous and completely unfair to claim that those who do enjoy it are wrong. If the game didn’t work on any level, then why would it be attracting so many passionate fans and sparking so much conversation?
Passage isn’t going in a new direction. Not only that, it also fails in the direction it chose. Both ICO and Passage incorporate the companion idea. Ico creates an emotional connection between the player character and his companion through it’s game mechanics. Passage creates NO such connection. If you feel something while playing the Passage, it’s because you’re transferring your own emotions for situations you are aware of in your own life, rather than in the game world. The game fails to illicit emotion based on it’s game mechanics, and thus fails as game-art. As for Gravitation, I found no game mechanics pertaining to “mania”, “melancholia”, and the “creative process”. The game only makes sense as such AFTER you are told about this, but then you are just making the arbitrary connections the designer directs you to make, rather than thinking for yourself.
It kind of seems to me that the only reason Gravitation and Passage are considered art is because they’re filled with metaphors and symbolism and that stuff. Take that away and you’re left with two pretty bland games. Is making the player think enough to call a game art (and good)?
I don’t know. I don’t think I ‘get’ these games.
BigBossSNK said:
Ico creates an emotional connection between the player character and his companion through it’s game mechanics. Passage creates NO such connection. If you feel something while playing the Passage, it’s because you’re transferring your own emotions for situations you are aware of in your own life, rather than in the game world.
I think you’re being a little prejudicial here. The emotional attachment you feel for the characters in ICO is the same sort of attachment you could potentially feel for the characters in Passage. A person could play through ICO with the same sort of clinical detachment you played through Passage and make the reverse argument just as easily. In fact, when playing ICO I was glad of the times when I got to explore alone because the girl was often times in the way or acting stupid. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a beautiful game and one of my favorites, but saying that an emotional attachment is formed just because you have to drag the chick around is as silly as expecting someone to be moved by Passage. Either you are, or you aren’t. You make your own connection with either game.
What the hell is wrong with you people? I think you are just jealous. :-/
“You make your own connection with either game.” Not really. Passage relies on emotional transference (the gamer superimposing his own reality onto the game’s premise). The thing is, every game can do this. This is more to do with the gamer and his mentality while playing the game than the game itself. Ico on the other hand doesn’t rely on emotional transference. The gamer doeasn’t need to feel any connection to the characters themselves. Instead, Ico creates the belieavable illusion that it’s game characters are emotionally connected. The player character’s life is intertwined with his companion’s, he needs her to proceed and vice verca. Ico relies on game mechanics to employ the “caregiver” emotional circuitry. But ultimately, games aren’t art just because they make you feel something, or because they create a world believable in it’s emotional interactions. It’s the message behind the medium that’s the deciding factor. The Passage follows two themes. Life as an action - reward cycle with diminishing capabilities, and the possible existence of a companion, which does no more than block your way. It succeeds in the first, even if it only examines it superficially, but the latter statement is just naive.
” Instead, Ico creates the belieavable illusion that it’s game characters are emotionally connected. The player character’s life is intertwined with his companion’s, he needs her to proceed and vice verca.”
In defense of gravitation, it also does this to some extent: in order to jump higher you need the little boy (yes, it’s a boy with long blond hair, I thought it was a girl at first too), so there is a game mechanic tie between the two companions. This tie was less important in Passage (although not totally absent because the girl did double your score, but she also made walking and navigating the maze more difficult, which may lead some to resent her for that handicap rather than feel a connection with her).
What I don’t like about his games isn’t what any of you guys are talking about though. What I don’t like about his games is that it’s a pessimistic idea that romantic partners or family domestic life handicap one’s ambition and that there’s a choice involved between the two. I mean, sure, the both take time, but why can’t you do both? Why can’t you excel both at collecting treasure and being a husband, or both at collecting stars and playing with your son? You can do both, and it’s weird to have two games basically saying you can’t, although I give them props for saying that no matter what you choose it won’t really matter at the end, which is true.
“Not really.”
Yes… really. Otherwise you and I would have the same reaction to both games. If an emotional reaction is desired, then the player needs to supply it. The game mechanic of “protect the girl” in ICO is just as artificial and arbitrary as “walk with the girl/watch her die” in Passage. ICO is just a lot more detailed in the level of interactivity. The creator’s intent in both is for you to have an emotional response, but there is no guarantee. Like I said before, either you’re moved by it, or you aren’t.
If Passage didn’t effect you personally, that doesn’t mean it’s a failure as a game. Look at all the responses where people claim it did have an effect on them. Do you think they’re lying for some reason?
Do you think that everyone feels the same way when they look at Monet’s Water Lilies? No. The emotional response is up to the viewer to supply. You make your own connection with the art.
That sounds fun! It is like going back to the old school version!
“Lester said about 17 hours later:
That sounds fun! It is like going back to the old school version!”
Oh goody, another zombie post.
“His games have a pessimistic idea that romantic partners or family handicap one’s ambition and that there’s a choice involved between the two” True. In real life, more people in your social circle means expanded opportunities common among you. A game about life should at least partially reflect this.
“You make your own connection with the art.” No. You CAN make your own connection with the art. But that doesn’t mean all art is arbitrary in regards to it’s emotional response. There are specific emotional circuitry in the brain, and so long as an art piece employs those, it creates an emotional response.
“Do you think people who were affected by Passage are lying?” No. They ‘re true about their emotions. But the game didn’t provoke these emotions through gameplay (art-game). They are transferring their emotional experience onto the game world.
i agree, ICO is a game, ICO is also art, passage is not a game, wether passage is art?, probably. but in the end, i want to play a game, otherwise, i would look for art in other genre’s like, books, movies, paintings, screensavers (passage) etc.
25 years ago these games would be like every other game out there.. simplicity is not a flaw
That transfer isn’t just happening randomly, it’s happening because the author deliberately underlines universal experiences with the mechanics of the game.
How are the rules of the game not expressing the author’s specific points? I mean even though it is absolutely basic like “you inevitably get older and die”, “there are things you can’t do / places you can’t go with a partner”, and “life is richer with a partner.” These rules are obvious and certainly don’t rely on reading the artist’s statement to understand. How could these be more directly stated through game mechanics?
Maybe Squidi doesn’t understand the game because he’s never actually been through the creative process.
BigBossSNK said: But that doesn’t mean all art is arbitrary in regards to it’s emotional response. There are specific emotional circuitry in the brain, and so long as an art piece employs those, it creates an emotional response.
You’re talking about symbolism here, in which case, yes it is arbitrary. There is no “magic art” that effects everyone in exactly the same way. You seem to be trying to insist that there is. The “specific emotional curcuitry” you’re talking about is just that… specific. To the individual.
Whether or not symbolism in art is effective in generating the desired response in the viewer depends largely upon the social upbringing of the viewer, their mood at the time of viewing, prejudices, forehand knowledge, etc. On top of that, symbolism in one culture is not going to be as effective to people of other cultures. Even symbolism between classes in the same culture can differ.
Can an artist try to aim for a specific emotional response in his target audience? Sure. But to say that the individual viewers aren’t responsible for their own emotional involvement is just naive.
BigBossSNK said: But the game didn’t provoke these emotions through gameplay (art-game). They are transferring their emotional experience onto the game world.
I can think of one very specific game mechanic that elicited an emotional response from me, and that is the inability to pick up certain chests if you have a partner. The first response was frustration, which led to resentment of taking the girl instead of leaving her behind, which led to guilt both at wishing she were gone, and for getting so sucked into a silly little game.
But the game didn’t force me to feel that way. It doesn’t have the capability of directly controlling my emotional state. The game is not me, so my response was my own. I as a viewer supplied that response to the experience.
“Maybe Squidi doesn’t understand the game because he’s never actually been through the creative process.”
My life is a lie!!!
there is no life
Halo 3 is way better than this game. Master Chief rocks!
“there are places you can’t go with a partner”, “life is richer with a partner”. These messages are correct, but only under a limited scope. Partners don’t just limit you from obtaining some goals, they can also expand your goal set. Life isn’t richer with a partner unless you put in the necessary effort. The message’s scope is too limited.
“But to say that the individual viewers aren’t responsible for their own emotional involvement is just naive.” Emotions arise from biological programming, or social programming. An art piece can use either of these agents to elicit a response.
And as I can see you are uninformed, here is a piece about certain emotions being biologically programmed in humans. http:// www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080227121840.htm
“I as a viewer supplied that response to the experience.” True, but there are ways a game can manipulate your state of mind, so long as you are compliant to it’s rules. See http:// www.stephanebura.com/emotion/ for a more in depth analysis.
BigBossSNK said: Emotions arise from biological programming, or social programming. An art piece can use either of these agents to elicit a response.
YES OF COURSE IT CAN. But just because it CAN doesn’t mean that it WILL. It depends on the viewer.
The word “elicit” doesn’t mean “force.” It means “draw forth.” You can’t draw water from an empty well, just as you can’t draw emotion from an incapable or unwilling participant.
Just because I intend for you to respond in a certain way doesn’t guarantee you will no matter how good I am at manipulating biological and social programming. You have to be familiar with the same symbolism that I use. You have to interpret it. You have your own unique database of what the symbolism means to you. Therefore YOU fill in the emotional blanks in any work of art.
BigBossSNK said: And as I can see you are uninformed, here is a piece about certain emotions being biologically programmed in humans.
Go screw yourself. Not only are you just being condescending but your example has no relevance to this discussion. You’re just pulling shit out of your ass.
Yes it is a limited scope, if that is what you were trying to argue you should have said so from the start! Whether it is TOO limited is where we seem to disagree, heh.
I think “emotional engineering” is a somewhat ignoble pursuit anyway. What is the reasoning behind “I want you to feel sad” as a goal?
I don’t think either this or Passage are very deep but they are appreciable on a philosophy=mechanics level and that’s something.
I also don’t see them being held up as the absolute paragon of this Games as Art silliness except in the occasional bit of hyperbole… cough http://grandtextauto.org/2008/02/24/pvp-portal-versus-passage/ cough …and besides, we should concern ourselves with looking at things for their own merits and not their relative popularity.
Will anyone read all the way down to here? I liked this (better than Passage), played it several times. I found the game mechanics more interesting. I also found the audio/visual changes effective in eliciting emotion. The point where the child left (as a part of the overall arc) was really great. What I didn’t like about this game (and about Passage) was the allegorical feel of it. It was highly symbolic and metaphorical, and that keeps some distance between me and the game. Overall, I’m glad I got to play this; it’s a relatively new idea in games. More literal content would make me happier, but I don’t know how you would do that :)
““there are places you can’t go with a partner”, “life is richer with a partner”. These messages are correct, but only under a limited scope. Partners don’t just limit you from obtaining some goals, they can also expand your goal set. Life isn’t richer with a partner unless you put in the necessary effort. The message’s scope is too limited.”
So, you’ve moved from ‘this game isn’t art’ to ‘okay, maybe this game is art, but the message is WRONG anyway’. It seems like you just dislike the thing and are taking any angle you can find in order to declare it ‘not worthy’. Furthermore, I’d highlight that all emotions elicited by things other than real life are ‘artificial’, given they exploit the capacity for emotion we have in order to interact in real life; the presupposition that you alone can know what ‘really’ elicits emotion and what isn’t working hard enough is naive.
Squidi: sorry, one of your replies got stuck in the spam filter (#34) and I just retrieved it.
“YES OF COURSE IT CAN. But just because it CAN doesn’t mean that it WILL. It depends on the viewer.” You ‘re taking a point I didn’t make and trying to disqualify it. Hopefully, it’s fun for ya.
“Go screw yourself. Not only are you just being condescending but your example has no relevance to this discussion. You’re just pulling shit out of your ass.” Your brain is hardwired to respond to certain stimuli in a certain way. Games can use that to predict possible reaction from the audience. Still don’t get the relevance? I’ll bring out the visual aids if you ask nicely.
“So, you’ve moved from ‘this game isn’t art’ to ‘okay, maybe this game is art, but the message is WRONG anyway’” As I said before, a game is judged as art or not based on it’s message. Art ultimately elucidates, it doesn’t obfuscate. If the message is incorrect or near sighted, the game loses it’s art edge. You getting this?
“Furthermore, I’d highlight that all emotions elicited by things other than real life are ‘artificial’, given they exploit the capacity for emotion we have in order to interact in real life;” Sure, but that’s your own arbitrary distinction, with which no neuroscientist will agree. The same brain circuitry operates whether talking to someone you know, reading a letter from a lover or watching a movie.
“the presupposition that, by working hard enough, you alone can know what ‘really’ elicits emotion and what doesn’t, is naive.” There is no formula to make a deterministic prediction for eliciting emotion, if that’s what you mean. But the distinction I’m making between Ico and Passage is that the first creates a world of believable emotional interactions, which is close to “everyone“‘s emotional circuitry, whereas the latter is more of a conduit for emotions for people who are so inclined whenever presented with specifics symbolisms (no game required).
I hate to play devil’s advocate here, but I have to agree with Squidi. I just found this game pretentious and deliberately obtuse. If games are art (and I think they are), then this is the equivelant of a crappy modern art painting.
I normally avoid jumping into these discussions. But I just have to clear something up once and for all.
In Passage, you can
WALK UP AND DOWN TOO
Really, 99% of the people who claim Passage is not a game (calling it a screen saver, or whatever) think you can only walk right. If you think it’s not a game, play it again, and try pushing the DOWN ARROW.
There’s a score, and you make choices that affect your score. Thus, it is a game.
If Jason makes a third game like this, I’ll be disappointed that he’s getting stuck in a rut doing the same thing. Passage was fine as an experiment, where you have a short game with a highly abstract but clear theme as the main point of the game, rather than an afterthought (like the “story” that is tacked on to the gameplay of most games out there). I appreciate Passage as an attempt to present games in a new way.
Gravitation, though, was mostly a disappointment for me. It was the same as Passage: take a theme and present it in an abstract game. It was still emotionally affecting, but I can’t appreciate it as an experiment. And, the problem with the abstract and generic representation is that it makes the games obvious and overly simplistic.
Jason seems to be caught up on the idea that generic equals universal. It does not! Make something more specific, the more universal, and more complex, it becomes.
This whole conversation above pisses me off too much to comment on it. But because of that I feel like I have to state the obvious…
This game is incredible. It’s moving, powerful and a huge step for games, or rather… interactive art.
Passage was interesting and moving as well, but lacked the amount of interactivity to personalize the experience. I think Gravitation exposes an incredibly widespread problem of the human condition and does so with simple interaction.
This piece comments on life with actions, actions that you dictate, making the experience incredibly personal. It makes me want to quit everything, work a shit job and makes my own games like this. But then who would I play catch with?
This just gives more weight to the notion that an interactive experience of extreme simplicity and more or less archaic artistic representation can affect people much much more than many other forms of art TODAY. This is very important, because as a society, we humans are fickle, and to touch humans, they need to experience new things, such as the immaculate sculpture of the renaissance and baroque did. Other forms of art and expression are tired and lifeless, i.e. modernism, post-modernism etc. Nobody gives a shit about art gallery’s anymore. Humanity needs to feel something again, and they will feel it in interactive art.
It’s hilarious but that’s real life. 99% of people don’t realise that there is more to life than just walking right.
heheh, great observation Pnx :D
You remember in Mortal Kombat III when you’d uppercut someone and they’d fall through the floor, then the fight would continue on another level?
Let’s do that: http://playthisthing.com/gravitation
BigBossSNK said: blah blah blah blah i smell my own farts hurr
*BELCH*I give up, so I guess you win by default. Not because you’re right, mind you, but because I just remembered I have better things to do than argue with dimwits on the internet.
So congratulations. You win. Your prize is it sucks to be you.
How about we just look at making -FUN- games as an art form?
This game would be a lot better with a hi-score chart.
‘“So, you’ve moved from ‘this game isn’t art’ to ‘okay, maybe this game is art, but the message is WRONG anyway’” As I said before, a game is judged as art or not based on it’s message. Art ultimately elucidates, it doesn’t obfuscate. If the message is incorrect or near sighted, the game loses it’s art edge. You getting this?’ My point was your analysis of the message was your own. While we’re on the subject of naivety, I suggest you read up on postmodern theory.
‘“Furthermore, I’d highlight that all emotions elicited by things other than real life are ‘artificial’, given they exploit the capacity for emotion we have in order to interact in real life;” Sure, but that’s your own arbitrary distinction, with which no neuroscientist will agree. The same brain circuitry operates whether talking to someone you know, reading a letter from a lover or watching a movie.’
Try reading what I said again. That is exactly the point; the same circuitry operates as in experiencing real life, hence the declaration that a work ‘exploit’ or ‘manipulates’ the human mind can be applied to, uh, every work ever; your objection to deadeye’s explanation of his own experience is meaningless. Also, for what it’s worth, I study neuroscience.
‘“the presupposition that you alone can know what ‘really’ elicits emotion and what isn’t working hard enough is naive.” There is no formula to make a deterministic prediction for eliciting emotion, if that’s what you mean. But the distinction I’m making between Ico and Passage is that the first creates a world of believable emotional interactions, which is close to “everyone“‘s emotional circuitry, whereas the latter is more of a conduit for emotions for people who are so inclined whenever presented with specifics symbolisms (no game required).’ I fail to see how any of this blind assertion is valid if the work ultimately succeeds in eliciting emotion from people who aren’t bent on unclothing their imaginary emperor.
“blah blah blah blah i smell my own farts hurr BELCH” It’s interesting how faced with a superior logical point you resort to pettiness. Evidently, your frustration in coming up with a legitimate answer was greater than your willingness to win in a logical argument.
“My point was, your analysis of the message was your own” No. I talked about specific game elements and mechanics, physical facts, not interpretation of facts. Postmodernism has many facets. Not all of them are correct. Ultimately, science can be applied to game design. The end-user result will always pass through the statistical filter of social and biological programming, but that doesn’t make the end result random, only stochastic.
“your objection to deadeye’s explanation of his own experience is meaningless” If the subtleties of using game mechanics to create emotion on willing players eludes you, go ahead and call it meaningless. The fact remains, this is an underused tool.
“I fail to see how any of this blind assertion is valid if the work ultimately succeeds in eliciting emotion from people who aren’t bent on unclothing their imaginary emperor.” Same result, different success rates. Either way you are using preexisting emotional circuitry. But there’s a physical difference (on the amount of neurons and the connection they have between them) between actively building emotional connections through gameplay, and relying on gamers to have a predisposition for emotion through symbolism. Which basically means you’ll forget one game easier than the other, even if the intensity of emotion is the same while playing them.
Again, it’s blind assertion; you dislike the game, so you concoct ‘reasons’ to discredit it.
“I talked about specific game elements and mechanics, physical facts, not interpretation of facts.” No, you described the mechanics and then asserted they were ineffectual. If you can’t get over the delusion that your argument is based in logic, then I hardly see the point of continuing this discussion.
I like the games well enough but I also recognize that a BigBossSNK is right about the emotional reactions not being from the game itself, but rather what a person expects and what they associate it with.
Still, I think we should at least give the game credit for allowing people to bring in their own emotions and feel them, even if the game isn’t the source of those emotions. That itself is valuable, even if it’s just their expectancies and experience that’s causing it. There are plenty of games that do people do not extend their own emotional experiences onto and attribute it to the game.
But I do agree with BigBossSNK that those reactions are probably not due to the mechanics, they’re more likely due to the story, the situation, and the expectancies of the player. If people expected to be deeply touched by Metal Gear Solid 2 or something, they would be. I think a great deal, maybe even 90%, of how much people like something has to do with how much they expect to like it (or how much they expect to dislike it) rather than due to anything in the thing itself. And I’m not excepting myself from this, often I expect to like something and I do, and often I don’t expect to like something and I don’t. It’s hard to stop oneself from that.
(Also I think that ad hominem attack on BigBossSNK was pretty awful and it’s terrible to see this argument come down to ‘you’re an idiot and I have no time to discuss this with idiots’.)
I described the game mechanics and the extend to which they work. I also described the extend to which they don’t work. I gave reasons for why they didn’t work, and these reasons I didn’t “concoct” arbitrarily. They are applied psychology and neuroscience. If they don’t seem logical to you, that’s your problem.
You described the mechanics, asserted that they work in a particular way, explained the psychological mechanism by which this works in the case that the previous assertion was correct, and then further asserted that as a result the game is not ‘art’ and that people who claim to experience something are deluding themselves. There are two fundamental disconnects here.
This has gotten more heated than I intended. I can to a certain extent agree that initially projection is critical to the games working at all; it’s a direct consequence of the games’ brevity and simplicity. I cannot, however, agree that your own detachment is sufficient to denounce the things as meaningless; the context or receptiveness of the responder may be significant in determining their experience, but I don’t feel this diminishes it. What it comes down to is that art, hell, experience, is so subjective that I can’t help but feel anyone who seems to act as if they’re the final arbiter on these subjects is being a wanker. I respect your right to explain your own gripes, but stating categorically that something is emotionally ineffectual is just not rational. That is, had you framed your argument as the reasons why you disliked them, rather than as the definitive reason why they’re completely useless, I doubt half as many hackles would be raised as have now been.
“I think a great deal, maybe even 90%, of how much people like something has to do with how much they expect to like it (or how much they expect to dislike it) rather than due to anything in the thing itself.And I’m not excepting myself from this, often I expect to like something and I do, and often I don’t expect to like something and I don’t. It’s hard to stop oneself from that.”
Interesting idea, though this assumes that every time you make an expectation about something your expectation is made willy-nilly, which is hardly ever true. If I haven’t like the past 90 out of 100 horror movies I’ve seen, it’s reasonable to expect I probably won’t like the next one.
I think you are right about expectations coloring some part of a person’s view of a thing, but I think 90% is a huge overestimate. At least for, as I can only speak for myself. I am constantly surprised by what I like and don’t like.
“You asserted that people who claim to experience something from the Passagre are deluding themselves”
This “delusion about emotions” is something you added to the conversation, not me. I only said people are operating under emotional transference. If you don’t see a difference between the two, google it.
“What it comes down to is that art, hell, experience, is so subjective that I can’t help but feel anyone who seems to act as if they’re the final arbiter on these subjects is being a wanker”
Experience is subjective. I’m not talking about experience. I’m talking about the game as a physical manifestation. And using that physical manifestation as a basis for my argument before it passes from any distortion due to social programming filters. Whatever the case, a correct argument is based on facts.
“stating categorically that something is emotionally ineffectual is just not rational.”
I can see you can’t tell the difference between “emotionally ineffectual” and “emotionally evocative only to a certain group of people”. If you did, even the slightest hint of rhetorical prowess would inhibit you from confusing my claim for the former.
Hmmm? You have stated it fails in creating an emotional connection through its interactivity; that it is nothing in itself, hence emotionally ineffectual. I would also suggest “making arbitrary connections” fits very well with the concept of deluding oneself. As I have stated, there are two unsupported assertions in your argument and reiteration is doing little for it. I thank you for your opinion on the games, lord knows this place would be dull if we didn’t have any of those, but I cannot agree with it.
“You have stated it fails in creating an emotional connection through its interactivity; that it is nothing in itself, hence emotionally ineffectual”
There are ways to create emotion other than interactivity: music, graphics, symbolism etc. Not employing emotion through interactivity doesn’t mean not employing emotion at all. I was specific in my wording, yet you were not in your understanding.
“I would also suggest “making arbitrary connections” fits very well with the concept of deluding oneself.”
And you’d be wrong. Arbitrary claims aren’t necessarily false. They might still be true depending on the circumstances. Deluded claims on the other hand are always contrary to physical fact. Don’t confuse the two notion.
“As I have stated, there are two unsupported assertions in your argument”
And yet you don’t say what they are. You provide the bottle, but not the message.
There seems to be much debate over whether or not Passage and Gravitation are games. It’s my belief that they are, though that’s obviously not definitive. If they aren’t games, what are they? What do they not have that stops them from being classified as games? True, game isn’t a very fitting term for these creations… in fact I don’t think it’s a very fitting term for ‘games’ full stop.
“Passage isn’t going in a new direction”
Of course specific elements will be similar to other games, but I have seen very little work similar to it, so it seems fairly new to me.
“Not only that, it also fails in the direction it chose.”
What direction did it choose?
Certainly there seem to be ways it succeeded (it received a decent amount of press and interest, some people found it very fresh and interesting), so I don’t think it can be called a failure in general. I’m not sure what aspect you consider a failure. Was this aspect a stated goal of the project?
“Passage creates NO such connection. If you feel something while playing the Passage, it’s because you’re transferring your own emotions for situations you are aware of in your own life, rather than in the game world.”
So? To me Passage creates a multi-faceted metaphor for life, and so gives a framework for reflection; the gameplay is what defines the metaphor itself, so if the emotional connection comes from ties to my own experience that doesn’t bother me. The gameplay has still served a purpose.
“The game fails to illicit emotion based on it’s game mechanics, and thus fails as game-art.”
Only if you have a very specific definition of game-art, which I think must be very arbitrary because I have no specific definition for art at all. Instead of arguing about an ill-defined concept such as “game-art”, which the reader is likely to interpret differently from you, why not instead define clearly what properties are lacking, and why these properties are critical for a positive experience.
I assume the main property you would like to discuss is whether it ‘evokes emotion through gameplay,’ but I’m not sure why this property is particularly important.
“As for Gravitation, I found no game mechanics pertaining to “mania”, “melancholia”, and the “creative process”.”
I did. Hooray for me!
“The game only makes sense as such AFTER you are told about this, but then you are just making the arbitrary connections the designer directs you to make, rather than thinking for yourself.”
The game made sense to me before being told anything, and playing it certainly did inspire thought. However, even if those clues were necessary for sense to emerge, there is enough vagueness in what Jason says to leave plenty of room for personal contemplation, if that is something you demand from a game.
“I can see you can’t tell the difference between”
“If you did, even the slightest hint of rhetorical prowess would inhibit you from confusing my claim for the former.”
Also, I just want to say that I think you have a rather aggressive way of phrasing things, which I don’t think contributes positively to discussion.
I think we need to make a distinction here between a game with elements that are art (music, graphics, symbolism, etc, “The dark eye” comes to mind) and an art-GAME, which utilizes gameplay to promote contemplation and deliver a message, or excite the audience’s senses (“I have no mouth and I must scream”). The Passage is certainly the former, but not the latter.
“I assume the main property you would like to discuss is whether it ‘evokes emotion through gameplay,’ but I’m not sure why this property is particularly important.”
No, evoking emotion CAN be part of, but isn’t necessary for art.
“As for Gravitation, I found no game mechanics pertaining to “mania”, “melancholia”, and the “creative process”.”
I did. Hooray for me!
Woohoo! What were they? I really hope you can provide a logical argument here, without overextending the game’s elements.
“The game made sense to me before being told anything, and playing it certainly did inspire thought.”
Wonderful. Please explain the thought process you used that allowed you to link Gravitation with “mania”, “melancholia” and the “creative process”. Since it made SENSE to you. It doesn’t have to be about declarative memory alone. You can give examples of any procedural memory that made the connection clear.
“an art-GAME, which utilizes gameplay to promote contemplation and deliver a message, or excite the audience’s senses”
Where did that definition come from?
Anyway, Passage seems to have promoted contemplation, and seems to have a message (a simple model of life) conveyed in gameplay.
“No, evoking emotion CAN be part of, but isn’t necessary for art.”
So as you can see, I’m not sure what your definition of art is. I don’t think it is a universally shared definition, since there doesn’t seem to be such a thing.
“Woohoo! What were they?”
It’s all in metaphor; my interpretation goes something like this:
The stars represent creative achievement, the sort of fun breakthrough part of creation, while the ice blocks the chore work associated with finishing / following up the achievement. The shrinking view and inability to jump represents melancholia, or I would say the funk where you are just not able to think about work and nothing seems to come out right. Overachieving makes it worse, hanging out with family / playing takes pressure off and puts things in perspective. Mania is the oscillation between feeling great / making breakthroughs and feeling trapped and incapable.
Whether that’s logical or even what the creator meant, I do not know, but it’s how I connected to the game when I first played it.
I am not sure how to explain a thought process. Because of the author I did approach it with the expectation of finding metaphor in the gameplay elements. Probably the first metaphorical connections made were “stars == achievements in life” and “shrunken view == depressed”. The last metaphorical connections were probably in thinking about the behavior of the ice cubes.
“Passage seems to have promoted contemplation, and seems to have a message (a simple model of life) conveyed in gameplay.” Passage’s gameplay wasn’t different in it’s simplicity than Donkey Kong’s. It’s the symbolism that got people thinking and passed any message, not the gameplay.
“It’s all in metaphor; my interpretation goes something like this:” Please make a mental distinction of design elements that work as symbolism and GAMEPLAY. The elements you speak of might be part of the design, but not part of the gameplay, even if they restrict or expand my gameplay options.
I’m not saying Passage didn’t work as art. I’m saying it didn’t work as an art-GAME. If art-GAMES don’t base their art state on the gameplay, they are just art delivered through the new medium of games, not art-GAMES. Whatever your definition of art is, that’s a distinction you can make.
Sorry, I don’t think I understand what exactly you mean by “gameplay.” Common usage of the term seems pretty vague; it’s just an umbrella term for the experience of the game modulo graphics and sound. Something like “you lose the ability to jump high, and visibility is reduced” certainly seems like an element of gameplay to me.
“I’m saying it didn’t work as an art-GAME.”
I don’t think the term “art-GAME” means anything in particular, either, though.
“I don’t think I understand what exactly you mean by “gameplay.””
For the purpose of this discussion I will refer to gameplay as the control, direct or indirect the gamer has over the game world. Game design on the other hand is mainly the rules of the game, an example of which is the restriction of visibility you mentioned. The designer sets the rules and the gamer uses the gameplay options open to him to reach a certain state. Gravitation doesn’t have any gameplay mechanisms that elicit the response art does. But it’s game design is symbolic.
“I don’t think the term “art-GAME” means anything in particular, either, though.”
Well, maybe this will be clearer. You can have a game that has artful graphics, exemplary music, staggering symbolism, an engaging but linear plot etc. Each one of these elements is art, and they are woven into the game. But the GAME itself isn’t art, it isn’t an art-GAME. It’s just art presented through the medium of games without a significant gaming element.
On the other hand, a game that elicits the same response as art through gameplay, is an art-GAME, where the game itself is art, not just it’s visual, audio etc. parts.
“For the purpose of this discussion I will refer to gameplay as the control, direct or indirect the gamer has over the game world. Game design on the other hand is mainly the rules of the game, an example of which is the restriction of visibility you mentioned. The designer sets the rules and the gamer uses the gameplay options open to him to reach a certain state. Gravitation doesn’t have any gameplay mechanisms that elicit the response art does. But it’s game design is symbolic.”
Ah, but Game design isself is integral to deciding games as art. The rules are what I think are most important, the game rules are the painting, the gameplay is the angle you look at it at.
Also I agree with your statement that graphics, audio, writing are just window dressing and art in their own right.
“Game design itself is integral to deciding games as art.” No. Literature can propose rules for the world it creates, too. If you’ ve seen Death Note, you know what I’m talking about. But it’s the control within the game world, the GAMEplay, that makes the game an art-GAME, and not just a collage of artistic components within a game.
“No. Literature can propose rules for the world it creates, too.”
Thats cool, I’m sure you could make the same argument for choose your own adventure or fighting fantasy as books with different rules. But those are static literature rules. They cannot be dynamic by their nature, the book cannot react differently.
I think this is where you misstep you try to hard to pry the game rules away from the game play. Whereas I, and others in this thread understand that the two are inseparable. Every choice you are allowed is decided by the game rules written by the designer. Play Pedopriest, and try to stop the Priests from raping the children. You are unable to, and its a intentional rule by the game developers. You can’t make the argument that game play must be abstracted out and symbols discarded, they are just as important to art as anything. A painting of a flower is just as justified as an abstract painting.
In summery, game play is game rules.
“But it’s the control within the game world, the GAMEplay, that makes the game an art-GAME, and not just a collage of artistic components within a game.”
I don’t think anyone in this thread has disagreed with this, yet you keep mentioning it, this I don’t understand. Yes visual art is art, but what that visual art represents in the gameplay context is more important for the case of games as art, it could’ve been a lower case ‘c’ for child and I think people would’ve gotten the point just as well.
“For the purpose of this discussion I will refer to gameplay as the control, direct or indirect the gamer has over the game world. Game design on the other hand is mainly the rules of the game”
Is there a clear distinction between these things? I can say, “the game increases player jump size when the player interacts with the kid,” (so it sounds like ‘rules of the game’) but I could alternatively say, “the player interacts with the kid to increase their jump size” (so it sounds like ‘indirect control the gamer has over the game world’).
“But the GAME itself isn’t art, it isn’t an art-GAME.”
I think I have some understanding of what you mean by “art-GAME,” but it’s not a term or definition I have really seen before. Did you make it?
If someone said, “This game fails at QWEPOIUEQWR,” and went on to define QWEPOIUEQWR, they might be right … but I would naturally ask, “So what?” Was the game trying to be QWEPOIUEQWR? Why is the property of QWEPOIUEQWR important?
“In summary, game play is game rules.” No, gameplay (control over the game world) is defined by game design (including game rules). The rules offer the limits within which I can control the game world.
“Is there a clear distinction between gameplay and game rules?” Yes, and it’s clear as day if you think logically. Your example isn’t a reference to indirect control of the game world, it’s an example of indirect control of the game rules. Whether you can jump high or not is another game rule, it isn’t a different state of the game world.
“Why is the property of art-game important for Passage?”
Because it’s billed as a game that is art. As I explained, it’s more art on the level of symbolic design delivered through a game. It’s no different than a game billed as art due to featuring baroque graphics. But the small niche of people who have played the Passage haven’t been able to make this distinction.
“My concept of games as art is unfairly narrow, I don’t understand why people don’t agree with me. Also, non game art in games isn’t games as art.”
“Yes, and it’s clear as day if you think logically.”
It wasn’t clear to me, so I find this somewhat insulting.
“Whether you can jump high or not is another game rule, it isn’t a different state of the game world.”
‘Whether you can jump high’ sounds more like a game state than a game rule. Although control of the game rules still sounds like control of the game world, since the rules define the world to some extent.
“As I explained, it’s more art on the level of symbolic design delivered through a game. It’s no different than a game billed as art due to featuring baroque graphics.”
Those two things sound different to me.
“My concept of games as art is unfairly narrow, I don’t understand why people don’t agree with me.”
It would be unfairly narrow if it weren’t true. Do you consider a game as art just because it has impressionist graphics, or an award winning plot? Since those elements can exist independently of the game, the fair thing is to declare the elements art, and the game only the medium for that art.
“Whether you can jump high, sounds more like a game state than a game rule.”
It’s a mutable game rule. It isn’t part of the game world (as in the assortment of in-game elements that the gamer can interact with) or it’s various states.
“Those two things sound different to me.”
Then let me make it clear. Art can be delivered through the medium of games, or games can BE art. Passage uses symbolic design to deliver it’s art, and is as such a game that operates as a medium for art.
“It would be unfairly narrow if it weren’t true.”
This is your assumption, I disagree.
“Do you consider a game as art just because it has impressionist graphics, or an award winning plot? Since those elements can exist independently of the game, the fair thing is to declare the elements art, and the game only the medium for that art.” No, still no, and I have said no before, please stop beating this poor horse, no one is saying that anything other then game play makes games as art, this argument is tired. The lines have been drawn as to where people consider games as art. You consider game as art, Only through experiences of game play specifically, we consider games as art encompassing game design as a whole.
If you could give an example as a game that conveys emotion just through game play alone, without any attempt of symbolism through game logic or choice manipulation, I would love to play it.
“It’s a mutable game rule. It isn’t part of the game world”
Aren’t the game rules part of the game world? I guess you might might make a distinction like ‘gravity’ is a rule and ‘dirt’ is a physical object, but I would still say they are both part of the world.
At any rate changing rules through interactivity still seems to be taking advantage of the unique interactive nature of games as a medium.
Actually, I’m not sure why your definition of gameplay discounts interaction with the game rules. That seems like it’s still part of what I’d consider gameplay, and certainly seems unique to interactive media.
“Art can be delivered through the medium of games, or games can BE art.”
Ok.
“Passage uses symbolic design to deliver its art”
Setting aside the issues of what types of interactivity count as ‘gameplay,’ I think the interactivity in Passage allows for an interesting communication of its metaphors. I can see a metaphor and then ask questions about it, and answer my questions by changing how I play the game. I can find deeper metaphors through this sort of conversational exploration. So I think that the interactive nature certainly adds to the experience, which is why I think it’s more interesting from a game design perspective than ‘baroque graphics’ or similar non-interactive, “you could have done this in another media” examples.
I’ll jump in here one more time (is anyone still reading this 101 comments down?)
I think that BigBossSNK has a good point in there somewhere, but he’s just not stating it clearly. Plus, he may be reaching for a distinction that we haven’t considered before, so that makes it harder to understand what he’s talking about.
I agree 100% that if we’re going to be making artgames (I use that word too, don’t know who coined it), then we need to be doing it with what I’ve been calling “game mechanics.” I generally think about the mechanics as the rules, but here a distinction between “rules” and “gameplay” is being made.
I haven’t thought about it before, but I’m starting to see the difference between “rules” and “gameplay.” In Chess, an example rule is that a bishop can move any number of spaces diagonally. An example of gameplay is moving your bishop 4 spaces diagonally… or moving it 5 spaces. That is a choice you can make to alter the gameworld, so it is gameplay. Do I have that right?
Stated another way, the gameplay is that which might make one person’s run through the game different from another’s run. In PacMan, do you get all the power pills right at the beginning, do you space them out throughout your time in the level, or do you save them all for the very end? The rules govern what a power pill does, but gameplay is the space of possible action sequences.
Assuming that I do have that right, I’ll try to summon some examples from Passage and Gravitation of gameplay that has meaning.
Okay… Gravitation is easier, I think. If, on a given mania trip up through the heights, you get too many stars before coming back down, they pile up at the bottom and are harder to move into the kiln before their scores diminish to the point of making them worthless. On the other hand, if you employ a bit of self-restraint and only get a few stars on a given trip, you will find a much smaller pile waiting for you when you return to the bottom, and they will be much easier to push into the kiln.
World objects: stars and their resulting ice blocks
Control given to player: how many stars to fetch on a given trip
So, am I right? Is that clearly an example of gameplay? Player makes a choice that affects the state of the game world.
Okay, that’s the first part. Second part is to show that this element of gameplay “promote[s] contemplation and deliver[s] a message, or excite[s] the audience’s senses.”
Well, I at least intended this element of gameplay to be symbolic. In fact, it’s the crux of what I was trying to say. During my near-manias, I tend to make all these creative leaps and come up with all these ideas and leads (including commitments to other people, and such). After I come down from the mania, I’m often dismayed by the pile of loose ends that I need to sort through.
I made this game, in part, to teach myself about this. To play the game well (get a high score), you need to learn to avoid creative temptation (getting lots of stars) during a mania flight. Take things a bit slower, finish each project before starting others, etc.
My hope, as the designer, is that at first players would be tempted into fetching a chain of stars, but after dealing with the aftermath a few times, they would learn to play differently. The would then hopefully “contemplate” about how this relates to creative endeavors in their own lives.
Okay, so does this count as gameplay used to make art?
In Passage, the player can chose to take the spouse or not, which certainly changes the state of the game world (she either walks with you or she doesn’t). That counts as gameplay, right?
Given that a high score can be accomplished either way (through treasure chests, solo, or through eastward exploration with the spouse), I hoped to encourage contemplation in the players about why they made the choice that they did.
A few notes after reading all this:
BigBossSNK: Please start using its and it’s correctly! I normally don’t care about grammatical errors, but it’s weird and distracting to see you repeatedly use one for the other, considering how good your writing is otherwise.
Jason: I’ll let him respond too, but I’m not sure you have his distinction between game rules and gameplay stated as exactly as he stated it, although I may be wrong about that. He said that gameplay is the control the player has over/within the game world, control over its game states. What you are equating it with is more like level design or play experience, which is something different. If you picture all of a game’s possible significant game states, and the actions necessary for the player to achieve those significant game states, etc., that’s the gameplay – a particular play-through of a game would not be the gameplay, it’d just be one instance of the gameplay.
I also want to say I’m always disappointed when someone tries to be precise about their understanding and someone else says “that’s too narrow! you need to be more broad and fuzzy and vague!” What’s even the point of discussion if you’re going to say things like that? If you don’t agree with his precise words, disagree precisely, don’t just say he’s too precise.
“I also want to say I’m always disappointed when someone tries to be precise about their understanding and someone else says “that’s too narrow! you need to be more broad and fuzzy and vague!” What’s even the point of discussion if you’re going to say things like that? If you don’t agree with his precise words, disagree precisely, don’t just say he’s too precise.” I think you are talking about me, but you were being a bit to vague(snicker). I agree with is point about how game play makes a game an art game, I disagree that the decisions that the game designer allows, have to be discarded, as, I’m paraphrasing “game rules exist in other contexts”. So I think you took me a bit out of context, I was more then happy when he defined exactly what hoops are needed for art games.
I agree that walking and jumping are boring game play when distilled(like Donkey Kong, as mentioned). But I think that a games as art as defined by BigBossSNK are impossible.
Wasn’t talking about anyone in particular, several people in this thread have gone the “you can’t define art!” route.
“we consider games as art encompassing game design as a whole”
And you’re wrong. There have been art pieces that establish rules: lighting controlled by the viewer’s proximity to the sculpture, perception dependent on angle of view, I even provided Death Note as an example of rule oriented literature. Controlling the rules isn’t something new in art. The only distinct path that games can follow as true art forms is their only distinct element from other mediums: control over the game world.
“Aren’t the game rules part of the game world?”
They are part of the game, not part of the game world. They are the limitations to my ability to change the world, not the world itself.
“Choice between having a companion or not, or choice of getting too many stars and blocking your own way or not. That counts as gameplay, right?”
A choice isn’t necessarily gameplay. If the choice revolves around the set of rules I’m going to follow, that’s control over the rule set. It’s basically a mutable rule, distinct from the game world itself. If a choice revolves around what the game world state will be, then it’s gameplay. The companion in the Passage is just a different set of rules applied to the game (If you have her, you get more money. If you don’t, it’s easier to navigate). The game world itself doesn’t change. I can make a choice not to get blocked by my own achievements in Gravitation, but then I’m only choosing the rules by which I’ll be playing 30 seconds from now. I’m not interacting with any in-game elements to change the game world’s state.
“But I think that games as art as defined by BigBossSNK are impossible.”
It’s a logical fallacy to think that no solution exists just because you are incapable of arriving at a solution. Art games are about controlling the game world to reach specific game world states.
Paul Eres: You’re right about gameplay not being a particular play-through, but instead the set of action sequences necessary to generate the set of all possible play-throughs. A given “move” on the part of the player (such as moving the bishop 5 spaces) would be a “gameplay action,” I think. Thanks for fleshing it out a bit more.
BigBossSNK: What do you mean by, “Changing the game world’s state”?
If your actions in the game world cause game objects to move from one place to another in the game world, doesn’t that count as a change in game world state?
For example, hitting a star in Gravitation causes the star to fall to the bottom. Pushing an ice block at the bottom causes it to slide along. Hitting two stars in sequence that are vertically aligned causes them to stack up when they reach the bottom.
These are all changes in the game world state, are they not?
Asuming that they are, then aren’t they examples gameplay? Not mere choices, but choices about how you want to manipulate the game objects.
I agree that “to take the spouse or not” is a little weaker as an example of changing the game world state. But if the spouse is a game object, and she certainly is, then running into her changes her state (she either stands there [one state] or walks with you [another state]).
If you don’t think these examples qualify, please give me some other examples of “gameplay” so that I can better understand what you mean by “gameplay” vs “game mechanics”. Use any game that you wish.
Also, I’m interested in hearing about some example games that do indeed use gameplay to make art (as opposed to using game mechanics to make art).
This is very important to me, since it sounds like an interesting distinction that I can’t quite grasp yet. I want to make my next game even better than these last two, of course.
“The only distinct path that games can follow as true art forms is their only distinct element from other mediums: control over the game world.”
Isn’t player control over the game rules also a distinct path for games?
“I’m not saying Passage didn’t work as art. I’m saying it didn’t work as an art-GAME. If art-GAMES don’t base their art state on the gameplay, they are just art delivered through the new medium of games, not art-GAMES.”
Passage was effective because of the distinction between which portions of the game’s output you could control through your input, and which portions you could not. Its central message hinged on this distinction. If Passage were not a game, this distinction would not have existed, thus destroying the central message.
If a piece of art is entirely dependent on its being a game in order to be art, then it is an art-game. Most games fail this test– if there is anything artistic about them, it is something that would just as easily be communicated through recorded gameplay and/or cutscenes.
“Passage uses symbolic design to deliver it’s art, and is as such a game that operates as a medium for art.”
I disagree that Passage is a medium for art– Passage is art. Its response (and lack of response) to player input is part of the art. (I don’t know what you mean by “symbolic design” in this context.)
“What do you mean by, “Changing the game world’s state”?”
To clarify: The game world is the set of mutable and immutable objects operating under the rules of the game. From which, trivialy, the game world state is the assortment of game objects and their states at any given time. Mutable objects that the gamer can interact with are part of the gameplay. Immutable objects or mutable objects that the gamer can not interact with are not part of the gameplay, but of design.
In Gravitation, mutable objects are: the player, the ball, the stars. Immutable objects: the kid, the terrain, the fireplace.
“Isn’t dropping the blocks an example of gameplay?” Of course it is. What I said was, dropping the blocks does just that, it changes the position of the blocks. Your inability to later jump over the block barrier isn’t part of the gameplay, it’s a trivial extension of the rules.
One example of what I consider an art game is “I have no mouth and I must scream”. On several occasions you are given the possibility to control other people’s suffering and even death, de facto answering ethical questions that ultimately leads to salvation or ruin.
“Isn’t control over the rules also a distinct path for games?”
No. Consider this.
There is an art exhibit with a single sculpture. The audience can see the sculpture through room A or room B. Room A has ligthing intensity based on proximity, revealing different structures under different shadows. Room B has light wavelength based on proximity, allowing for ultraviolet light and revealing a second nature to the sculpture.
The audience can control which rule is used (here in regard to lighting), even outside the domain of games.
“If Passage were not a game, this distinction would not have existed, thus destroying the central message.”
“Passage: the interactive DVD version” allows you to skip between getting a wife or not on the fly. Your argument that choice occurs only in games is uninformed.
“I don’t know what you mean by “symbolic design” in this context”
Symbolic design means using elements of the design as symbols (your position in the frame is a symbol of proximity to death, chests symbolise goals, spouse blocking your way is a depiction of inability to chase some goals etc.)
““Passage: the interactive DVD version” allows you to skip between getting a wife or not on the fly. Your argument that choice occurs only in games is uninformed.”
I argue neither that the wife decision is the central merit of Passage, nor that choice occurs only in games.
“Your inability to later jump over the block barrier isn’t part of the gameplay, it’s a trivial extension of the rules.”
How aren’t the stars mutable objects with which you interact?
(stars -> blocks)
BigBoss: Great example with the choose-your-own lighting sculpture. Also a great example of rules in non-games. Still, I don’t think this sculpture is “not a game” because it doesn’t have what you call “gameplay.” After all, you can take actions that change the state of the objects (lights) that comprise the sculpture. It’s not a game because it doesn’t have a goal or other measure of success. I think that if you can’t “win” or “do well at” something, than it’s not a game (win/loss condition isn’t necessary—some kind of success metric, like a score, is good enough. In the case of a win/loss condition, your score is either 1 or 0).
Okay, so you’ve given a list of mutable and non-mutable game objects in Gravitation, and we’ve agreed that knocking stars down is certainly gameplay. What else is gameplay in my game, then? Pushing blocks, certainly (again, moving them). And pushing them to the extent that they melt in the kiln (changes their state). This also generates points (changes the state of the score, another world object). What about the score counters on each ice block (9,8,7,…,1). The longer you wait before pushing them into the kiln, the lower their score value will be. Is that gameplay? Or not, because it’s your non-action that lets the score counters decrease?
So, am I on the right track here at sniffing out the gameplay?
What about the simplified choice of getting either 1 or 2 stars on a given mania flight? Let’s say they don’t stack up, nor are they in adjacent vertical columns, so they won’t form a block “train” at the bottom of the screen (which is harder to push than a single block, as an application of game rules). So, you hit one star on your flight, and you end up with this:
____b____kWhere “b” is the block, and “k” is the kiln, and “_” is the floor. If instead you get two stars on your flight, you end up with:
__b_b____kFor the case of two blocks, you can now choose to push them into the kiln one-by-one (by standing in between them and pushing the rightmost block first), or as a train (by pushing on the leftmost block first). Due to the rules (how hard it is to push a train vs. single blocks, plus the speed at which the score counters are decremented), this choice may alter the resulting score (i.e., change the state of a world object, the score). Let’s say, as an example, that pushing them one-by-one would result in 14 points, whereas pushing them as a train would result in 12 points.
Thus, through manipulation of the blocks, according to rules, you can manipulate the score. Of course, this simple example is just one of the many possible gameplay sequences.
So is this all gameplay? If so, again, it all has meaning (whether you finish each project before starting work on the next, or work on them in parallel, among other things).
Thanks for the tip about “I have no mouth and I must scream.” Out of print… downloading the torrent now to give it a try.
I will abbreviate it as IHNM for the rest of this comment.
So, what about IHNM the interactive DVD version? Would that be possible? Where you can either kill or not kill someone, and the DVD just shows the result of both options. How is IHNM more comlex than what I am describing?
In Passage, the “choice of whether to take the spouse” was just a simple example. Even after you make that choice to take the spouse, there’s a huge possibility space open to you (go after treasure with the spouse or not? which treasure chests to go after? go after a few treasure chests solo before taking the spouse?) Certainly there would not be space on a DVD to represent all of the possible permutations.
I know you are not arguing that Passage and Gravitation are devoid of gameplay. But you seem to be arguing that the gameplay is devoid of artistic meaning.
Please give an example of what you see as the gameplay in Passage and Gravitation, and why that gameplay is devoid of artistic meaning.
Jason, i really don’t think it’s worth pushing these blocks into the hearth, they can just stay frozen. You made an awesome game full of meaning, the fact that this is stirring so much conversation means you succeeded. There will always be people frozen from your message.
ps. The fact that that terrible metaphor in my first sentence made any modicum of sense to anyone reading this means Jason imbued his game, its objects, and the experience as a whole with meaning developed by the game rules, not direct ham-handed forms of literal expression.
aeiowu: Right, and I normally stay out of these discussions.
It just seemed that I might learn something useful from this one.
“How aren’t the stars / blocks mutable objects with which you interact?” I list the stars as mutable objects. Partly because they transform into blocks. No need to reiterate the blocks as separate mutable objects.
“You can take actions that change the state of the objects (lights) that comprise the sculpture” The lights don’t comprise the sculpture. They only set limits to your perception - they act as rules, they don’t effect the physical reality of the sculpture.
“Games need some kind of success metric to exist” No. A shmup without score that goes on forever is still a game.
“The score is a game object” The score is part of the rules, not the game world. (much like any programming related variable is primarily part of the design, not the gameplay). It only becomes a game world object when the game world state changes depending on my score, in effect acting as a currency for game world change (e.g. if I accumulate 10 good deeds, the flowers bloom).
“Is choice over having one block on the ground or two gameplay?”
To make it clear, let’s consider the action’s constituent parts.
A. Pushing the blocks. This is gameplay. You change the position of the blocks, changing the game world state.
B. Choosing between two game world states. This is gameplay. Control over the game world is the very definition of gameplay.
C. Choosing between the game rules I want to operate under. This isn’t gameplay. I am not controling the state of anything in the game world.
Now let’s examine whether A, B and C are art.
A. It’s no more art than in any block based puzzle.
B. Also no more art than in any block based puzzle.
C. I have to choose between difficulty of moving blocks, and extend of gratification. The symbolism is there, this is art.
“How is INHM different than Passage?” In INHM my actions can change the game world, and these changes are persistent. Later parts of the story can even be blocked. In Passage, the game world is the same, only my rules for interaction with it change.
“Even without the wife choice, there’s a huge possibility space open to you in Passage” Choosing between randomly generated crate A and randomly generated crate B isn’t a huge possibility space. It’s an empty choice. Furthermore, it’s an empty choice with no significance beyond the existence of the crate in the game world. Its value AS GAMEPLAY is no more than the gameplay of Mario gaining an easy or hard to reach coin in Super Mario. The symbolism is there, but the gameplay isn’t art.
“Examples of gameplay in Passage” Navigate scenery. Get chests.
“Examples of gameplay in Gravitation” Navigate scenery. Play ball. Get stars. Push blocks.
The games do have symbolism in their design, but the gameplay options I have don’t change the game world beyond the obvious (get chest-chest disappears). If I could change the world into a prettier place by finding the chest of “Cure cancer”, that would be a control mechanism that affects the rest of the game world.
“I really don’t think it’s worth pushing these blocks into the heat, they can just stay frozen.” The point of this discussion is to come to a clear understanding of what art games are, and what games as art mediums are. If you want to cling to ignorance, don’t read the discussion.
Yeah, I have to say, my curiosity is certainly piqued by trying to understand the point you’re trying to make BigBoss. I mean at first you were kind of being an asshole about it, but now there’s seems to be a good discussion going on. This started off with a fundamental problem of logical debate, which is that those debating have assumptions and definitions that weren’t defined up front. So now those need to be understood by everyone so everyone can go to the logical meat of the argument.
But I think there might be something here, so please continue to elaborate and give examples so we can understand what your assumptions, and then logical arguments, are. I’ve started to try to piece things together, and if I can help to explain things in a clearer way, I will. But maybe you have more examples you can give us?
Ok, I think I get where you’re going with this. Thanks for giving more specific information.
Question though: I wasn’t able to fully tell if the season cycle that affected the graphics of the platforms in Gravitation was constant or if it was determined by how excited I my avatar was. If it was determined by how excited my avatar was, would you see that as a meaningful affect on the game world, and therefore an art-game element?
If that was true, the world around me would seem to change based on the current emotion I had, so that seems to be what you’re talking about, right?
Also, aeiowu was speaking metaphorically with that sentence, so I wouldn’t say he’s clinging to ignorance. There’s no reason to look down on someone like that.
Oh wait, that doesn’t count because the platforms are immutable objects, right?
For practical reasons the definition of ‘art game’ will always stem from intent, context, and interpretation, as it does with capital ‘A’ Art art.
That said, I think BigBoss is hitting on something very interesting from the perspective of criticism. Why aren’t you making a game already? It’s not hard!
Seeing as the topic has left the front page, and most people won’t search for it, I’ll start a forum thread (soon) clarifying all the definitions and logical tools necessary to make a valid distinction between art games and games as art mediums.
To cut the loose end of the platforms, I’ll say they are controlled by a rule, an internal time cycle. The gamer can interfere with the cycle by playing ball and collecting stars. Why this isn’t gameplay is my hook to you reading the forum thread.
As to why I’m not making a game, it’s because I don’t have any serious programming experience. If anyone wants to team up, I’ve got plenty of art game ideas.
So where’s that forum thread? I can’t find it.
I wonder if you’re not mistaking the labels attached to game world objects with the gameplay. For example in IHNM, though you might chose to kill someone or whatever (I’m still on the verge of playing it—sorry), you only know that you’re “killing someone” because of the fiction attached to those world object. I.e., the game object is labeled as a “person” in the adventure game storyline, and the graphics for the object look like a person, etc. But on the abstract gameplay level, you’re really just making an “A” or “B” choice… of course you’re not really killing someone.
In Gravitation, the blocks are symbols for creative endeavors. Getting a star means getting an idea, and pushing a block into the kiln means doing the work of turning that idea into reality. Thus, the gameplay is like “any block game”, but the blocks actually mean something, whereas the blocks in Tetris or whatever other block game don’t mean anything (even if you ask the designer).
I left a “super mario brothers” fiction of stars and iceblocks in place, because I thought it was more interesting, but I could have easily made little “light bulb” icons for the stars and “manilla folder” icons for the “projects in progress”. Heck, I could have (and even thought about) some other mechanic to represent “working on a project” other than pushing… maybe whacking with a hammer. Of course, even that would be a metaphor.
For my real life projects, I’m mostly typing at the computer. Would it have been “art” if I came up with a game mechanic that let you type at the computer to finish a project? No “mario-esque” block pushing…. your avatar walks up to a computer terminal and you press the “do work” key.
I intentionally used pretty standard game objects and mechanics (getting treasure chests in Passage, pushing blocks in Gravitation), but I used them as symbols. I don’t see how metaphorical gameplay and game objects gets in the way of art.
You seem to be saying that only literal mechanics (like, those labeled as “killing someone”) count as art, but if you’re engaging with a non-literal mechanic that is a symbol of something (like, some metaphor for killing someone—let’s say, blowing out candles), then it’s not art.
And for most people, it’s clear that the chests in Passage represent personal goals, and that the stars in Gravitation represent ideas or creative sparks.
You’re essentially saying, “Hey, what I’m I doing from moment to moment in this game? Pushing blocks around? That’s not art.” But in any game where you’re “killing someone”, what are you doing from moment to moment but making a simple binary choice? Only the art and the writing tells you that the choice represents killing someone (you see blood, you read their pleas for mercy, etc.)
In games, everything is symbolic. The difference between IHNM and Gravitation may simply be the representational vs. abstract nature of those symbols.
Of course, Gravitation is not about killing people. That’s another difference, of course.
And I’m sorry about all the “killing people” examples… just a placeholder for “doing something literal and serious” in a game.
“Where’s the forum thread?” I said it’ll be up soon. Possibly within the week, depending on real life engagements. I’ll comment on it here.
“What’s the difference between killing a man in a game and getting a crate in a game” Short answer, consequences. It’s not the binary choice of yes or no, it’s the later lack of interaction with the character that has gone away (or the crate that disappeared). If I kill someone, he’s obviously not going to be around to help me. But if I keep him alive, I’m jeopardizing my own life. That’s a choice that affects the game world. If my path is preset, and I have to kill him (I only need to find out how, as with most adventure games), that’s not gameplay. It’s literature wrapped around a game.
“I can use various methods to represent what the character is doing: collect stars, sit in front of a computer for a while, light a light bulb, hit something with a hammer” You can use any graphical method to represent an idea, or any rule you want (pressing a button, stepping on a tile, standing still). This only affects the effectiveness of communicating the idea, not the gameplay (as control over the gameworld). Your games are a metaphor for life in the graphical elements and rules you chose, and as such art. But this is design. Not gameplay.
“And for most people, it’s clear that the chests in Passage represent personal goals, and that the stars in Gravitation represent ideas or creative sparks.” No argument there. It’s just that your interaction with them leads only to a change in the score, and affects the game world trivially.
*BigBossSNK said about 17 hours later:
“His games have a pessimistic idea that romantic partners or family handicap one’s ambition and that there’s a choice involved between the two” True. In real life, more people in your social circle means expanded opportunities common among you. A game about life should at least partially reflect this.*
It may not reflect all opportunities, but it does give the ability to choose. It’s about lives, but not about life so to speak. In fact, it’s a bit naive to think that it’s even possible to have added more of that to Passage considering it’s timeframe, it’s style and deadline.
The one thing that bothers me is that some people say ‘yeah, but it’s not a game’ while others say ‘it’s a bad game and thát’s not art’. There is gameplay, there’s interaction, you even get rewarded for your actions in certain ways and the whole symbolical thing does easily make it more than just a simple low-res game.
Your games are a metaphor for life in the graphical elements and rules you chose, and as such art. But this is design. Not gameplay.
You seem to forget that those rules actually define the gameplay too, admittedly there’s not much of it, but you can’t say there’s “no gameplay”. I think people easily forget to look at these games (esp. Passage) the right way. What I’m saying is that it’s nuts to compare this game to say Tetris or Mario in terms of gameplay.
I think what we really should ask ourselves is;
Are games art because they have art in them or are games art because they can have incredible gameplay in them?
True. In real life, more people in your social circle means expanded opportunities common among you.
That reminds me, I’ve never been married, but it’s a definite fact that having a girlfriend prevented me from doing certain things I definitely would have done if I didn’t have a girlfriend. To say that more people simply provides you with more opportunities, although true, is only half of the picture. The more people you know, the more you need to take care of those relationships, whatever they are. That alone takes away valuable time, that could have been spend differently. So, … I think the Passage author’s pessimism is correct actually.
“you can’t say there’s “no gameplay”.” I never made this claim. I even gave examples of gameplay.
“What I’m saying is that it’s nuts to compare this game to say Tetris or Mario in terms of gameplay.” If you think gameplay (AND ONLY GAMEPLAY) is elevated because you were metaphorically achieving your goals while collecting stars, you are either operating on a vaguer definition of gameplay than I am (in which case you ‘ll need to provide it), or, you are making a logical error.
“The more people you know, the more you need to take care of those relationships, whatever they are” Not necessarily. If you go out for lunch, whether you have 2 people on the table or 3 takes exactly the same time. It can even lead to faster bonding when there are more people around.
“I think the Passage author’s pessimism is correct actually” That depends on whether what you gain is more valuable than what you lose. It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of sociological and psychological facts.
You know what, fuck this. Even if I do make a forum thread, I’m only going to have to defend it from people who read half the comments, or twist what I say only to disappear when I explain things logically. I think the best means of approach here is to release a game idea of my own, of games as art. A physical fact is much easier to defend than a theory, even if the latter is in 1:1 correspondence to reality.
BigBoss, I for one am glad that you lasted as long as you did. I appreciate that you continued to explained things more.
The distinction you’re trying to make was hard to understand at first, but I think I get it now that you’ve explained your definitions more. Thanks for your effort.
I think you make a good point, although I feel that there’s still plenty value in “games as a medium for art.”
You’re totally right about making a game, though. Your game (along with your thoughts on developing the game) will speak loudly. I hope you make that game. :)
Would you mind e-mailing me in case I have more questions about how you view art-games? My email is my username @gmail.com
Or you can visit the blog and contact me that way. Thanks.